Best pitcher of all time?

[Sven Draconian]

Note that I did not ask greatest, so GTFO with anybody who played before WWII. That era was not competitive enough to produce the "best of all time," even if they had greater levels of dominance.

Without really pouring through it I get Clemens, Pedro, Maddux and Randy Johnson as the only real contenders, with Pedro probably being the pick. I think Koufax could fall into the conversation, but obviously has longevity issues. Bob Gibson is tough to evaluate because of the era. His ERA+ and WAR don't match up, but there is an ERA floor... to match some the modern guys he would have to post ERA's in the 1's every season (ala 1968).

 

[Glenbino]

Never really got to see Nolan play. It's either Clemens or the Big Unit from my perspective.

Johan's tenure in Minnesota was probably the greatest stretch of sustained superior pitching I've seen but he feel off too hard at the end.

 

[manchild24]

I would have to say:

Maddox. clemens, Unit, and I hate to say Mariano Rivera

 

[Glenbino]

I would have to say:

Maddox. clemens, Unit, and I hate to say Mariano Rivera

:falcons:

 

[manchild24]

he just said best pitcher, didnt say starter or closer.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Nolan Ryan shouldn't even enter the outskirts of the conversation.

This http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnswa01.shtml would have been my pick, but the cutoff in the OP is WWII, so i'm going with Koufax or Pedro Martinez.

 

[SuperKevin]

How do you know Walter Johnson wouldn't be just as dominant today?

Just clicked on Warners link and noticed he was thinking the same thing

 

[Sven Draconian]

Nolan Ryan shouldn't even enter the outskirts of the conversation.

This http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnswa01.shtml would have been my pick, but the cutoff in the OP is WWII, so i'm going with Koufax or Pedro Martinez.

You're free to make a case for why a player who played against a talent pool roughly one fifth the size of modern players is the best of all time. Based on the US population, there were about 100 million people who were eligible to play baseball (IE, not black/mexican). From that pool you have active minor leaguers who competed for talent, geographic realities (if you are playing baseball in west texas or louisiana, scouts are not likely to find you) which cuts the pool even further. I guesstimate we are talking about 80 million or so was the real talent pool

Modern players are pulled from a pool of about 700 million (US, baseball playing latin countries, japan, korea, plus some minor credit for countries like Italy, the Netherlands and Australia which produce a little). They are developed through a modern farm system and are truly professionals (off-seaosn training rather than selling cars or whatever).

Edited to add: While 700 million is about 10 times bigger than 70, pre expansion you have 16 teams for 70 million (4.6 mil per team) vs the current 30 teams for the 700 million (23 million per team). Then rounded a bit.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You're free to make a case for why a player who played against a talent pool roughly one fifth the size of modern players is the best of all time. Based on the US population, there were about 100 million people who were eligible to play baseball (IE, not black/mexican). From that pool you have active minor leaguers who competed for talent, geographic realities (if you are playing baseball in west texas or louisiana, scouts are not likely to find you) which cuts the pool even further. I guesstimate we are talking about 80 million or so was the real talent pool

Modern players are pulled from a pool of about 700 million (US, baseball playing latin countries, japan, korea, plus some minor credit for countries like Italy, the Netherlands and Australia which produce a little). They are developed through a modern farm system and are truly professionals (off-seaosn training rather than selling cars or whatever).

I can only judge players based on how well they did against their given competition.

Babe Ruth may very well have never gotten out of single A in 2013, or maybe he would have been a bench player, or a .230/25 HR DH, or maybe his career would have ended in high school. Bottom line, is I don't care. He was so above and beyond his contemporaries that to me, he is the greatest player of all time.

I think it's silly to cross compare players of different eras any other way. There is a good chance Corey Patterson would have dominated in the 1890's. Still doesn't measure as a pimple on Cap Anson's ass in my view.

 

[Sven Draconian]

I can only judge players based on how well they did against their given competition.

Babe Ruth may very well have never gotten out of single A in 2013, or maybe he would have been a bench player, or a .230/25 HR DH, or maybe his career would have ended in high school. Bottom line, is I don't care. He was so above and beyond his contemporaries that to me, he is the greatest player of all time.

I think it's silly to cross compare players of different eras any other way. There is a good chance Corey Patterson would have dominated in the 1890's. Still doesn't measure as a pimple on Cap Anson's ass in my view.

I agree, which is why I think greatest is a different argument than best. However, when you look at any semi-credible list of greatest pitchers of all time you end up with a ton of pre-1940s guys. No doubt those guys dominated, but I find it very hard to believe that 12 of the 15 greatest to ever live happened to be playing in a 30 year stretch in an era where getting to play in the majors was as much about luck and timing as your talent.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I agree, which is why I think greatest is a different argument than best. However, when you look at any semi-credible list of greatest pitchers of all time you end up with a ton of pre-1940s guys. No doubt those guys dominated, but I find it very hard to believe that 12 of the 15 greatest to ever live happened to be playing in a 30 year stretch in an era where getting to play in the majors was as much about luck and timing as your talent.

Fair enough.

For sheer peak dominance, I chose Pedro & Koufax.

 

[JimLeavy59]

Ben Sheets.

 

[NAHSTE]

Maddux

 

[FedEx227]

Since we have to go post-WWII I'll do Clemens, Maddux or Pedro but lean heavier on Clemens.

I will not however that even with team/league adjusted statistics, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Kid Nichols and Lefty Grove all grade out extremely well. I understand Sven's point but that's why we have stats that regulate for the era, the ballparks and the offensive prowess of the time.

 

[Sharkweather]

I will not however that even with team/league adjusted statistics, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Kid Nichols and Lefty Grove all grade out extremely well. I understand Sven's point but that's why we have stats that regulate for the era, the ballparks and the offensive prowess of the time.

Mathewson?

 

[FedEx227]

Yes, sorry, left him out but he's in that category too. To answer the question I'm going Walter Johnson. If we have to do post WWII then I'll do Roger Clemens.

 

[Sven Draconian]

Since we have to go post-WWII I'll do Clemens, Maddux or Pedro but lean heavier on Clemens.

I will not however that even with team/league adjusted statistics, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Pete Alexander, Kid Nichols and Lefty Grove all grade out extremely well. I understand Sven's point but that's why we have stats that regulate for the era, the ballparks and the offensive prowess of the time.

The only one in that group who I would partially concede to is Johnson.
Pete Alexander shouldn't be in the discussion (his peak has no comparison to the modern guys or Johnson).
Cy Young shouldn't be in the discussion (he didn't even have a real peak)
Kid Nichols - It was 1890s baseball.... we have no stats that can regulate for that mess.

Lefty Grove is interesting because at least he follows a modern career track (has a peak around 30). His K/BB and WHIP are nothing special, but the ERA+ and Winning % are awesome. He might have a legit spot in the top 10 as a best of all time. Those other three.... eh, somewhere in the top 50 probably.

 

[FedEx227]

Pete Alexander certainly had a top peak. 1911-1920 he was 148 ERA+, 2.06 ERA and led the league in strikeouts six times in that period. Cy Young had unmatched longevity while never having a real "peak" but it's hard to argue with a guy who pitched 22 years and still had a 138 ERA+. He didn't have a peak because he was really, really good for 20+ years. Kid Nichols, yeah, it's hard because it's 1890s baseball, but they've done a great job digging through box scores and we have a pretty clear idea what he did. Lefty Grove absolutely deserves to be in the discussion. Walter Johnson is a no-brainer.

Those dudes are without a doubt not only top 50 but top 10, shit top 5.

WAR7 (seven best years, not necessarily in order) all has them in the top 5. JAWS (7-year peak/Career WAR) puts Cy Young, Nichols and Alexander in the top 5 meaning they absolutely had "peaks" that are more worthwhile than you're giving credit for. Young, Alexander and Nichols are also both top 15 in ERA+.

Walter Johnson speaks for himself: 2nd in WAR (Cy Young is 1st btw), 1st in WAR7, 1st in JAWS. He's the best pitcher ever. Led the league in Ks 12 times, including 8 years in a row.

 

[Senser81]

Lefty Grove or Walter Johnson for the old era. Clemens was such a freak that if you look at numbers he is the most impressive modern-era guy, IMO...but how much of his post-Boston success was due to PEDs?

Pedro is hard for me to judge. I remember reading an article that shows how much more dominant Pedro was than Koufax. It gave a pretty good pro-Pedro argument. He has such a defined peak and was such an idiot, I wonder if he wasn't the product of PEDs. He wasn't a workhorse, and won 20+ games once, but he was a great pitcher when he pitched (which I guess is kind of the point).

Randy Johnson would be my third modern guy behind Clemens & Pedro.

 

[SuperKevin]

Sven, I'd like to see a list of 50 pitchers you think are better than Cy Young please.