Best pitcher of all time?

[Senser81]

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

I don't know...who's pitched against the most Australian and Dutch players?

 

[x0xHumblex0x]

without the Roids;
Nolan Ryan
with the Roids;
Roger Clemons

lol @ some of you youngstas picking guys who your parents wouldnt have even seen pitch
:jonesy:

 

[FirstTimer]

Just a thought of mine from CCS on a similar subject(Position players not having to play against black pitchers):

I see sort of where you are going for this and I don't have empirical data to back it up but was there a large jump in statistical norms after blacks were included?

I mean Mays etc were all great but it's not as though white players hadn't put up similar or better seasons over the course of MLB history prior to the color line being broken. Black players came in and proved they belonged..but didn't dismantle the record books or embarrass the white players. They pretty much fell in line with what other players were doing..both good and bad.

I guess I just don't see Ruth having to face black pitchers as that big of a deal or something that would have mattered.

I guess I'd apply it to the Pre WWII white pitchers as well. yeah we missed out on seeing them pitch against Josh Gibson but over the sample size of their careers...would it really have made that much of a difference or would they have not pitched as well against them? Plus it could have helped them too with better fielding players behind them possibly....

 

[Senser81]

without the Roids;
Nolan Ryan
with the Roids;
Roger Clemons

lol @ some of you youngstas picking guys who your parents wouldnt have even seen pitch
:jonesy:

I never saw Roger Clemons pitch, either.

 

[FirstTimer]

without the Roids;
Nolan Ryan
with the Roids;
Roger Clemons

lol @ some of you youngstas picking guys who your parents wouldnt have even seen pitch
:jonesy:

:cano:

 

[FirstTimer]

Oh and do answer the question:

Pedro post WWII.

Pre WWII: Walter Johnson.

 

[SuperKevin]

If we are only talking about the best in our respective lifetimes, I have to say Greg Maddux. He did more with less physical talent than anyone else.

 

[Sven Draconian]

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.

I don't question the accuracy of stats from 1890 (ok, a little), the issue is that it was closer to semi-pro baseball than professional baseball. You had gambling, collusion, teams and leagues folding and teams skipping games. No, sorry, those numbers are in no way comparable to the modern era.

I mean, cripes, the foul-strike rule wasn't even adopted until 1901/1903. For Nichols and Young they played a couple of season before the mound was moved to 60 feet 6 inches.

Lets not forget that the American League doubled the size of the "majors" in 1901... (you know, Young's best seasons), without anything resembling a modern farm system. It can barely even be considered a major league at that point.

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.

Of course those guys are going to rate well in WAR, which is largely a product of IP. When you are starting 40+ games a year and throwing 300 innings you are going to rack up counting stats.

No question that Walter Johnson is the most "greatest" pitcher of all time. That doesn't make him the best on a talent basis. Leading the "league" in K's 12 times / 8 times in a row is impressive, but I do feel it is an impressive as Pedro finishing first or second 7 times in 8 seasons (the only year he did not was 2001, injury shortened). Johnson played in an 8 team league, Pedro played in a 14 team league. Pedro played with a 5 man rotation, Johnson played with a 4 man rotation. Pedro had to beat significantly more people for his "titles" than Johnson did. I have Clemens finishing 1st/2nd 10 times.

Just a thought of mine from CCS on a similar subject(Position players not having to play against black pitchers):



I guess I'd apply it to the Pre WWII white pitchers as well. yeah we missed out on seeing them pitch against Josh Gibson but over the sample size of their careers...would it really have made that much of a difference or would they have not pitched as well against them? Plus it could have helped them too with better fielding players behind them possibly....

You're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't that "black players wouldn't have dominated," the issue is that the general talent pool would level out.

It's a silly premise anyway,
1) Since 1946, # 1, 2 and 3 in offensive WAR are black and 7 of 10 are minority.
2) 7 of the top 10 HR hitters of all time are black
3) In career OPS since 1946, #2, 3 and 4 are minority

So yes, they have dominated the game.

 

[SuperKevin]

Still waiting on that list Sven

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

*DERAIL ALERT*

Funny how every pitcher being mentioned in this thread racked up a ton of wins, and has a stellar W/L record.

It's almost as if, the larger the sample grows, the more pitcher W's & L's become a pretty decent indicator of how well a pitcher pitched.

*DERAIL ALERT*

 

[Woy]

Satchel Paige.

:running:

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Pretty surprised nobody brought up this guy:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/seaveto01.shtml

2.86 career ERA, 3 Cy Young's (w/two 2nd place finishes), 106 WAR, 98.8% HOF vote highest of all time

 

[Senser81]

No question that Walter Johnson is the most "greatest" pitcher of all time. That doesn't make him the best on a talent basis. Leading the "league" in K's 12 times / 8 times in a row is impressive, but I do feel it is an impressive as Pedro finishing first or second 7 times in 8 seasons (the only year he did not was 2001, injury shortened). Johnson played in an 8 team league, Pedro played in a 14 team league. Pedro played with a 5 man rotation, Johnson played with a 4 man rotation. Pedro had to beat significantly more people for his "titles" than Johnson did.

Who cares? You're either the best, or you aren't. Its not like Walter Johnson finished 8th out of 8 pitchers. Are you infering that Johnson wouldn't have won 12 K titles if he played in a 14 team league as opposed to an 8 team league? Are you also inferring that in some of those years Johnson would have been beaten out of the title by the 5th starter on the Philadelphia Athletics, but teams only had 4-man rotations?

Pedro had great stats regardless, but the other pitchers in the AL in the late 90's-early 00's were garbage. Mussina was probably the 2nd best AL guy, and he probably won't make the HOF. Pedro won a CY Young one year and the 2nd and 3rd place pitchers were Tim Hudson and David Wells, both with ERAs over 4.00. I guess my point is that if you are going to downgrade pre-WWII for not pitching against good competition, then I would say Pedro's relative worth is greatly exaggerated because his pitching contemporaries were terrible. Koufax was the best of the best during the pitchers era of the 1960s...Pedro was more like the best of the worst.

 

[FedEx227]

And again, we have stats that take all of the concerns you have Sven into account. They are era-neutral statistics. It doesn't matter that these guys faced 5'2 Irish dudes from Buffalo, that's accounted for and neutralized and yet still those guys stand out among the best.

 

[FedEx227]

*DERAIL ALERT*

Funny how every pitcher being mentioned in this thread racked up a ton of wins, and has a stellar W/L record.

It's almost as if, the larger the sample grows, the more pitcher W's & L's become a pretty decent indicator of how well a pitcher pitched.

*DERAIL ALERT*

Who are you arguing with in this point? Nobody has ever disagreed that on a 200-300 game sample that the best pitchers tend to get a lot of wins. Wins don't mean much on an yearly level but I don't think anyone disagreed that over a 20-year career wins should be ignored. I don't think they mean a whole lot because everyone in this thread also has a real good WARs, stellar ERA+ and high strikeouts.

 

[FedEx227]

Of course those guys are going to rate well in WAR, which is largely a product of IP. When you are starting 40+ games a year and throwing 300 innings you are going to rack up counting stats.

I don't think you know what WAR is.

Really the fundamental issue with your question and how you're defending or arguing choices doesn't make sense. If you're asking for most talented pitcher of all time that's a different story. Yes, we get that Walter Johnson faced inferior competition to what Justin Verlander does. Yes, we understand that Kid Nichols had a different mound than Pedro Martinez, but why should we dock everyone who played under different rules? They still existed, they played the game how it was played at that time. It's not fair to strike everyone from 1960 and back because of they had different rules. They played to the rules of the game at the time. They shouldn't be punished in hindsight because of it.

There's a reason neutral-era statistics were created, to properly assess the skills of the players in the early part of baseball. The reason why Lefty Grove rises above the rest of his peers is because, he....well, rose above his peers when he played. You keep bringing up these guys having different rules, while yes, that's true, everyone else that played at the exact same time had those rules and yet still the aforementioned players rose to the top.

 

[NAHSTE]

Pretty surprised nobody brought up this guy:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/seaveto01.shtml

2.86 career ERA, 3 Cy Young's (w/two 2nd place finishes), 106 WAR, 98.8% HOF vote highest of all time

Meh. Only 6'1. I refuse to believe he was a good pitcher.

 

[SuperKevin]

Sven seems to think that with league expansion that somehow magically the level of competition did not get diluted due to hundreds of additional roster spots needing to be filled. Did everyone somehow get exponentially better at baseball simply because there were more spots available?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Who are you arguing with in this point?

Keith Law.

He lurks here. Goes by the the name "OnlyOneBeerLeft".

 

[FedEx227]

Keith Law also writes reviews of iOS card battling games.

You have bigger fish to fry.