Best pitcher of all time?

[Sven Draconian]

While much of this is true, or at least makes sense, it has nothing to do what I was talking about. My point is that you say you're differentiating between "greatest" and "best" but you're really not. When you start comparing guys' career achievements side by side to see who's the "best" (i.e. post-WWII), you're doing the exact same thing as people who are trying to figure out who the "greatest" is. If you mean the most talented and/or physically gifted pitcher, then yes it will very likely be someone pitching within the last 2 decades. When you bring in their career records, ERA, ERA+, top 10s, etc you're merely comparing them to their peers which is what people do to discern "greatest." I think that's where the disconnect is.

And you're not being entirely truthful about who was excluded from MLB in those days. There were a number of Latin players, and the occasional Native American. Granted, almost all of them were light-skinned enough to not upset the apple cart, but they were there.

To the first part, yes and no. Sandy Koufax, for example, doesn't have nearly the stats to support any claim as the "greatest", and Pedro's case is fairly weak compared to Clemens. It's a mixture of stats and observation. I think Clemens is the "greatest" pitcher of the generation, I think Maddux has a strong case for #2... but I don't think either of them were better pitchers then Pedro.

As to the second part, I would argue that the minorities that were able to play were offset by the "white" players who faced enough discrimination to be effectively barred (Immigrants, southern europeans and to an extent the irish at various periods). The overall effect on the talent pool was probably a wash.

 

[Senser81]

Facing a 14 team league that includes black, latin and asian players pulled from a baseball playing population that is 5 times as dense as the 1930s is significantly more impressive.

See, you are immediately mixing two different things. As I said twice before, the issue isn't the number of teams. Now you are adding more teams, but adding the caveat that these are better teams, too. Huh?

No, simply adding teams in the 1930s would not have been a better achievement. Adding teams because the population has grown and the talent pool has expanded is

Nice. So Walter Johnson was overrated because the world's population was smaller in 1916 compared to 2013.

Additionally, the 5 man rotation creates fewer innings for you to pitch. Pitching 200 innings creates more variability than pitching 330. When combined with the fact that a #5 pitcher today is more talented than a #4 pitcher in 1930, it is more impressive to "beat" them.

This is almost beyond comprehension. So Johnson is overrated because he pitched too many innings. Got it.

 

[Sven Draconian]

See, you are immediately mixing two different things. As I said twice before, the issue isn't the number of teams. Now you are adding more teams, but adding the caveat that these are better teams, too. Huh?

I'm not adding anything. That is how the history of baseball unfolded. I'm sorry your strategy is to argue semantics rather than address the actual argument being presented.

Nice. So Walter Johnson was overrated because the world's population was smaller in 1916 compared to 2013.

No, Walter Johnson is overrate dbecause he did not face black/asian/latin players. The Population increase would be a wash if everybody had been allowed to participate.

This is almost beyond comprehension. So Johnson is overrated because he pitched too many innings. Got it.

No. That was not the argument. The argument is that it is easier to lead the league in a category when you pitch a higher % of innings then when you pitch a lower % of innings. He isn't overrated because he lead the league in strikeouts 12 times, but I do not feel that leading the league in strikeouts int he 1920s is on part with leading the league in strikeouts in the 2000s, for a myriad of reasons. Much of that is superior talent today, based on the inclusion of minority and foreign players. Part of that is increased talent due to year round training and a fully fledged scouting and development system. Part of that is how strategies have evolved (in this case, with pitchers throwing less innings per season).

 

[FedEx227]

Why do you have this idea that Johnson pitched in a vacuum and was some type of cyborg doing things nobody else was doing at that time?

Everyone pitched a ton of innings then. He led the league in strikeouts not because he pitched a ton of innings but because he was way better than all of his peers.

You keep trying to compare Johnson to the way pitchers are today and you just can't do that. Johnson couldn't control the way the game was played at the time he played it. It's similar to the argument we have every so often on VSN about middle infielders from yesteryear. They hit like little girls because they essentially were told to. That was their job. Hit the ball lightly, infield hits, move the guy over, etc. Comparing Nellie Fox to Chase Utley as a way to deter Fox's accomplishments is spinning your wheels.

 

[Senser81]

I'm not adding anything. That is how the history of baseball unfolded. I'm sorry your strategy is to argue semantics rather than address the actual argument being presented.

Yes you are. You are combining two different issues...number of teams and talent pool. As I said originally, just upping the number of teams in the 1916 AL wouldn't really change Johnson's status as the best pitcher. You aren't adding better teams...just more. When the MLB expanded in the late 60's, did Tom Seaver suddenly become a worse pitcher because the KC Royals had Dick Drago starting for them?

No, Walter Johnson is overrate dbecause he did not face black/asian/latin players. The Population increase would be a wash if everybody had been allowed to participate.

But unless there was Bob Gibson, Hideo Nomo, and Juan Marichal all pitching in their prime in 1916, I don't know if you can solidly conclude that Johnson would somehow lose his title as best pitcher of his era.

No. That was not the argument. The argument is that it is easier to lead the league in a category when you pitch a higher % of innings then when you pitch a lower % of innings. He isn't overrated because he lead the league in strikeouts 12 times, but I do not feel that leading the league in strikeouts int he 1920s is on part with leading the league in strikeouts in the 2000s, for a myriad of reasons. Much of that is superior talent today, based on the inclusion of minority and foreign players. Part of that is increased talent due to year round training and a fully fledged scouting and development system. Part of that is how strategies have evolved (in this case, with pitchers throwing less innings per season).

How would it be easier? You made the "argument" that a pitcher pitching only 200 innings creates variability...so wouldn't Johnson leading the league in Ks when the pitchers are pitching 300 innings be even MORE impressive and make Johnson's statistical leadership even MORE relevant and less dependant on variability?

I don't get it. At all.

 

[Sven Draconian]

Yes you are. You are combining two different issues...number of teams and talent pool. As I said originally, just upping the number of teams in the 1916 AL wouldn't really change Johnson's status as the best pitcher. You aren't adding better teams...just more. When the MLB expanded in the late 60's, did Tom Seaver suddenly become a worse pitcher because the KC Royals had Dick Drago starting for them?

In the OP I devalued pre WWII pitchers (and really, anything before the 60s). A few posts later I clarified that by talking about the expanded talent pool. Those were posts #1 and #8. You choose to ignore that early basis, and focus on the statement that leading a 16 team league is more impressive than leading an 8 team league. I didn't make that statement in a vacuum. I had already laid the base argument out. I've since clarified it two other times. Stop being a pedant.

But unless there was Bob Gibson, Hideo Nomo, and Juan Marichal all pitching in their prime in 1916, I don't know if you can solidly conclude that Johnson would somehow lose his title as best pitcher of his era.

He was the greatest pitcher of his era. No argument. I do not think his era matches up with more modern eras.

How would it be easier? You made the "argument" that a pitcher pitching only 200 innings creates variability...so wouldn't Johnson leading the league in Ks when the pitchers are pitching 300 innings be even MORE impressive and make Johnson's statistical leadership even MORE relevant and less dependent on variability?

I don't get it. At all.

If you don't understand the argument, then you don't understand statistics (law of large numbers). I know you do, so stop trolling. Smaller rotation and a smaller role for relief pitchers allows for a starter to pitch more. More innings means a larger sample size and the larger the sample size the more relevant the data (in this case, the ability to stirke out batters).

In this case, the extra 100 (or so) innings allows for Johnson's true talent to come through. That is not the case today. Your point here is that by increasing the innings and allowing Johnson to lead the league that it proves he was more talented than his peers because a modern pitching leading the league in stirkeouts may benefit from the statistical variance produced by a small sample size. I understand the argument, but I disagree with the premise. I already concede that Johnson was much talented than his peers than Verlander/Kershaw/Felix.... Pedro/Clemens/Johnson/Maddux.... Seaver/Carleton were to their peers.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Johnson led the league in K/9 seven times, so we can toss the amount of innings he was throwing as a qualifier for his strikeouts directly into the garbage. He was striking out more batters, and at a higher rate, than anybody else in the game. That wouldn't have changed with more teams, modern bullpen usage, or anything else. The raw numbers may have changed, but that's why we normalize things to account for eras.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about here. Sven is basically trumpeting for evolution. It's like I said on page one. Corey Patterson would probably dominate in 1913. Who cares? To me that means absolutely nothing.

 

[Senser81]

In this case, the extra 100 (or so) innings allows for Johnson's true talent to come through. That is not the case today. Your point here is that by increasing the innings and allowing Johnson to lead the league that it proves he was more talented than his peers because a modern pitching leading the league in stirkeouts may benefit from the statistical variance produced by a small sample size. I understand the argument, but I disagree with the premise.

What premise are you disagreeing with? Why? How could Johnson's K titles being more relevant and less dependent on variability somehow be "worse" than Steve McCatty winning an ERA title in strike-shortened 1981? It not only doesn't make sense...its the EXACT OPPOSITE of sense.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Johnson led the league in K's 12 times.

He only led the league innings five times, games started four times, and games pitched twice.

Again, i'm not even sure what the debate is at this point, but the idea that Johnson was lapping the field in terms of being a volume pitcher, thus making it easy to dominate K's, doesn't hold any water.

 

[FedEx227]

The basic premise of the thread makes no sense the second you say "Who's the best ever?" "Oh and you can't use guys before WW2 and you can't use this and you can't use that"

Essentially it's as you said, evolution. The paramaters set forth make it impossible to do a "best ever" and turn it into more of a "who was the most athlete/most skilled" which is always going to be someone in the past 10-15 years as the league and as human nutrition, etc. evolves.

 

[ram29jackson]

The basic premise of the thread makes no sense the second you say "Who's the best ever?" "Oh and you can't use guys before WW2 and you can't use this and you can't use that"

Essentially it's as you said, evolution. The paramaters set forth make it impossible to do a "best ever" and turn it into more of a "who was the most athlete/most skilled" which is always going to be someone in the past 10-15 years as the league and as human nutrition, etc. evolves.

someone should start a thread in the NBA/ basketball section..."Who's the best basketball player ever who isn't black and not named Larry Bird"...I would but....

 

[FirstTimer]

someone should start a thread in the NBA/ basketball section..."Who's the best basketball player ever who isn't black and not named Larry Bird"...I would but....

George Mikan

 

[ram29jackson]

George Mikan

?...........naaahh LOL

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

How would Johnny Unitas do at a scouting combine? Would he even be invited? How about Jim Brown, who was larger than a good portion of the defensive lineman he was playing against, but wouldn't have that advantage today? Let's see Oscar Robertson or Bob Cousey effectively play defense or create shots in today's league.

Essentially, the best is whoever is playing right now. What a terrible, short sighted, simplistic way of boiling down an argument, and a slap in the face of the history of the game(s).

 

[FedEx227]

I think baseball is the only sport where you could REALISTICALLY even ATTEMPT to compare era's athleticism but even then I think it's a hell of a stretch. As you mentioned before Corey Patterson probably hits 30-40 HRs a year in the 30s.

In the NBA and NFL forget it. Adrian Peterson and LeBron James are the best ever.

 

[ram29jackson]

I think baseball is the only sport where you could REALISTICALLY even ATTEMPT to compare era's athleticism but even then I think it's a hell of a stretch. As you mentioned before Corey Patterson probably hits 30-40 HRs a year in the 30s.

In the NBA and NFL forget it. Adrian Peterson and LeBron James are the best ever.

wait 15 years with that assumption

 

[dell71]

Yes you are. You are combining two different issues...number of teams and talent pool. As I said originally, just upping the number of teams in the 1916 AL wouldn't really change Johnson's status as the best pitcher. You aren't adding better teams...just more. When the MLB expanded in the late 60's, did Tom Seaver suddenly become a worse pitcher because the KC Royals had Dick Drago starting for them?




But unless there was Bob Gibson, Hideo Nomo, and Juan Marichal all pitching in their prime in 1916, I don't know if you can solidly conclude that Johnson would somehow lose his title as best pitcher of his era.



How would it be easier? You made the "argument" that a pitcher pitching only 200 innings creates variability...so wouldn't Johnson leading the league in Ks when the pitchers are pitching 300 innings be even MORE impressive and make Johnson's statistical leadership even MORE relevant and less dependant on variability?

I don't get it. At all.

Agree with you, but mostly thanked this post for the Dick Drago reference.

 

[ram29jackson]

 

[dell71]

cheap fishing for thanks, but I'll bite.

 

[ram29jackson]

cheap fishing for thanks, but I'll bite.

what ? no, I was just putting a face to the name because the internet lets me.