Greatest Pitching Season Ever

[torez77]

Let's vote!

I used this as my primary source for greatest pitching seasons.

http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Greats/pitching-seasons.htm

Many pitchers had more than 1 great season. However, I included every pitcher once on the poll to save room. You can vote "other" if you think another season is the greatest.

[714 on beer and dogs]

Guidry and Doc I saw up close and they were unreal but jeez, Carlton won 27 for a team that won 59 games.

[torez77]

Carlton won 27 for a team that won 59 games.

Not on the ballot, is it? Oops, it should be. Oh well, that's what the "other" spot is for.

[mordeci]

I see you neglected to include your namesake (although you did get my namesake).

[torez77]

I see you neglected to include your namesake

I'm not sure what you mean.

[leecemark]

--My guess is he means Mike Torrez. I voted other for Carlton 72. Not sure that would have been my pick if it was on the ballot, but it is one of the top half dozen at least and much greaer than several nominated.

[RuthMayBond]

You've got stuff like 07 Pfiester (Lundgren was arguably as good) and 12 Wood (WJohnson was better) but not stuff like 1888 Silver King, '89 Clarkson, 1918 Vaughn, '24 Vance, '39 Walters,

[torez77]

--My guess is he means Mike Torrez. I voted other for Carlton 72. Not sure that would have been my pick if it was on the ballot, but it is one of the top half dozen at least and much greaer than several nominated.

Why would I include any of Mike Torrez's single-seasons on the ballot? My last name is Torres, hence my username.

Mark - your pick doesn't make much sense to me. You voted for Carlton's 72 instead of all the others, but yet you say you're not sure that would be your pick if it was on the ballot. ??? Please explain more.

[torez77]

You've got stuff like 07 Pfiester (Lundgren was arguably as good) and 12 Wood (WJohnson was better) but not stuff like 1888 Silver King, '89 Clarkson, 1918 Vaughn, '24 Vance, '39 Walters,

Just vote "other" if you think any one of the seasons you mentioned are the best.

I went by the seasons on the website I presented, plus I added in RJ's '02 since Metal Ed mentioned it on the other site. I didn't wanna make a super-long list of all the good seasons in history. Really, only a select few can be argued for being the greatest, but it seems everybody has a different opinion, so I made the list as long as I thought necessary. If you think another is better than the ones already presented, vote "other" - that's what it's there for.

[leecemark]

--Carlton's 72 season would have been a finalist in my decision if it was on the ballot. I don't really have a preconceived idea about best single season, but there have been few, if any, better than that one. It being overlooked on the ballot was kind of a tie breaker. Had to make sure it didn't go overlooked (although it actually had one other vote already before me).

[RuthMayBond]

Just vote "other" if you think any one of the seasons you mentioned are the best.

I went by the seasons on the website I presented, plus I added in RJ's '02 since Metal Ed mentioned it on the other site. I didn't wanna make a super-long list of all the good seasons in history. Really, only a select few can be argued for being the greatest. If you think another is better than the ones already presented, vote "other" - that's what it's there for.I mean they should have replaced some that were on the ballot. Carlton was good but his season was ALSO indicative of how bad his team was. I'm debating between two seasons eighty-seven years apart which was better ;) ;) ;)

[torez77]

I'm debating between two seasons eighty-seven years apart which was better ;) ;) ;)

Lemme guess - Walter's 1913 and Pedro's 2000?

[NationalPastime1980]

Walter "The Big Train" Johnson

[torez77]

Just to clarify - Carlton's '72 and Newhouser's '46 were mentioned on the other thread, but after or while I was posting the ballot. I should've remembered Carlton's '72 anyway. My bad.

[RuthMayBond]

Lemme guess - Walter's 1913 and Pedro's 2000?HOW the HECK did you know THAT? :confused: :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[torez77]

HOW the HECK did you know THAT? :confused: :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

I subtracted! 2000-1913 = 87! Voila! I'm so smart! :D

[RuthMayBond]

I subtracted! 2000-1913 = 87! Voila! I'm so smart! :DBut how the heck did you know it was those two GUYS and those two SEASONS? :confused: :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[torez77]

But how the heck did you know it was those two GUYS and those two SEASONS? :confused: :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Cuz those are arguably the best 2 seasons on the ballot. I looked and saw they were 87 years apart, you said you were debating on 2 seasons 87 years apart, a light bulb appeared above my head, and there you go!

[Bill Burgess]

My slate of candidates for Best Seasons Ever for a Pitcher:

--------------------------W-L------ShO------ERA+---Inn.
1. Johnson ---- 1913-------36-7-----11-------258----346
2. Alexander --- 1915------31-10---- 12-------225---376
3. Koufax ------ 1965------26-8-------8-------160---336
4. Gibson -------1968------22-9------13-------258---305
5. Brown ------- 1906------26-6------10-------254---277
6. Matty ------- 1909------25-6-------8-------223---275
7. Joss -------- 1908------24-11------9--------206---325
8. Wood ------- 1912------34-5------10-------178---344
9. Coombs ----- 1910------31-9------13-------182---353
10. McGinnity -- 1904------35-8-------9-------169---408

I give high precedence to ERA+, in conjuction with W-L, Shutouts, and a variety of other stats. Some of the flashier ERA+ seasons of modern vintage by Maddux/Martinez came with too few inninings pitched to make my cut. Sorry about that. I like to see at least 250 innings pitched or so. I have no hard rules.

My award winner, Walter Johnson's 1913 campaign led his league in:
Wins, W-L%, shutouts, CG, innings, SO, ERA, ERA+, Total Baseball's RATIO, Opponents BA, Opponents on-base ave., pitching runs+, wins shares, total pitching wins, fewest hits/g, fewest BB/g, SO/g, Total Baseball's starter runs, adjusted starter runs, total pitcher index.

In other words, Walter swept the boards that year. And he did it while pitching 346 innings. He also won the MVP award. A true evergreen, classic, vintage Year For the Ages.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Get Koufax out of that group

[torez77]

Koufax's ERA+ was alot higher in '66 than in '65, and his W-L record was virtually the same.

[Bill Burgess]

All last year, I fought hard to show the Fever jury that my case for Cobb over Ruth deserved to win. Lost the case. Jury apparently didn't like my circumstancial case. My theoretical "what-if" case, failed to impress.

Now I'm walking into court, once again with a real winner. I'm smiling with the confidence of an attorney who has all the cards in his hand. My Walter Johnson 1913 case is a slam dunk, sure thing.

He won everything there was to win, MVP, set a record of 56 consecutive scoreless innings, winning streaks of 16, 12 and 10 in the same year, amazing ERA, ERA+, didn't commit an error on defense, 36-7, 11 Shutouts.

I lost my last case with Cobb, despite a winning hand. If I lose this case, with all the "right stuff", it will be a bad year for my Eternal Verities.

Don't let me lose, Fever. Keep an open mind. History is on our side.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

As of right now, Bill, Walter is winning - with 6 votes, and yes, he has a good case! I voted for Pedro's 2000 season cuz of the record-breaking ERA+, miniscule BR/9, and incredible K's per 9 innings. Certainly, Walter has the edge in wins, streaks and IP. Much of that can be attributed to his era, but the stats are eye-popping nonetheless. I'm far from etching anything in stone, and it's fun to compare, see all the differing opinions, and change my mind back and forth.

[Bill Burgess]

For the life of me, I can't see any chinks in Walter's armour. His 1913 campaign was a masterpiece of the highest order. Joe Wood's 1912 was good, but not as good as Walter's. Also, you want to use Koufax's '65 season. Not '66.

Bill

[csh19792001]

For the life of me, I can't see any chinks in Walter's armour. His 1913 campaign was a masterpiece of the highest order. Joe Wood's 1912 was good, but not as good as Walter's. Also, you want to use Koufax's '65 season. Not '66.

Bill

It's not chinks in Walter so much, Bill; it's the presumed chinks in the armor of the majority of his opponents. If you assume the quality of the game is virtually the same in today vs. 1913, I'd think you almost have to go with Johnson. However, this will probably turn out to be another exercise in "strength of eras".

[BoSox Rule]

Pedro 2000
285 ERA+
0.737 WHIP
5.31 H/9
.213 on-base percentage
.472 OPS against
6.64 BR/9
8.88 K/BB

[Bill Burgess]

I give highest original presumption to ERA+, but do not use only 1 stat. I also look at innings worked, W-L, awards, league leads, etc.
]

------Name----------yr.-----ERA+----Inn.---W-L----ShO---CG---Ratio*

Pedro Martinez-----2000-----285-----217----18-6-----7-----4---7.37
Greg Maddux--------1995-----259-----209----19-2----10-----3---8.11
Walter Johnson-----1913-----258-----346----36-7----11----29---7.80
Bob Gibson---------1968-----258-----305----22-9----13----28---8.53
Mordecai Brown-----1906-----253-----277----26-6----10----27---8.53
Dwight Gooden------1985-----226-----276----24-4-----8----16---8.75
Grover Alexander---1915-----224-----376----31-10---12----36---8.42
Christy Mathewson--1909-----223-----275----25-6-----8----26---8.28
Lefty Grove--------1931-----218-----289----31-4-----4----27
Ron Guidry---------1978-----208-----273----25-3-----9----16---8.55
Addie Joss---------1908-----205-----325----24-11----9----29---8.06
Jack Taylor--------1902-----203-----324----22-11---10----33
Dean Chance--------1964-----199-----278----20-9----11----15
Spud Chandler------1943-----197-----253----20-4-----5----20
Hal Newhouser------1945-----194-----313----25-9-----8----29
Cy Young-----------1908-----194-----299----21-11----3----30---8.07
Mort Cooper--------1942-----193-----279----22-7----10----22
Carl Hubbell-------1933-----193-----309----23-12---10----22
Tom Seaver---------1971-----193-----286----20-10----4----21
Randy Johnson------2002-----190-----260----24-5-----8-----4
Ed Walsh-----------1910-----189-----369----18-10----7----33---8.20
Warren Spahn-------1953-----187-----266----23-7-----5----24
Lefty Gomez--------1934-----185-----281----26-5-----6----25
Luis Tiant---------1968-----185-----258----21-0-----9----19
Vida Blue----------1971-----183-----312----24-8-----8----24---8.68
Jack Coombs--------1910-----182-----353----31-9----13----35
Steve Carlton------1972-----182-----346----27-10----8----30
Rube Waddell-------1905-----180-----328----26-11----7----27
Orvie Overall------1909-----179-----285----20-11----9----23
Joe Wood-----------1912-----178-----344----34-5----10----35
Joe McGinnity------1904-----178-----408----35-8-----9----38
Dazzy Vance--------1924-----176-----309----28-6-----3----30
Dizzy Dean---------1934-----170-----324----30-7-----3----29
Stan Coveleski-----1917-----167-----298----19-14----9----24
Roger Clemens------1986-----166-----254----24-4-----1----10
Jack Chesbro-------1904-----158-----454----41-12----6----48---8.57
Denny McLain-------1968-----157-----336----31-6-----6----28---8.30
Sandy Koufax-------1965-----156-----335----26-8-----8----27---8.55
Dave McNally-------1968-----154-----273----22-10----5----18---8.42
Bob Feller---------1946-----145-----371----26-15---10----36
Nolan Ryan---------1972-----120-----284----19-16----9----20
Whitey Ford--------1961-----117-----283----25-4-----3----11


*ratio = (Hits allowed + walks) / (innings divided by 9).

[wrgptfan]

I give highest original presumption to ERA+, but do not use only 1 stat. I also look at innings worked, W-L, awards, league leads, etc.


Well Bill, I'm sure that you will be pleased to know that according to the metric described at http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=290514&postcount=12 Walter Johnson has the two best seasons since 1893, with 1912 being slightly better than 1913. However, subjective adjustments would not be inappropriate in judging his 1913 season to be slightly better (i.e. MVP, Triple Crown). However, his 1912 season did lead his 1913 season in strikeouts by 60 and his complete games by 5. It's a virtual tossup between the two seasons.

[torez77]

Actually, Greg Maddux's 1995 is better than his 1994. The only thing better in 1994 is the ERA+, which is 11 pts higher, but in '95 Maddux went 19-2 and his K's, BB's, H/9, and everything else is better than '94. The website I used to post the seasons is heavily slanted towards the best ERAs ever. But as Bill said, that should definitely not be the only stat to judge the best seasons ever. It should be the best combination of stats - and Walter's 1913 might very well be the best of them all, even accounting for any era adjustments. Pedro's ERA+, K's and BR/9 are better than Walter's, but Walt's no slouch in those stats either, and his big edge in Wins, SHO and CG might be enough to put him over the top.

It is a very interesting comparison. You know how I compare players from totally different eras - how would each have done in the other's era had they been born at the other player's time and learned that player's game? We just don't know - so who's better between Pedro's 2000 and Walter's 1913? Good arguments for both sides. I voted too soon without really thinking it through hard enough. :rolleyes:

[The Dude]

Grover's 1915 isn't a bad campagin ... 30 more IP then WJ, more CG's, more SHO's. His ERA+ though, is 30 points behind if i'm correct.

[RuthMayBond]

Now I'm walking into court, once again with a real winner. I'm smiling with the confidence of an attorney who has all the cards in his hand. My Walter Johnson 1913 case is a slam dunk, sure thing.

He won everything there was to win, MVP, set a record of 56 consecutive scoreless innings, winning streaks of 16, 12 and 10 in the same year, amazing ERA, ERA+, didn't commit an error on defense, 36-7, 11 Shutouts.

Don't let me lose, Fever. Keep an open mind. History is on our side.

Bill BurgessUnless they want to go by quality of league improving, why worry what the polls say if you know you're right? Walter had quality AND quantity, and Pedro had, uh, quality. And ERA+ already takes into account the differences in parks

[Bill Burgess]

Fever Brothers,

Even though most of us have formed a concensus that ERA+ should form the original presumption, while always balanced against the volume of inninings worked, we must always strive to keep the overall balance of a pitcher's season formost in mind.

The keyword to remember is balance. And that should take in all the stats, awards, deft era adjustments, etc.

Balance, balance, balance. And that evaluation isn't always as easy as it sounds.

Bill

[2Chance]

I too considered Carlton in '72, and Pedro in 2000 was just above and beyond.

But I think the Train in '13 was abover and beyonder.
Thank you Fever friends for allowing these new words into our vocabulary. :lookitup :rolleyes:

[Metal Ed]

Looks like an outstanding list, Dave. I really like your methodology. :clapping A breath of fresh air here.

Wilbur Wood's season invariably gets lost in the shuffle- that happens to knuckleballers quite a bit I've noticed.

And good to see Pedro NOT being overrated, as so many "only rate stats matter" people here never fail to do- while neglecting that the guy he's usually being compared to threw well over 300 innings and completed a majority of his games- contributing far more overall, and having far less no decisions (putting the game in someone else's hand). And many of these were post 1960 pitchers- many of them pitching in the 60's and 70's, when the game was arguably stronger than it was in 2000.

In other words, a seemingly complete failure to understand that, with pitching, quality is in large part of a function of quantity.


Chris:

So you think that Red Faber and Vida Blue were as good as Pedro Martinez has ever been? Can't say I agree. I must say that I'm one of those "statheads" who thinks that Pedro's a phenom.

I'm unsure as to who's the guy he's usually compared to is - do you mean Sandy Koufax?

I also do not see how this particular stat is very good. It takes PR and then divided them by the league ERA. Why? The league ERA is already part of the PR equation; no need to put it in again, and right in the place where it can do the most damage. So pitchers from high ERA eras just get an arbitrary kick right in the teeth here - a big fat number in the denominator for no reason at all. This stat seems to be rather biased against pitchers from the 90's and 30's (notice that Lefty Grove - arguably one of the three greatest pitchers of all time - has his greatest seasons devalued) and heavily favors pitchers from the deadball era and the 60's. Those pitchers had enough advantages to begin with; they don't need more.


Chris and Bill, on the topic of balance:

You are underestimating Pedro's value. Take a look at my post in this thread with the best PR+ single seasons. I agree with your assessment that value is a balancing act between both quality and quantity. I believe that when the quality is so mind-numbingly high, it can, to an extent, make up for less-than-spectacular quantity. Pedro was 7nth in the league in IP that season, not great, but not as bad as you think either. And the quality of his work was insane. I really don’t think that you’ve taken the time to appreciate what he did that year.

Yes, Walter has Pedro beat on quantity - even after taking into account era factors, and the difficulty in racking up IP's now vs. then - Walter still has Pedro beat for quantity. I concede that point.

Bill, you said it's a balancing act between quantity and quality. You are correct. We have to balance Walter's superior quantity with Pedro's superior quality. And make no mistake - Pedro's quality was better. Quite a bit. Here is why.

Following are the best seasons ever in WHIP. Take a look at the other years on that list. Examine them carefully, note the era. Except for Greg Maddux – another guy who deserves a little more respect around here - they are all deadball or second deadball era (60’s) pitchers. Guys who threw off of 15 or 18 inch mounds to Pedro’s 10. You understand the physics involved here in hitting a batted ball off a raised surface. Guys who pitched in pitcher’s ballparks to Pedro’s Fenway. Guys who faced all natural hitters who never touched a weight. (And you know as well as I do that Barry was far from the only juicer in baseball in 2000). And there’s Pedro, the littlest guy on the field, standing up to these bodybuilder-type hitters.

The advantages of the other guys on this list are so overwhelming: no body armor on hitters. Freedom to throw at hitters’ heads without repercussions. Expanded strike zones. Dead, inert balls. Poor visibility in the center field batter’s eye (Fenway has perhaps the best visibility in the league). No laser eye surgery for hitters. No batting machines for hitters.

Before you say that today’s hitters are free swingers – check the walk rates for the deadball and second deadball (60’s) era. Today’s hitters draw more walks than in those eras. Whether its due to better discipline, or simply the smaller strike zone today’s hitters enjoy, does it matter for this discussion? The effect on a pitcher’s WHIP is equally damaging, either way. I can’t even imagine how many STD’s beyond the mean Pedro is here. His very presence on this list of raw, unadjusted numbers is an anachronism, a massive anomaly. Imagine if Ty Cobb’s unadjusted slugging average made the top 10 of all time. Shall we judge Brady Anderson as the greater slugger than Ty Cobb? Brady hit 50 HRs one year, Ty never came close. Do you believe that such raw, unadjusted stat comparisons are valid? I don't. Era factors make the comparison invalid. Yet, even with odds stacked against him in a completely unfair comparison, Pedro's WHIP still tops the list. Mind-boggling.

Yes, Pedro has one chink in his armor – his stamina is not that of a true workhorse. That is a strike against him. NOW. You take that and weigh it against every disadvantage I’ve written above. Truly an historic season, not a flawless one, but still remarkable. Oh, and his fielders were better, with better gloves to boot. But obviously, that slick fielding was not enough to compensate for all the other factors I've listed, yes? Because BA and walk rates were higher in his era than in those of the other pitchers on this list.

I hardly think it's a coincidence that all those great pitching years were all clustered around the same time periods. Do you? You don't REALLY think that do you? I mean, I don't think they are; and I don't think that all these 50-HR years we've been having lately are just a coincidence, either.


1. Pedro Martinez (28) .737 2000 R
2. Guy Hecker (26) .769 1882 R
3. Walter Johnson+ (25) .780 1913 R
4. Addie Joss+ (28) .806 1908 R
5. Greg Maddux (29) .811 1995 R
6. Charlie Sweeney (21) .817 1884 R
7. Ed Walsh+ (29) .820 1910 R
8. Christy Mathewson+ (28) .828 1909 R
9. George Bradley (27) .837 1880 R
Christy Mathewson+ (27) .837 1908 R
11. Tim Keefe+ (23) .838 1880 R
12. Pete Alexander+ (28) .842 1915 R
Mordecai Brown+ (31) .842 1908 R
Dave McNally* (25) .842 1968 L
15. Henry Boyle (23) .853 1884 R
Bob Gibson+ (32) .853 1968 R
17. Sandy Koufax+* (29) .855 1965 L
18. Juan Marichal+ (28) .859 1966 R
19. Ed Walsh+ (27) .860 1908 R
20. Denny Driscoll* (26) .866 1882 L

[Metal Ed]

>>>>If you assume the quality of the game is virtually the same in today vs. 1913,


Do you believe that assumption is valid?

[Bill Burgess]

Question. I'm confused as to WHIP. Metal Ed gives a top 10 list for WHIP, but it does not conform to my Total Baseball figures.

Total Baseball lists a figure called Ratio - Rat. It is (H + W/G.). Why are these figures in conflict? Does this figure change? Are they further indexing it to ballpark too? I'm confused. Help! SOS! Could some nice person straighten me out on this, cause I'd really like to get the genuine, authentic figures.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

WHIP? Here is what it appears to me. It appears that Total Baseball is using the raw figure. It adds hits allowed to walks allowed and then divides the combined figure by their games. Games is arrived at by dividing their winnings worked by 9.

But . . . others appear to use a different version of WHIP. It appears to me that they are taking the raw figure and dividing it by the league average WHIP for that yr., thus expressing it as a % of 1.000.

At least that is what it looks like to me now. And I would think that the second WHIP version would be a much more relevant stat, thereby eliminating the era bias.

Where is the website where we can get all the yearly WHIPS? My form chart in my post #27 needs a whole lot more of them. Can anyone help me out here?

Bill

[leecemark]

--Bill, the ratio figure used by TB gives hits+BB per 9 IP. WHIP is actually hits + BB per IP. If you multiply WHIP by 9 that should give you the ratio number provided in TB (or divide ratio there by 9 if its WHIP you want/need).
--I don't really like WHIP that much anyway. You see it tossed around here sometimes as if it is as important as ERA+ or a vital end game rating stat for pitchers. What it really represents is pitcher OBP. A single or walk are equal to a HR allowed in WHIP. Like OBP for batters it is an important indicator of ptcher performance, but used in isolation can give you some very flawed rankings. It is basically a component of ERA and should not be used as a substitute.

[714 on beer and dogs]

It's so interesting to read all this learned baseball knowledge but to me the bottom line is 27 wins on a stiff team that won 59 games .Remember winning 59 games means this juggernaut LOST 103!

[leecemark]

--You are correct 714. Carlton 72 is one of, and arguably the, best season of all time. By far the best season left off the ballot, which is why it got all three "other" votes cast so far. Three write ins on such a lengthy ballot is pretty impressive. I suspect that season would have even more supporters if not for the unfortunate oversight in leaving it off.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark/714,

Yes, Geoff did commit an oversight in overlooking Steve Carlton's great 1972 season. But . . . it did not get overlooked in my Form Chart in post 27. There are few ways to show how he overcame a bad team, or maybe a fair team with no other pitchers any good.

There is a stat which measures how well your team did without you. I forget what it is called, but it is discredited, due to teams which have many great pitchers, such as the 1927 Yankees.

Below is what I had to say about it a long time ago

"Of what real value can it have, since it so utterly favors pitchers on weak teams (Young, Johnson, Alex, Carlton, Vance), while it makes pitchers on strong teams (Matty, Brown, Ford, Grove, Pennock, Hoyt, Shawkey) appear good only due to team strength. Team WPCT minus the pitcher's W-L PCT. gotta go, guys."

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--The 72 Phillies were an all around awfull team apart from Carlton. It wasn't a team that had a decent lineup, but lousy pitching. They scored almost 200 less runs than the division winning Pirates, averaging only 3.28 runs per game.
--They were no great shakes defensively either. The IF was fairly solid, but the OF was as bad as any ever assembled. Luzinski manned LF (enough said), Willie Montanez was stationed in CF (and switched to 1B where he was better suited the next season) with Bill Robinson, Roger Freed, Ron Stone and Joe Lis all auditioned in RF (and occasionally CF/LF) with less than satisfactory results. A sore armed Tim McCarver started the year as their catcher, but was replaced by journeyman John Bateman (who except for being fat and slow was okay I guess). The Phillies addressed their defensive problems the next year with rookies Mike Schmidt (who was not yet a ML hitter) and Bob Boone and the acquistion of a real CF in Del Unser.

[torez77]

--You are correct 714. Carlton 72 is one of, and arguably the, best season of all time. By far the best season left off the ballot, which is why it got all three "other" votes cast so far. Three write ins on such a lengthy ballot is pretty impressive. I suspect that season would have even more supporters if not for the unfortunate oversight in leaving it off.

Again, I apologize for the oversight. Wish I could edit these polls, but I can't. I used the "Greatest Pitching Seasons" website for reference, as well as one that was mentioned on the other thread before I posted the ballot.

Even if it was on the ballot, I doubt it would beat Johnson's 1913 or Pedro's 2000. Statistically, it wasn't anywhere close to those two seasons, and the Senators weren't the easiest team in the world to win for, either. Overall, I don't think Carlton's 72 is as impressive as those two seasons, and there are others on the ballot that might be more impressive as well.

[julusnc]

Walter Johnson

[leecemark]

--Sorry if it seems like we're beating up on you for the oversight. I'm really just trying to make points for Carlton. I agree that the quanity/quality combo of Johnson season and the astounding quality of Martinez are hard to beat. To get Carlton to the top of the heap you have to take a more creative approach than just throwing the raw or adjusted numbers out there to speak for themselves.
--In comparison with Johnson you can argue than Carlton's IP were more impressive in the context of his time than Johnson's in his. In fact, nobody has equaled Carlton's IP since that season. You obviously are going to point out that Carlton was working against a much more evolved and competitive league. The arguement that Johnson also had to overcome a bad team doesn't fly here. Over the course of his career, Johnson did have below average support (although not nearly as much as people seem to think). For this single season comparison, however, Johnson's team was the second best in the league while Carlton's was the worst.
--For the Martinez comp, the quantity of their work is exhibit a. The difference between Lefty and Pedro's workload is at least as vast as the difference between their ERA+. There are several mitagating factors in regards to their ERA+ as well. The teams behind you do effect your era and Martinez had a better one. Carlton was also competing with the deepest field of starting pitchers of all time. There were more high quality pitchers working the NL of 1972 than the AL of 2000 and they were pitching a MUCH higher percentage of the available innings. That makes it much harder to finish at astronomical levels above the league average.

[RuthMayBond]

--In fact, nobody has equaled Carlton's IP since that season. You obviously are going to point out that Carlton was working against a much more evolved and competitive league.Wood beat it that year, and next year, Niekro was real close in '79

[leecemark]

--oh, i must have meant in the nl :D .

[DoubleX]

Pedro's 2000 was spectacular, especially for fans who place a lot of emphasis on ERA+. The biggest thing holding me back from selecting that season is the 217 IP. In this poll, he's going against several players with seasons of well over 300 IP - I'd be curious to see how Pedro would have held up in 2000 given an extra 100 innings of work and at least another 10 starts.

[torez77]

Pedro's 2000 was spectacular, especially for fans who place a lot of emphasis on ERA+. The biggest thing holding me back from selecting that season is the 217 IP. In this poll, he's going against several players with seasons of well over 300 IP - I'd be curious to see how Pedro would have held up in 2000 given an extra 100 innings of work and at least another 10 starts.

And I'd be curious to see those other pitchers' numbers after 217 IP and if they were as good as Pedro's. To each his own.

[leecemark]

--Looking at where other pitchers were at 217 IP would tell us exactly nothing. Martinez got his 217 6-7 innings at a time over the course of 162 games. The 300+ innning guys would have gotten there in heavy workloads over 90 or 100 games.

[torez77]

--Looking at where other pitchers were at 217 IP would tell us exactly nothing. Martinez got his 217 6-7 innings at a time over the course of 162 games. The 300+ innning guys would have gotten there in heavy workloads over 90 or 100 games.

Yeah, I'd be curious to see how he'd hold up over 300 innings. The point is, neither Pedro, or any other pitcher today, has to pitch 300 innings to be great.

[leecemark]

--Or, luckily for him, even 250. I'm certainly not disagreeing with the idea that Pedro is a great pitcher or that his best seasons are amoung the best ever. Just that he is the best or had the best indivual season (although I'm far more certain of the former than the latter).
--I am mildly curious about how he would do if asked to pitch deeper into games and more innings over the season. Not too curious though, as there is enough information available on Pedro to say with confidence his effectiveness would slip with a heavier workload and with almost as much confidence that he simply couldn't do it on a regular basis. He would almost certainly spend even more time on the DL if asked to throw the 25-50 more pitches per game he would need to go the distance.
--Martinez has as complete a package as any pitcher who has ever played the game, with the exception of stamina/durability. You really can't make a convincing argument that he could successfully take on a much larger work load if needed. That makes him less transportable to earlier eras than Clemens, Maddux or Johnson when we are comparing the current greats to the all time greats.

[Imapotato]

No Love for Leonard?

I went with Dutch Leonard just because it came out of nowhere for a good but not great pitcher

He did K 177 in that 224 IP, which is pretty amazing in deadball

There are minuses of course, one being the Federal League depletion....but I have to give him props for that season

Carlton's 72, Johnson's 13 and Cy Young's great season at 41 in 1908 I think is more impressive then his 1901 just for the age

[Bill Burgess]

Dave and the others,

What would you think about Relative Onbase average as a good, relevant stat to use for evaluating how good a season a pitcher had.

What if we simply take their opponents onbase average, and divide it by the league's yearly onbase average? Would that not approximate WHIP, only better, since it includes "hit batters & balks"? I would think it would also include batters who reach base due to catcher's dropping a third strike, few as those occasions are.

Bill Burgess

[Imapotato]

That might work Bill,

But one also has to consider the HR factor as well, maybe adjusted OPS?

Deadball pitchers have the walk and HRA already as an advantage over Carlton's 72 season for example.

We also need to keep in mind IP in regards to average IP of his competitors, so that the deadball pitchers don't look terrible as a result...ie Pedro and his 6 and out

Another thing is K's IMHO, have more to do with the batters then the pitcher in the history of baseball....deadball they rarley streuck out and one look at Heinie Groh's bat will tell you why. Today, they care less about K's if they hit 30+ Hrs

[Bill Burgess]

JT,

If one divides a pitcher's opponent's Onbase ave, by that yr. league's ave, that should cover the problems you raised. That should allow us to compare pre 1920 with post '20 seasons.

We would then be comparing pitchers with the others of that individual yr.

We'd then take their % of their work against their league. I'd call it Pitcher's Relative Onbase Ave. It's all indexed, just like for hitters. I can't see the underlying flaw. Looks all good to me. Do you agree?

Bill

[RuthMayBond]

I don't know if Mathewson necessarily separated himself from the pack in 1908 as much as some other pitchers have done, but he was 3rd in hits allowed per 9 IP, 3rd in opponents' batting average, 2nd in win% . . .
. . . and I believe first in about any other category you could think of :eek:

[torez77]

Thought I'd bring this thread back I created long ago, since there's a debate brewing on the other thread about Gooden's 1985 vs. Walter's 1913. I did make a big oversight when I left out Carlton's 1972 on the poll, but it's closed now, so....

If you guys want to do a re-do of the poll, say the word.

[csh19792001]

Thought I'd bring this thread back I created long ago, since there's a debate brewing on the other thread about Gooden's 1985 vs. Walter's 1913. I did make a big oversight when I left out Carlton's 1972 on the poll, but it's closed now, so....

If you guys want to do a re-do of the poll, say the word.

I'm learning to appreciate Pedro more, but I still go with Carlton 72.

[torez77]

I'm learning to appreciate Pedro more, but I still go with Carlton 72.

Ya don't have to rub it in! ;)

[538280]

What if we simply take their opponents onbase average, and divide it by the league's yearly onbase average? Would that not approximate WHIP, only better, since it includes "hit batters & balks"? I would think it would also include batters who reach base due to catcher's dropping a third strike, few as those occasions are.

Bill Burgess

No. I wouldn't like it, mostly for the same reasons I don't like WHIP. It would be extremely defense dependant. I think using the pitcher's slugging percentage against compared to the league average would be much better, and also of course noting the pitcher's walk and strikeout rates.