Greatest Pitcher Ever [Archive]

The Dude

07-05-2004, 09:28 AM

Well, first things first.

Black Ink
Walter-150, 1st all time
Randy-89, 9th all time

HOF Monitor-
Walter-365, 1st all time
Randy-284, 5th all time
Walter pitched about 18 full seasons, Randy's working on his 13th now, and counting. That's pretty close for 5 seasons difference.

Then, I got to the 3 most important stats-WHIP, ERA+, and SO/9 IP.

League Leads-
Walter-18
Randy-16
This is pretty close, and Randy did it against 6-8 more teams than Walter did.

Sure, Walter's ERA was amazing. Look at how it dropped post-dead ball era. I feel if Randy would have pitched in dead ball, he'd have had every season under 2.00 ERA as well. The elite pitchers ERA were under 2.00 in that time period, now their under 3.00 in this time period. They both led their league 5 times in ERA+, and Randy did it against a whole barrel full of pitchers more than walter.

Simply put, Randy Johnson is the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time. You put a 6'10 guy throwing 96-100 MPH in any time period, and he's going to strike out 250+ every season. I wouldn't even want to imagine him with a raised mound. Everyone would be pulling a Larry Walker.

And it's not just his strikeouts. He's dominating in every aspect of the game. He hasn't beein the top 10 in HR Allowed, ER allowed, or Hit's allowed since 1994. Look at this, Randy Johnson was top 5 in WHIP for 8 years straight (minusing '96 injury, and '98 trade). Odds are, that will be 9 after this season. He's been top 3 in SO's for 11 years, which is since '91 (excluding '96 injury). He's been top 5 in SHO for 9 straight seasons (excluding '96 injury. He placed top 5 in both leages in 98). Had 7 straight seasons of top 5 in CG (excluding '96, and adding both leagues in 98 together). Was top 2 in ERA+ for 6 straight seasons (excluding '96). Johnson has been dominant in every season he's pitched when he's healthy/on the same team.

Well, lets just look at one more thing.
H 9/IP
Randy: 8th all time
Walter: 30th all time

K/9 IP
Randy: 1st all time
Walter:Eh ... more than 100th all time

ERA+
Randy: 11th all time
Walter: 3rd all time

Randy will never have the Win's that Walter had, but if you give Randy an 18 year career and take out the 3 injury years of Johnson and he had an 18 year career, I feel Randy would end up the victor.

I know I'll never convince anyone, but it all make sense to me

leecemark

07-05-2004, 09:44 AM

--If you're going to compare k's per 9 for a deadballer like Walter -when NOBODY struck out 100 times - and a modern guy like Johnson - when most team have several 100 K guys your results are pretty much meaningless. Both Johnsons were the best strikeout pitchers of their time. That is significant. The rate of strikeouts is not. If you're trying to adjust other stats you have to adjust that one too. Walter has a significantly better ERA+ in twice as many inning and well over 100 more wins. Randy is great. Walter was greater.
--As for Walter's ERA going up with the live ball - everyone's did. He still led the league in 1924 at age 36 and was 4th in 1925 at 37. And Randy is in his 17th season not 13th. If some weren't full seasons it is because he took longer to master his craft than Walter. I don't give extra credit for being a slow learner.
--Randy has been a great old pitcher. It will be interesting to see how long he can keep climbing the charts.

fairpickings

07-05-2004, 09:59 AM

An excellent point about Walter Johnson's strikeouts vs. Randy Johnson's. In WJ's era a strikeout was considered the ultimate failure. And, as indicated, NOBODY struck out 100 times (or even close to it). Take any year during WJ's career, even the 1920s, and go down the stikeouts for each player. You'll see a lot of players struck out fewer than 40 times per year. Nowdays this would be considered something of a miracle!
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is complete games. Randy Johnson is much more adept at this than most pictures today, but his totals don't hold a candle to Walter's. In Walter's time the pitcher had to pace himself to go nine (and sometimes more) innings. If this meant letting up on the singles hitters and letting them get on base, so be it. When he was in a jam he could get the job done.

The Dude

07-05-2004, 11:55 AM

Give more IP to Randy, who knows where is ERA+ would be. And, the comparison is "who was the greatest pitcher" not "who learned the quickest and put up better/worse numbers".

This is my last post on the subject. I'm not going to waste any more time with this debate~

ElHalo

07-05-2004, 01:35 PM

Huh. I see that I'm the person who voted for Addie Joss. I don't know how that happened... Joss is in my all time top 10, but not top 5.

The ONLY guys that I can see a legitimate argument for are Walter Johnson and Satchell Paige, and I don't entirely buy the argument for Paige.

Randy Johnson's a great pitcher, and when he retires, he'll probably end up in my all time top 10. But he's not even the best pitcher of his own era (I give that distinction to Pedro).

scootermojo

07-05-2004, 09:42 PM

greatest pitcher? has to be walt terrel for the pirates in '90. that dude sucked! :noidea

mako224

07-05-2004, 11:09 PM

I'll say this, the greatest pitchers I have ever heard of, not by statistics, but by how they dominated were Walter Johnson and Sandy Koufax. I know no one will argue on Johnson, but many may be thinking "Why Koufax?" :noidea I think Koufax showed may have been the greatest pitcher the world has ever seen, but he did not pitch much, and his stats have no comparison to the great pitchers listed above. But I think he deserves an honarable mention based on how he could humilate the best of the best. Roger Meris, Mickey Mantel, and many more of the time. Any pitcher that could do that is very amazing. I think that Koufax was the greatest pitcher of all time, judging by talent alone, not stats.

ElHalo

07-05-2004, 11:34 PM

Mako,

Would you then not consider Carl Hubbell, who struck out, consecutively, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Joe Cronin, and Al Simmons in the 1934 AS game? 5 of the greatest hitters of all time, and he blew past them like nothing... I don't think that you can say that just dominating particular players is a certain measure of being the greatest of all time.

I was about to make the argument that even Koufax' best season, his last year, saw him put up a 190 ERA+ that ranks as only the 59th best season ever... and I noticed something odd... Tim Keefe has always ranked at the top of that list by a very wide margin, and it got me to wondering, why?... so I looked at Keefe's 1884 season, and saw that Keefe had an ERA on the season of 0.86 (12 starts, 12 complete games), but a record of only 6-6... how does that happen? Then I saw that he gave up nearly twice as many unearned runs (17) as earned runs (10) on the year. I guess that's how.

DaleC76

07-06-2004, 12:40 AM

Well, if you want to go by Win Shares (;)), Cy Young and Walter Johnson are head and shoulders above everyone else, as the only pitchers with over 500 WS (634 and 560).

Randy Johnson is way down the list, with only 261 WS, tied with Tom Glavine and behind both Roger Clemens (378) and Greg Maddux (347).

Here's the top five:

1. Cy Young 634
2. Walter Johnson 560
3. Pete Alexander 476
4. Christy Mathewson 426
5. Warren Spahn 412

mako224

07-06-2004, 12:55 AM

Yes I know ElHalo, but I just like Koufax and Johnson, I just have a feeling that if Koufax had pitched during the deadball era, he would be very similiar to Walter Johnson. Another honorable mention is Roger Clemens, I hope he keeps going like an energizer battery! :p

Imapotato

07-06-2004, 02:06 AM

Walter Johnson is #1
Cy Young is #2
Lefty Grove is #3

After that I flip flop...

leecemark

07-06-2004, 06:07 AM

--Mako, Koufax DID pitch in the deadball era - sort of. From 1963-68 averages plummeted to levels at or below those of 1901-1919 - and Dodger Stadium was the epicenter of that phenomenon. The difference was home runs, but not that many balls were flying out of Dodger Stadium.

fairpickings

07-06-2004, 12:27 PM

Randy Johnson's a great pitcher, and when he retires, he'll probably end up in my all time top 10. But he's not even the best pitcher of his own era (I give that distinction to Pedro).

Pedro? He’s been in the majors since 1992 and has won 20 games TWICE! Only 5 seasons in his career has he even pitched 200 innings. He has a LIFETIME total of only 41 complete games. I think stamina is one of the important things to take into consideration when discussing great starting pitchers, and obviously Pedro ain’t got it.

V. Cheeves

ElHalo

07-06-2004, 03:14 PM

Fairpickings,

You know, I saw your post earlier about Randy Johnson's complete games vs. Walter Johnson, and I was going to write something then, but I forgot. Now that you've reminded me, I might as well.

You can't compare the IP or CG totals of somebody today to somebody 80 years ago. The climate of the game is completely different, the way the game is played is completely different, and the way pitchers are managed are completely different. You can't hold it against modern pitchers that they don't pitch in 4 man rotations, or that the modern relief pitcher has rendered CG's all but an endagered species. That's just the way the game is today. To be perfectly honest with you, the number of CG's that a pitcher who's pitched since, say, 1980 has doesn't even enter my thought process, because in today's game, a lot of complete games for a pitcher is like a lot of sacrafice bunts for a batter... nice thing to have, but you can't hold it against a guy who doesn't have them, because it's no longer a huge part of the game.

As to Pedro and his limited IP's... yes, ever since that famously well known incident in the 1999 All Star Game, Pedro hasn't been a horse. And that can be held against him; while I'm not a huge fan of complete games, I'd much rather have a pitcher who can go 7 innings into 33 starts a season than a guy who can go 6 innings into 27. That much being said, Pedro's good enough to overcome this weakness. He's second all time in K rate, behind only Randy Johnson. And he's first in ERA+... so far ahead of the field as to make anybody else look ridiculous. His 2000 season was arguably the greatest season that a pitcher has ever had.

Would I think more of Pedro's abilities if he could pitch 240 innings every year? Absolutely. Does it take something away from him that he can only pitch 190? Sure. But not enough to overcome the fact that he's the greatest pitcher at least since Warren Spahn retired. Possibly since Lefty Grove. And that's AFTER taking points away from Pedro for being injury prone. If he could pitch 220 or 230 IP a year and keep up the same numbers... well, I might be willing to say that somebody other than Walter Johnson is the greatest pitcher of all time.

Biofury

07-06-2004, 04:17 PM

Some things in life just cant be avoided, Death, Taxes, Maddux

I made my pick based on single best pitching season.
1995 maddux for me, Since the last dozen years, with plenty of bats filled with thunder and everyone cheering for Hr's and K's, Maddux was, I believe the most dominate pitcher during his peak giving us a possible reflection of a dead-ball era ace, 19 wins, 2 loses, closer-like 1.65 era. Didnt throw the heat of a strikeout pitcher, but unlike them didnt serve up many homeruns to hitters, I also chose a righty because there are more righty batters than lefties, and righty batters usually hit better against lefties

Best power pitcher however, I believe is Sandy Koufax, '65 being my favorite

ElHalo

06-15-2005, 08:56 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Lefty Grove
4. Pedro Martinez
5. Cy Young
6. Pete Alexander
7. Warren Spahn
8. Randy Johnson
9. Satchel Paige
10. Roger Clemens

julusnc

06-15-2005, 10:18 PM

Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove or Roger Clemens.I cannot decide.My choice changes everyday.

Nolan Ryan is not even a top 30 pitcher in my opinion.

Bill Burgess

06-16-2005, 06:35 AM

Negro L. = blue
19th Century = red

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Pete Alexander
4. Cy Young
5. Roger Clemens
6. Pedro Martinez
7. Satchel Paige, NL
8. Smokey Joe Williams, NL
9. Warren Spahn
10. Lefty Grove
11. Bob Feller
12. Tom Seaver
13. Greg Maddux
14. Juan Marichal
15. Addie Joss
16. Bob Gibson
17. Mordecai Brown
18. Randy Johnson
19. Nolan Ryan
20. Amos Rusie
21. Rube Waddell
22. Sandy Koufax
23. Steve Carlton
24. Eddie Plank
25. "Bullet Joe" Rogan, NL
26. Urban Shocker
27. Kid Nichols
28. Hoyt Wilhelm
29. Ed Walsh
30. Carl Mays
31. Hoss Radbourne
32. Carl Hubbell
33. Whitey Ford
34. John Clarkson
35. Dazzy Vance
36. Tim Keefe
37. "Monte" Ward
38. Jim Palmer
39. Robin Roberts
40. Herb Pennock
41. Dizzy Dean
42. Catfish Hunter
43. Ferguson Jenkins
44. Don Sutton
45. Don Drysdale
46. Gaylord Perry
47. Phil Niedro
48. Ted Lyons
49. Rick Ferrell
50. Bob Lemon
51. Clark Griffth

Since I have no clue as to how to compare pre-1900 pitchers/Negro L., I simply insert them arbitrarily where ever my inner voice commands me to.

Baseball Guru

06-16-2005, 06:46 AM

Bill Burgess
Feb. 22, 1951
Top 50 Pitchers

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Pete Alexander
4. Cy Young
5. Lefty Grove
6. Warren Spahn
7. Satchel Paige, NL
8. Smokey Joe Williams, NL
9. Bob Feller
10. Tom Seaver
11. Roger Clemens
12. Greg Maddux
13. Juan Marichal
14. Addie Joss
15. Bob Gibson
16. Mordecai Brown
17. Randy Johnson
18. Nolan Ryan
19. Amos Rusie
20. Rube Waddell
21. Sandy Koufax
22. Steve Carlton
23. Carl Mays
24. "Bullet Joe" Rogan, NL
24. Urban Shocker
25. Kid Nichols
26. Hoyt Wilhelm
27. Ed Walsh
28. Eddie Plank
29. Hoss Radbourne
30. Carl Hubbell
31. Whitey Ford
32. John Clarkson
33. Dazzy Vance
34. Tim Keefe
35. "Monte" Ward
36. Jim Palmer
37. Robin Roberts
38. Herb Pennock
39. Dizzy Dean
40. Catfish Hunter
41. Ferguson Jenkins
42, Don Sutton
43. Don Drysdale
44. Gaylord Perry
45. Phil Niedro
46. Ted Lyons
47. Rick Ferrell
48. Pedro Martinez
49. Bob Lemon
50. Clark Griffth

Since I have no clue to how to compare pre-1900 pitchers/Negro L., I simply insert them arbitrarily where ever my inner voice commands me to.

Negro L. = blue
pre-1900 = red

Pedro Martinez shall move up shortly. Don't know what to do with him presently. But his place here is no indication of how I regard him.

Bill Burgess

Walter Johnson gets my vote!

Honestly, I think this is a great list! I think some of the few differences I would make would be to move Pedro up a bit, move Lefty over Young and move up Walsh, Koufax and Plank a bit...

Overall a very good list!

Metal Ed

06-16-2005, 06:48 AM

Bill Burgess
Feb. 22, 1951
Top 50 Pitchers

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Pete Alexander
4. Cy Young
5. Lefty Grove
6. Warren Spahn
7. Satchel Paige, NL
8. Smokey Joe Williams, NL
9. Bob Feller
10. Tom Seaver
11. Roger Clemens
12. Greg Maddux
13. Juan Marichal
14. Addie Joss
15. Bob Gibson
16. Mordecai Brown
17. Randy Johnson
18. Nolan Ryan
19. Amos Rusie
20. Rube Waddell
21. Sandy Koufax
22. Steve Carlton
23. Carl Mays
24. "Bullet Joe" Rogan, NL
24. Urban Shocker
25. Kid Nichols
26. Hoyt Wilhelm
27. Ed Walsh
28. Eddie Plank
29. Hoss Radbourne
30. Carl Hubbell
31. Whitey Ford
32. John Clarkson
33. Dazzy Vance
34. Tim Keefe
35. "Monte" Ward
36. Jim Palmer
37. Robin Roberts
38. Herb Pennock
39. Dizzy Dean
40. Catfish Hunter
41. Ferguson Jenkins
42, Don Sutton
43. Don Drysdale
44. Gaylord Perry
45. Phil Niedro
46. Ted Lyons
47. Rick Ferrell
48. Pedro Martinez
49. Bob Lemon
50. Clark Griffth

Since I have no clue to how to compare pre-1900 pitchers/Negro L., I simply insert them arbitrarily where ever my inner voice commands me to.

Negro L. = blue
pre-1900 = red

Pedro Martinez shall move up shortly. Don't know what to do with him presently. But his place here is no indication of how I regard him.

Bill Burgess

Roger Clemens behind Bob Feller. Do you expect me to take this seriously?

Bill Burgess

06-16-2005, 06:55 AM

Ed,

Whenever one goes 50 deep with pitchers, it is daunting, cause you just know you're gonna piss off a lot of people. My order after my top 3 is somewhat fluid, and I'm not above persuasion. Clemens is one of my harder choices, as is Martinez, Maddux and R. Johnson. Today's game is one of my weak areas. Strangely, I know.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

06-16-2005, 06:57 AM

I just moved up Clemens/Martinez

I'll clean it up later. Gotta run to work now. Later.

BB

RuthMayBond

06-16-2005, 07:04 AM

6. Warren SpahnI thought longevity didn't make one better :confused: Spahn's ERA+ is at the level of that guy who "doesn't even deserve to be in the Hall". You know, Mr. Blyleven

Imapotato

06-16-2005, 09:16 AM

2 votes for Nolan Ryan and I am the only one to vote for Cy Young???

The only pitcher to go through 3 major changes of rules, mound distance and league structure in his career

The man who pitched like a GOD at the age of 40 (like 50 today)

Who has one of the highest W% against his teams W% in history

Oh not to mention all those cumlative records you may have heard of those 511 wins

Nolan Ryan???

My top 5

Cy Young
Roger Clemens
Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Tom Seaver/Warren Spahn (can't decide)

ElHalo

06-16-2005, 09:23 AM

I thought longevity didn't make one better :confused: Spahn's ERA+ is at the level of that guy who "doesn't even deserve to be in the Hall". You know, Mr. Blyleven

Regardless of his ERA+, he finished in the top 10 in ERA 14 times, won twenty games 12 years in a 15 year stretch, except for 1955 got MVP votes for 15 straight years, except for 1955 finished in the top 10 in WHIP 16 straight years, has 4 K titles, is 4th all time in Black Ink and 3rd in Grey Ink. Regardless of his unimpressive ERA+, he was a spectacular pitcher, not just a good one who lasted a long time.

This is why you can't look at just one stat and get a complete picture of a player.

RuthMayBond

06-16-2005, 09:25 AM

ElHalo

06-16-2005, 09:31 AM

I'll never for the life of me understand how people rank Clemens ahead of Pedro. There wasn't a day in Clemens' life that he was as good as Pedro was from 1999-2000, and it's not like Pedro's extended peak is excessively short... 1997 to the present is a pretty sizable chunk of time.

Metal Ed

06-16-2005, 09:49 AM

My latest rankings:

1. Roger Clemens
2. Lefty Grove
3. Walter Johnson
4. Randy Johnson
5. Satchel Paige
6. Greg Maddux
7. Pete Alexander
8. Christy Mathewson
9. Tom Seaver
10. Warren Spahn

Not yet ready to rank Pedro Martinez. Want to wait another 3 and a half years.

leecemark

06-16-2005, 10:04 AM

RuthMayBond

06-16-2005, 10:09 AM

ElHalo

06-16-2005, 10:14 AM

Let's see what Pedro's like after he's got significantly more than, say, HALF of Clemens' IP

When Clemens had half the IP he does now, he didn't have a 167 ERA+, a 13.20 K/9 season, an 0.74 WHIP season, the best K/BB ratio since 1900, the third best WHIP ever, the third best BAA ever, and the second best W% since 1900, and the best stuff anybody's seen since Satchel Paige at the least. So I don't really see how that's relavent.

ElHalo

06-16-2005, 10:22 AM

Young is clearly better than Mathewson however you slice it.

ERA titles: Mathewson wins, 5-2.
WHIP: Mathewson wins, 1.08 to 1.13
K titles: Mathewson wins, 5-2.
Career shutouts: Mathewson wins, 79 - 76
Triple Crowns: Mathewson wins, 2 - 1
W/162: Mathewson again, 21 - 20
K/BB: Mathewson wins, 2.96 - 2.30

And that's not even getting into Mathewson's three complete game shutouts in five days in the WS or his 0.97 WS ERA.

Cy Young has Matty beat in quantity (and pretty much everyone else ever), but in quality, it's all Matty.

RuthMayBond

06-16-2005, 10:48 AM

ERA titles: Mathewson wins, 5-2.If you're only looking at titles

>WHIP: Mathewson wins, 1.08 to 1.13

I'd check for era differences. Young leads in WHIP titles 7-4, 19-13 in top 10

>K titles: Mathewson wins, 5-2.

I'd check for era differences again.

>Career shutouts: Mathewson wins, 79 - 76

Gee, ya think offense in Mathewson's day was a little weaker. Did Matty pitch in the mid 1890s?

>W/162: Mathewson again, 21 - 20

Using WINS?

>K/BB: Mathewson wins, 2.96 - 2.30

Era DIFFERENCES! Young leads in K/BB titles 11-9 and 20-15 in top10

Capt2712

06-16-2005, 11:47 AM

Weird thing is, You don't hear about Walter Johnson like you hear about other pitchers, I didn't put any pitchers on this list who are still presently playing.

I agree with ElHalo that Pedro is better than Roger. A little earlier in the season, opponenets were batting .151 off of him, and he also leads the leagues in strikeouts, or did, depends now.

leecemark

06-16-2005, 12:05 PM

Cap, if you spend any time around here you'l hear plenty about the Big Train. A majority of our members consider him the best ever. I think thats the consenus amoung serious baseball fans everywhere, although I've moved Clemens up to #1 myself.

538280

06-16-2005, 12:07 PM

1.Walter Johnson
2.Satchel Paige
3.Lefty Grove
4.Cy Young
5.Smokey Joe Williams
6.Bob Gibson
7.Pete Alexander
8.Greg Maddux
9.Christy Mathewson
10.Roger Clemens

538280

06-16-2005, 12:10 PM

Capt2712,

When you make a poll, don't forget to check the box that says "Make votes public", so that we know who voted for whom (I'm filling in for you, Bill, since you haven't said anything).

BoSox Rule

06-16-2005, 12:27 PM

1. Roger Clemens.

Never better than Pedro, but he has 2190 more innings.

538280

06-16-2005, 12:30 PM

1. Roger Clemens.

Never better than Pedro, but he has 2190 more innings.

Why do you think Roger is better than Walter Johnson?

BoSox Rule

06-16-2005, 12:31 PM

Circumstances, conditions...

RuthMayBond

06-16-2005, 12:35 PM

When Clemens had half the IP he does now, he didn't have a 167 ERA+, a 13.20 K/9 season, an 0.74 WHIP season, the best K/BB ratio since 1900, the third best WHIP ever, the third best BAA ever, and the second best W% since 1900, and the best stuff anybody's seen since Satchel Paige at the least. So I don't really see how that's relavent.By that reasoning, Koufax/Vance were pretty worthless and Garr/Lynn/Mattingly/Giambi etc. were HoF material

Metal Ed

06-16-2005, 12:37 PM

Why do you think Roger is better than Walter Johnson?

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=27474&highlight=roger+clemens

SABR Matt

06-16-2005, 02:04 PM

Greg Maddux

*ducks*

Bill Burgess

06-16-2005, 02:32 PM

Thank you, Chris. I am so pleased to see you becoming such an ingrained fixture here. You're adding to the quality of the debate constantly. Keep it up, brother.

Bill

ElHalo

06-16-2005, 02:36 PM

Greg Maddux

*ducks*

Yes, because a guy who's never finished in the top 5 in K rate in his own league must most assuredly be the greatest of all time.

Blackout

06-16-2005, 03:14 PM

Yes, because a guy who's never finished in the top 5 in K rate in his own league must most assuredly be the greatest of all time.

some pitchers just arent S.O. pitchers, its just not their style

its just as impressive to get a batter out with 1 pitch as it is with 3 pitches

with that said, I'd still take Roger, Pedro and Randy over Maddox :D

therealnod

06-16-2005, 03:21 PM

Greg Maddux

*ducks*
You certainly don't need to duck around me. If Roger Clemens isn't the best pitcher ever then Greg Maddux is.

ElHalo

06-16-2005, 03:45 PM

some pitchers just arent S.O. pitchers, its just not their style.

This is like saying "some coffee shops just don't serve coffee." Being able to strike guys out consistently is part and parcel of being a good pitcher, let alone a great one.

538280

06-16-2005, 04:41 PM

Circumstances, conditions...

All right, I understand, the whole deadball, lively ball thing. Well, then why is Clemens better than Lefty Grove?

JACKIE42

06-16-2005, 06:13 PM

Vic Lombardi, or Bobo Newsom.

JACKIE42

06-16-2005, 06:29 PM

BOBO

By

John B Holway

/// The Hall of Fame veterans committee will vote soon. They will not elect Bobo Newsom, who is not even on the ballot. The following is from my forthcoming book, The Last 400 Hitter.///

Louis "Buck" Newsom was usually called "Bobo," because that's what he called everybody else. He was one of the great characters who seem to rise especially among pitchers - Rube Waddell, Satchel Paige, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, and others.

A good ol' country boy from South Ca'lina, Newsom won 33 games in the Pacific Coast league in 1932. The record books show 30, but as Bobo asked, "Who ya gonna believe, the record book or the guy what did it?"

As a rookie with the sixth-place St Louis Browns, Newsom won 20 games, including a no-hitter, which he lost with two out in the tenth. How many no-hitters did he pitch in all?

"Just the one, son, they don't grow in bunches like bananas, you know."

Bobo was given the honor of opening the 1936 season in Washington in front of President Franklin Roosevelt. The Browns owner promised him a suit of clothes if he won. In the third inning his third baseman whipped a ball across the diamond, but Buck forgot to duck, and the ball caught him on the side of the face. Clutching his head, he staggered in agony while his manager offered to take him out.

"Naw," Newsom said, "Ol' FDR came to see Bobo, and he's gonna see him all the way." He won the game 1-0.

The owner pressed some bills into his hand. "Keep the sugar, Bobo," Newsom said, "Bobo bought the suit before the game. The bill is on your desk."

Later they found his jaw broken in two places; it had to be wired shut.

In another game, after the plate umpire repeatedly called his best pitches balls, Newsom finally got a strike call. Walking to home plate, he swept his cap off and bowed at the waist. "Thank you, my dear fellow," he said. Of course he was thumbed out of the game.

Like Waddell, Paige, and Dean, Newsom was not just a buffoon. He could pitch. He was one of the first men to throw a slider, then called a "nickel curve," now a common pitch in most hurlers' repertoires. Ted Williams said it gave hitters one more pitch to worry about and indicted it as one reason batters don't hit .400 any more.

In 1939, the year he joined the Tigers, Buck got in a fight with writer Robert Ruark. At least Ruark was fighting. Bobo was drinking a soda with one hand and holding Ruark at arm's length with the other.

Williams can't help grinning. "Tell a funny story about Buck Newsom: He told everyone he had found Joe DiMaggio's weakness - curve balls low. That day DiMaggio hit two doubles, hit 'em off low curve balls. They all said, "Well, have you found DiMaggio's weakness?" He said, "Yeah, a weakness for doubles."

I saw my first big-league game in 1940, when our school team got free passes to see the Yankees play Bobo Newsom and the Detroit Tigers. We sat way out in the leftfield mezzanine, from whence the players looked like pin-striped ants. Bob won the game, one of 21 he would win to lead the Tigers to the pennant.

Traded from the lowly Browns to the mighty Tigers in 1940, Bobo proved he was more than a country buffoon. He won 20 games and led the Tigers to their first pennant since 1909.

He won the opening game of the World Series against Cincinnati 7-2. Three days later his father suddenly died, but Newsom insisted on pitching the next day and hurled a three-hit shutout to win it "for my dad." With only one day's rest, he started game seven and lost it 2-1.

The Tigers rewarded him with a $35,000 contract, topping Bob Feller, who, at $30,000 had been the highest paid hurler in the game. Bobo bustled into the Tiger's front office to sign the contract with owner Walter O Briggs, brushing past Briggs' son, vice-president Walter "Spike" Briggs Jr. "Out of the way, Little Bo," he said, "Big Bobo wants to talk to me."

With his new wealth Bobo dined nightly on snails and champagne at his specially reserved table in Detroit's leading hotel and tooled around town in a sports car with neon lights and a horn that played "Tiger Rag."

Bobo fell on bad times in '41, losing 20 games as the Tigers stumbled to fourth place. However, he was the most effective pitcher in the league against Ted Williams, who batted .406. Newsom held him hitless in nine at bats until Ted singled in his last try. Ted would have hit .413 without Bob in the league.

But the Tigers' bald-headed general manager, Jack Zeller, cut Bobo's pay to $12,500. Zeller had just had 90 minor leaguers cut from its farm system in a ruling by Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis. "Hell, Curly," Bobo said, "you lost 90 players, and I don't see you takin' no pay cut."

That winter Zeller peddled him to the Dodgers, and Bobo wired manager Leo Durocher: "Wish to congratulate you on buying pennant insurance."

Back in the American League, Newsom announced that he would beat his old club, the Senators. The park was packed with Washington fans, who had come to boo him. Bobo pitched a two-hitter and walked off the field, thumbing his nose.

Pitching for a succession of second-division teams, Newsom nevertheless ended his career with 211 wins and 222 defeats. His ERA was high as managers left him in in meaningless losing games, because their bull pens weren't any better.

His Tiger teammate, Hank Greenberg, believed Buck should be in the Hall of Fame. I do too.

Bobo ended his career back in Washington. It was Bobo's fifth term in the capital, and he boasted that he had beaten Franklin Roosevelt's record by one.
http://baseballguru.com/jholway/analysisjholway40.html

http://www.vintagecardtraders.com/virtual/36goudey/36goudey-22.jpg

BoSox Rule

06-16-2005, 06:43 PM

All right, I understand, the whole deadball, lively ball thing. Well, then why is Clemens better than Lefty Grove?
His numbers are just better.

538280

06-16-2005, 07:04 PM

His numbers are just better.

Umm.... Not really. Here's a comparison:

ERA+-Grove 148, Clemens 141 (Grove led the league in ERA+ 9 times, and four years in a row from 1929-1932. Clemens led the league 7 times.)

Pitcher Runs Prevented(through 2003)-Grove 622, Clemens 600 (Per nine innings, Clemens has 1.26 runs prevented, Grove has 1.42. Grove led the league 7 times in this category, and five straight years from 1928-1932. Clemens also led the league 7 times.)

Pitcher Wins (not regular wins, a metric)-Clemens 61.7 Grove 59.1 (Per nine innings, Grove is at 0.135, Clemens is at 0.130.)

So, these metrics show Grove being a little bit better. Now you're probably going to say that Clemens had better longevity. In response to that, I say that Grove spent the first few years of his prime with the minor league Baltimore Orioles. He was extremely dominant in those leagues. Remember, the minors of those days weren't like the minors of today. The level of play was probably between a AAA and MLB level, and I think this took considerable wins and longevity ratings away from Grove. I think if Grove signed with a major league team instead of the Orioles, he would probably have retired with about 350 wins.

So, Grove really has better stats than Roger Clemens.

ScrewBll45

06-16-2005, 07:12 PM

1. Sandy Koufax
2. Nolan Ryan(most of his records will never be touched)
3. Tom Seaver
4. Steve Carlton

csh19792001

06-16-2005, 07:21 PM

-ME, our top 3 are the same and 9 of our top 10. Don't see how you can't have Cy Young in your top 10 though. #1 in wins and IP by a huge margin and still has a better ERA+ than several of your selections. No matter how steep you discount for the conditions he played under that is a top 10 (top 5 IMO) resume. His career overlapped Chrsity Mathewson's, who did make your list, by 10 full seasons. Young is clearly better than Mathewson however you slice it.

Metal Ed-
In complete agreement with Mark (and a few others who have opined) here; if you don't have Cy Young is your top 10, it has to be a clerical error or categorical (chronologically based) omission.

Dave Kent, a brillant stat guy who no longer posts here, ran this analysis quite awhile back.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=191153&postcount=12

So, as we can glean from this clever riposte, Cy Young has roughly the quality AND quantity of Christy Mathewson and Addie Joss combined . The best pitch count estimates I've seen have him at about 110,000 pitches thrown (about 20,000 more than Nolan Ryan, who falls in second place). And let's not forget that this analysis completely neglects that he pitched about 5,000 innings (1890-1902) without the foul strike rule. What would his career pitch count be then?

In any case, the guy was superhuman, and he's an immortal. Obviously one of the top 5 greatest pitchers in history.

Bluesteve32

06-16-2005, 08:48 PM

Walter Johnson, a graduate of Fullerton High here in California, is my pick. I am seeing one of my favorite players, Nolan Ryan is getting little love here. If any of you saw the second no-hitter against Detroit, which also was his second of that season, was among the finest games ever pitched by any pitcher.

Metal Ed

06-17-2005, 06:20 AM

I have Roger first and Lefty second, so it's very close, but I think Roger is better.

>>>>Pitcher Runs Prevented(through 2003)-Grove 622, Clemens 600 (Per nine innings, Clemens has 1.26 runs prevented, Grove has 1.42.

Not sure how this works since PR is calculated on a per inning basis. The formula is (league ERA - pitcher's ERA) x (IP/9). I mean, IP/9 is already part of the formula, so the logic of then dividing the result by 9 innings once more, escapes me. Could you explain further?

Metal Ed

06-17-2005, 06:39 AM

Bill Burgess
Feb. 22, 1951
Top 50 Pitchers

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Pete Alexander
4. Cy Young
5. Roger Clemens
6. Pedro Martinez
7. Satchel Paige, NL
8. Smokey Joe Williams, NL
9. Warren Spahn
10. Lefty Grove

Bill Burgess

WOW. Even I don't have Pedro at no. 6. Could it be that I've done my job TOO well?

Anyway, much appreciated to see that my two faves have crashed into your top ten in such spectacular fashion.

RuthMayBond

06-17-2005, 07:11 AM

Yes, because a guy who's never finished in the top 5 in K rate in his own league must most assuredly be the greatest of all time.Cy Young barely did, but you have your own arbitrary cutoff

RuthMayBond

06-17-2005, 07:13 AM

1. Sandy Koufax
2. Nolan Ryan(most of his records will never be touched)
3. Tom Seaver
4. Steve CarltonI don't even have any of these in my top dozen :eek:

ElHalo

06-17-2005, 08:20 AM

I don't even have any of these in my top dozen :eek:

I don't have any of them in my top 15.

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE

06-17-2005, 11:23 AM

Top 10

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Matthewson
3. Roger Clemens
4. Cy Young
5. Satchel Paige
6. Pete Alexander
7. Warren Spahn
8. Randy Johnson
9. Steve Carlton
10. Nolan Ryan

Metal Ed

06-17-2005, 11:28 AM

Top 10

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Matthewson
3. Roger Clemens
4. Cy Young
5. Satchel Paige
6. Pete Alexander
7. Warren Spahn
8. Randy Johnson
9. Steve Carlton
10. Nolan Ryan

Do you really think that Lefty Grove doesn't belong in the top 10? :noidea

RuthMayBond

06-17-2005, 11:46 AM

Do you really think that Lefty Grove doesn't belong in the top 10? :noideaBut Ryan and Carlton do? :confused:

Bill Burgess

06-17-2005, 12:03 PM

Ed,

WOW. Even I don't have Pedro at no. 6. Could it be that I've done my job TOO well?

Anyway, much appreciated to see that my two faves have crashed into your top ten in such spectacular fashion.

Well, Ed. You are a persuasive guy. And ElHalo gave you a huge assist on Pedro. So you/Jim formed a nice DP combo to give Pedro a boost up the chain. I'd normally like to see how he fares after his mid-career adjustments/decline, but I can always move him back down, if he gets hurt or falls apart.

But for now, we'll leave him sittin' pretty. I told you guys I'm not the badass I've been made out to be. I'm cheesecake. Alway bowing to Fever pressure. Hope I still respect myself in the morning.

Bill

Bill Burgess

06-17-2005, 12:07 PM

BigStelly,

If no ones comments on your list, that doesn't mean that you're boring. It means that no one finds major issues with it, yet. Hang around longer. You're sure to piss someone off, sooner or later.

Bill

abacab

06-17-2005, 12:20 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Lefty Grove
3. Cy Young
4. Roger Clemens
5. Grover Alexander
6. Greg Maddux
7. Tom Seaver
8. Christy Mathewson
9. Satchel Paige
10. Randy Johnson

I recognize the strong case for Clemens as #1, which gets better with every start he makes.

BigStellyPADRES4LIFE

06-17-2005, 02:12 PM

Do you really think that Lefty Grove doesn't belong in the top 10? :noidea

Ya know i forgot about him

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Matthewson
3. Roger Clemens
4. Lefty Grove
5. Cy Young
6. Satchel Paige
7. Pete Alexander
8. Warren Spahn
9. Randy Johnson
10a. Steve Carlton
10b. Nolan Ryan
I cant decide between the last two both are there for different reasons.

The Splendid Splinter

06-17-2005, 03:48 PM

I was a bit concerned! But then I know how bright you are. But then, some here have left Cy Young off their alltime lists simply because he played a significant portion of his career pre-1900, with different rules. I think Cy proved that he was awesome no matter what the rules/conditions, but suppose I understand those who put his success down to playing old tyme "base ball".

So where is he on your alltime greatest list?

Cy's 21st on my all time list, 6th in pitchers behind Walter Johnson, Paige, Mathewson, Grove, and Clemens.

westsidegrounds

06-17-2005, 05:43 PM

here's some interesting career stats: the top ten, among pitchers with at least 200 wins since 1900, in Normalized Winning Percentage and Wins Above Team. The lists are from a May 24, 2003 article in The Daily Star Online by Bill Deane.

Normalized Winning Percentage Top Ten:

Randy Johnson .687
Roger Clemens .651
Lefty Grove .643
Grover Alexander .640
Whitey Ford .630
Walter Johnson .629
Cy Young .621
Christy Mathewson .616
Tom Seaver .614
Greg Maddux .602

Wins Above Team Top Ten:

Cy Young 99.7
Walter Johnson 90.0
Grover Alexander 81.6
Roger Clemens 66.9
Christy Mathewson 64.9
Lefty Grove 62.9
Randy Johnson 61.8
Tom Seaver 58.9
Warren Spahn 45.8
Whitey Ford 44.4

Pretty interesting, huh? Probably quite a few people will be surprised to see Ol' Cy looks mighty good compared to modern hotshots like Clemens and Randy Johnson. And maybe even more surprised to see The Chairman of the Board right up there with the Immortals. I know I was.

ScrewBll45

06-17-2005, 09:07 PM

I don't even have any of these in my top dozen :eek:

It's partly due to my total lack on knowledge of anything pre late 1940's. If I knew as much as ya'll it would most likely be different. Plus I LOVE the 1960's and 1970's.

Designated Fielder

07-17-2005, 08:14 AM

Maybe, this should be a poll, but I am wondering who to put on the poll. Who is the greatest pitcher in the National League? The American League seems easier Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens or Lefty Grove.

Right now, National League candidates seem to include the dead ball stars of Christy Mathewson and Grover Cleveland Alexander, and then guys like Warren Spahn, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, and Sandy Koufax. Am I forgetting someone?

leecemark

07-17-2005, 08:25 AM

--Greg Maddux should not only be included, he would get my vote.

Bill Burgess

07-17-2005, 08:27 AM

The ones you listed plus Maddux, Dean, Hubbell, M. Brown, Vance, Roberts, Gibson, Marichal,

Even though they win not garner votes, that's a nice list to start off with, and don't forget to include OTHER, and check the box to make the selections public!

Bill

You're probably not intending to include the ancient ones, but just in case you were, below are the form chart.

Pre - 1900: Tim Keefe, John "Monte" Ward, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Jim "Pud" Galvin, Mickey Welch, Sadie McMahon, Jim McCormick, Charlie "Hoss" Radbourne, Amos Rusie, Jim Whitney, Larry Corcoran, Al Spalding, Cy Young, Kid Nichols,

SABR Matt

07-17-2005, 08:42 AM

Greg Maddux.

Maddux blows away the competition in the NL IMHO

LouGehrig

07-17-2005, 08:57 AM

Didn't (doesn't) Pedro pitch in the NL?

SABR Matt

07-17-2005, 09:31 AM

his greatest success came as a Red Sock though

ElHalo

07-17-2005, 10:47 AM

Christy Mathewson, easily, in my view.

csh19792001

07-17-2005, 11:51 AM

Greg Maddux.

Maddux blows away the competition in the NL IMHO

Can a poll be added after we debate it for awhile?

ElHalo

07-17-2005, 12:19 PM

Greg Maddux.

Maddux blows away the competition in the NL IMHO

Hm. Let's see where I rate Maddux...

1. Mathewson
2. Alexander
3. Spahn
4. Brown
5. Hubbell
6. Maddux
7. Seaver
8. Carlton
9. Koufax
10. Dean

ScrewBll45

07-17-2005, 01:16 PM

I throw my hat behind Steve Carlton, 329 wins ,5217 innings pitched and to top it all off 4136 career k's. I choose him even though he did down my Astros back in 1980 ;)

Designated Fielder

07-17-2005, 03:21 PM

Why Greg Maddux?

I am much more inclined towards Seaver or Carlton in the post dead ball era. Pete Alexander should be just as much a caliber of dead ball pitcher as Christy Mathewson in the dead ball era.

mordeci

07-17-2005, 03:51 PM

Christy Mathewson, easily, in my view.

Thank you. Maddux was mentioned several times and even Pedro was mentioned before anyone brought up Big Six, I was beginning to think I misunderstood the question.

Bill Burgess

07-17-2005, 03:57 PM

OK guys, time for the poll. Set 'er up!

BB

PopTop

07-17-2005, 04:32 PM

The ones you listed plus Maddux, Dean, Hubbell, M. Brown, Vance, Roberts, Gibson, Marichal ... Even though they win not garner votes, that's a nice list to start off with, and don't forget to include OTHER, and check the box to make the selections public!Excellent additions, Wild Bill :cool:

Bill Burgess

07-17-2005, 06:04 PM

Thanks, PopTop. Much obliged. Just trying to stay useful.

BB

Bill Burgess

07-17-2005, 06:07 PM

1. Mathewson
2. Alexander
3. Spahn
4. Maddux
5. Seaver
6. M. Brown
7. Marichal
8. Gibson
9. Vance
10. Carlton
11. Roberts

leecemark

07-17-2005, 07:47 PM

1. Maddux
2. Alexander
3. Seaver
4. Spahn
5. Mathewson
6. Carlton
7. Gibson
8. Koufax
9. Marichal
10. Roberts
--HM; Cy Young (I think him more as a AL pitcher, but he won 300+ in his half career in the NL), Miner Brown, Dazzy Vance.

Windy City Fan

04-30-2006, 01:25 PM

Format: We'll use a ten man ballot. The first spot on the ballot being worth 10 points and the last spot being worth one. We'll go to 25 and see if its worth continuing from there.

Also, if I think anyone is trying to rig a ballot to help or hinder a certain player, I'll ask that you justify it. As long as you can provide a credible reasoning or defense for your ballot it will be counted.

..............

Please include some discussion, as that's what makes these threads interesting. I'll kick things off by providing a few numbers on the top 5 choices in my mind.

Ten Best ERA+ Seasons
----------1st--2nd--3rd--4th--5th--6th--7th--8th--9th--10th--Career
Maddux---273---259--191--191--171--166--162--157--155--144---138
Clemens--226---221---211--177--176--175--169--164--154--145---143
Johnson--259---240--214--214--191--183--172--164--148--147---146
Grove----219---190--185--185--166--160--159--158--155--151---148
Young----216---194--176--166--153--152--148--145--145--143---138

The leaders are bolded. Maddux's top two seasons are easily the best. In fact his second best season matches the best season of his competitors. After that, Johnson has a long run in the middle, which goes a way in showing just how consistently great he was. Grove picks up the last 3 seasons, including one tie with Maddux.

Of course we all know ERA+ is not an end all, be all stat. For Johnson and Young, team defense played a larger role in ERA+. I know Johnson's teams were generally poor, but I don't know how solid the glovework was behind him. Young's teams were a mixed bag, Cleveland at the begining of his career and Bost at the end were terrible. But Cleveland turned itself into a competitive ballclub after a few years, and Boston was a top team when Young first joined them. Again, this doesn't mean the bad team had horrible team defense and the good teams were all wizards with the gloves, but it gives a general indication. Perhaps someone with some more knowledge of these teams and players can pipe in?

Much as already been posted about Grove's usage pattern of pitching against weaker teams aiding his ERA+. It's a serious enough issue in my mind to knock him out of any serious consideration for the top spot.

When it comes to era adjustment, Clemens and Maddux have the advantage. The AL where Clemens spent most of his career had better top tier stars, but I'm not sure there was a real difference in the overall depth between the leagues. I do think Clemens had a slight ERA+ advantage in facing a DH every game, as it gave him 9 batters to differentiate himself from the league, were Maddux and the others only had 8 hitters to stand out from the league, and one gimme that even average pitchers could dominate (that being of course the opposing pitcher).

I'd say Maddux comes out looking the best by a hair when measuring their ten best ERA+ seasons. Clemens is second, then Johnson and I'd probably take Grove and his questionable usage pattern over Young and the weaker competition of the 190-1910 era.

Ink Value Score
Innings Pitched
Maddux-120
Clemens-79
Johnson-119
Grove-74
Young-123

Ink value score is a little thing I came up with to help put ink numbers in perspective. Black ink is too narrow in my mind to use as a definative comparison. Grey ink is too broad, as a second place finish counts for no more than a tenth place finish. So I took their grey ink finishes and added point values to them. Finishing first was worth ten Ink Value Points, finishing tenth was worth one.

No surprise that Young leads the pack here, since his endurance is legendary. However, Maddux was a surprise second place finish, nearly equally Young. I was also surprised to see Clemens so much lower. Especially since Clemens actually averaged more innings/game than his contemporary Maddux. I think part of that was due to league conditions. NL pitchers are more likely to get pulled for a pinch hitter when behind. AL starters can go until they run outta gas. So Maddux can pitch less innings (not really a lot less) and still get better ink scores. You can see this even in Clemens' last year. Despite having an outstanding ERA, he didn't make the top ten in innings. Part of this was due to his poor run support. The team being behind in the game would lift Clemens for a pinch hitter. (This also helps explain why he was limited to only 13 wins with such a great ERA+)

Ink scores, especially grey ink, tends to favor old timers a bit as well. So with a modest adjustment, one could argue Maddux comes out on top here too.

Ink Value Score
WHIP
Maddux - 111
Clemens - 104
Johnson - 126
Grove - 89
Young - 151

Wow! Young blows the competition away here. Just for the record, 7 times the lead the league in WHIP, and he finished in the top 5 17 times. Granted his compeition was weak, but he was truly outstanding at the WHIP game.

All in all, I think it comes down to Maddux or Clemens. Though Johnson still has a strong case. I had been a Maddux supporter, but Clemens' last year made me rethink that stance, but looking at them again, I think I've come back around to Maddux.

Still, I'm interested to see how the discussion goes, so I'm gonna hold off on casting my own ballot to see if the supporters of the other candidates for the top spot can sway me.

leecemark

04-30-2006, 01:27 PM

1) Clemens
2) W. Johnson
3) Young
4) Maddux
5) Alexander
6) Grove
7) Seaver
8) Paige
9) Spahn
10) Mathewson

baseballPAP

04-30-2006, 01:41 PM

1 Walter Johnson
2 Roger Clemens
3 Lefty Grove
4 Greg Maddux
5 Cy Young
6 Pete Alexander
7 Pedro Martinez
8 Satchel Paige
9 Christy Mathewson
10 Warren Spahn

The Dude

04-30-2006, 01:57 PM

1.Pete Alexander
2.Lefty Grove
3.Greg Maddux
4.Walter Johnson
5.Randy Johnson
6.Roger Clemens
7.Warren Spahn
8.Tom Seaver
9.Christy Mathewson
10.Bob Feller

538280

04-30-2006, 04:42 PM

We just had one of these like two months ago, but I'll stil participate in the new one:

1.Greg Maddux
2.Roger Clemens
3.Walter Johnson
4.Lefty Grove
5.Pete Alexander
6.Cy Young
7.Bob Gibson
8.Tom Seaver
9.Satchel Paige
10.Warren Spahn

Next Up:
11.Pedro Martinez
12.Christy Mathewson
13.Robin Roberts
14.Bob Feller
15.Steve Carlton
16.Smokey Joe Williams
17.Randy Johnson
18.Gaylord Perry
19.Juan Marichal
20.Fergie Jenkins

Sockeye

04-30-2006, 07:24 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Cy Young
4. Pete Alexander
5. Roger Clemens
6. Tom Seaver
7. Eddie Plank
8. Greg Maddux
9. Warren Spahn
10. Tim Keefe

Pghfan987

04-30-2006, 07:47 PM

My rankings change all the time, except 1 and 2.

1) Walter Johnson
2) Lefty Grove
3) Satchel Paige
4) Greg Maddux
5) Roger Clemens
6) Pete Alexander
7) Christy Mathewson
8) Cy Young
9) Pedro Martinez
10) Sandy Koufax

Matthew C.

04-30-2006, 07:56 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Cy Young
3. Roger Clemens
4. Pete Alexander
5. Lefty Grove
6. Christy Mathewson
7. Greg Maddux...and soon to pass Mathewson
8. Warren Spahn
9. Tom Seaver
10. Satchel Paige

11. Randy Johnson
12. Kid Nichols
13. Bob Gibson
14. Pedro Martinez
15. Carl Hubbell
16. Bob Feller
17. Mordecai Brown
18. Steve Carlton
19. Whitey Ford
20. Jim Palmer

We have done #'s 1-25 many times with a suprising amount of similarity. I would love to see everybody's top 50, since after about # 35 or so it gets pretty interesting.

Windy City Fan

04-30-2006, 07:56 PM

Discussion, people, I want some discussion.

Why is (insert name) better than Johnson, Maddux, Clemens, Young, Grove, ect.? Particularly if your bucking conventional wisdom that says Walter was the best ever, what makes your guy(s) greater in your eyes?

Murderers Row

04-30-2006, 08:00 PM

W. Johnson
Cy Young
Peter Alexander
Roger Clemens
Lefty Grove
Christy Matthewson
Greg Maddux
Tom Seaver
Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez

Windy City Fan

04-30-2006, 08:05 PM

1. Maddux
2. Clemens
3. W. Johnson
4. Young
5. Grove
6. Alexander
7. Mathewson
8. Seaver
9. R. Johnson
10. Paige

Yankee Legend

04-30-2006, 08:05 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Roger Clemens
3. Christy Matthewson
4. Lefty Grove
5. Tom Seaver
6. Greg Maddux
7. Steve Carlton
8. Randy Johnson
9. Cy Young
10. Pete Alexander

Windy City Fan

04-30-2006, 08:31 PM

The standings after 10 ballots (parathesis is the number ballots the player was named on):

W. Johnson (10) 92
Clemens (10) 78
Maddux (10) 65
Grove (9) 63
Alexander (10) 60
Young (9) 57
Mathewson (9) 39
Seaver (8) 29
Paige (6) 18
Spahn (6) 13
R. Johnson (4) 13
Matinez (3) 7
6 other pitchers have recieved one vote and no more than 4 points.

Not surprisingly, Johnson retains his stanglehold on the top spot and Clemens is nipping at his heels. A 4 way dog fight is emerging for the next spot between Maddux, Grove, Young, and Alexander. Their respective supporters might want to start promoting their chosen star. ;)

I was surprised to see Young and Grove left off of ballots. Dudecar and Sockeye, would you care to explain why? (this is not an official request, just an attempt to spur some discussion)

Sockeye

04-30-2006, 08:40 PM

Pghfan987

04-30-2006, 08:44 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Cy Young
4. Pete Alexander
5. Roger Clemens
6. Tom Seaver
7. Eddie Plank
8. Greg Maddux
9. Warren Spahn
10. Tim Keefe

If we get a veto, I veto this ballot. A ballot without Grove on it is either a mistake or someone who is purposely trying to keep Grove out for some reason.

Pghfan987

04-30-2006, 08:46 PM

I'm surprised that Gettysburg Eddie (7th on my list) hasn't made anyone elses top 10 list. 326 career wins (12th all time). He's 5th all time in shutouts with 69 behind only Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, & Young. Sensational .627 winning %, 2.35 ERA, 122 ERA+ and a WHIP of 1.119.
Ask 1,000 avid A's fans who are history buffs and I would say that maybe 10 would put Plank over Grove. Grove is head and shoulders above all of the other great A's great (Plank, Waddell, Bender).

Plank currently ranks 3rd on my all-time list for left-handers who pitched for the Philadelphia Athletics.

Windy City Fan

04-30-2006, 08:48 PM

I'd be very surprised if Plank made the top 15, and he may have trouble cracking the top 20. Most people here don't put a lot of stock in wins, winning percentage, or raw ERA or WHIP. The first two are highly team dependent, the last two are subject to league conditions. Shutouts were also a lot easier to accumulate during Plank's era as well, so that raw figure doesn't tell us a lot. Notice the four men he is behind are all pretty much contemporaries of Plank's. Deadball era = tons of shutouts and complete games. His ERA+ is nice, but 122 puts him tied for 80th all time - not exactly top ten material.

leecemark

04-30-2006, 08:52 PM

--You don't think Plank is better than Grove:crazy ? Grove was the best pitcher in baseball MOST seasons during his career. Plank was only occasionally the best on his own team. He is the deadball version of Early Wynn or Don Sutton.
--I can't see leaving Cy Young out of the top 10 (or top 5 for that matter) either. Young pitched more innings and won more games - by far - than any other pitcher in history. He wasn't JUST durable either. His rates are better than Mathewson and Alexander.

Windy City Fan

04-30-2006, 08:52 PM

If we get a veto, I veto this ballot. A ballot without Grove on it is either a mistake or someone who is purposely trying to keep Grove out for some reason.

Sockeye doesn't believe in relative stats, so that hurts Grove immensely. (Strangely enough, he does have Clemens and Maddux on his list, and their raw numbers aren't too different from Grove in terms of ERA). He's gone on the record before discounting Grove, so while I think his reasoning is highly flawed, it is a legitimate ballot.

julusnc

04-30-2006, 09:11 PM

1.Roger Clemens
2.Walter Johnson
3.Left Grove
4.Grover Cleveland Alexander
5.Christy Mathewson
6.Tom Seaver
7.Cy Young
8.Greg Maddux
9.Warren Spahn
10.Pedro Martinez

Sockeye

04-30-2006, 09:27 PM

I was surprised to see Young and Grove left off of ballots. Dudecar and Sockeye, would you care to explain why? (this is not an official request, just an attempt to spur some discussion)

Grove had been in my top 5 but after serious consideration I droped him out of my top ten. Yes his ERA+ of 148 is quite impressive as is his .680 career winning %. Two things that bothered me and caused his drop is his 1.278 WHIP and the fact that he only had 35 career shutouts. I realize he played in an extremely offensive era. Still I feel those numbers should be a little better if he is going to make my top 10 list.

leecemark

04-30-2006, 09:32 PM

The Dude

04-30-2006, 09:36 PM

Cy Young spent half of his career pitching in the 19th century, therefor I don't believe I can accuratley analyze his career and where he should be ranked.

leecemark

04-30-2006, 09:44 PM

--He pitched as much in the 20th century as Mathewson .....and more than Randy Johnson or Lefty Grove or Whitey Ford (and how did he make your ballot?). In any case, there was really no fundamental change in the game in 1900 that makes 1890s numbers harder to analyze than the 1900s. For that matter I think Young deserves extra credit for making the switch to the modern pitching distance (although the vast majority of his career was after) when many pitchers weren't able to do so.

The Dude

04-30-2006, 09:53 PM

Walter Johnson has the most black ink of all time.
Who has the second most? Grover Cleveland Alexander does.

There's no question that Walter Johnson was a better thrower than Grover. But I think we can make an arguement for Grover being the better pitcher. This is first seen by their career BB/9 IP, in which Grover ranks 33rd all time, leading his league five times, compared to The Train's twice leading his league, and not placing on the top 100.

Grover also excells in something I hold very dearly, which is probably due to my yearning for the golden age of baseball which I was sadly born after. What is this I hold dear? Innings Pitched. Yes, Walter Johnson pitched more innings total than Grover. But as some may know and some may not, I am one who tends to go towards peak. And we can see that Pete Alexander leads his league in IP seven times, compared to Walters 5.

Now, enough for statistics.

A while back there was a theory that someone proposed here on BBF; the theory had a big impact on me. Early I mentioned that there is no doubt that Walter Johnson was the better thrower. This idea was expanded upon in that Walter Johnson had nothing but his fastball. Had Walter Johnson had to pitch 60 years later in a much tougher league, he would have been Nolan Ryan without a curveball. There's no doubt in my mind that his coaches would have tried their hardest to teach Johnson how to throw an off-speed pitch. I am a big LQ guy, so this has a huge sway on my opinion in moving Walter down in my rankings. His domination was just so much though, that even with this theory and LQ adjustments, he still makes my top 10.

There is also another part to Grover that I believe we must examine, and that is his ERA+. It's top 25 all time, but it's still less than Walters. Why? Simple. He pitched in Bakers Bowl. Just like it helped Chuck Klein and Cy Williams, it destroyed Grover Alexander (top 10 in home runs allowed 4 seasons there). In my opinion, ERA+ can't do enough justice for Pete. In fact, when Pete left Phillie to go to Chicago, his ERA+ jumps from an average of 150 to 168 before he hits his decline. Now, when your ERA+ jumps from moving to Wrigley Field, one of the worst pitching parks, you know that Bakers Bowl was horrible to Pete Alexander. It's in my opinion, that had Pete Alexander pitched in Griffith Stadium, his ERA+ would have been far better.

That's my reason for having Pete above Walter and No.1.

The Dude

04-30-2006, 09:56 PM

Mark, I don't rank any 19th century players. None. 0. I won't make an exception for Young because he pitched half his career in the 20th century. My ballot can be thrown out if the thread creator disagrees with that opinion.

As for Ford making my ballot, I question myself on that. He somehow seems to be stuck there in my rankings, even though I've moved many people above him down. He shouldn't be that high. I'll fix that.

leecemark

04-30-2006, 10:03 PM

--I guess Honus Wagner doesn't exist for you either then since his career started in 1897. I wasn't suggesting your vote not be counted, just that you might find Young to your liking if you actually take a good look at his career. He was a great pitcher from 45', in the high octane environment of the mid-late 90s after the mound moved and in the deadball conditions of the first decade of the 20th century. I see no reason to believe a guy who could adapt to those extreme changes wouldn't be able to dominate in any era.

Sockeye

04-30-2006, 10:21 PM

--That "unimpressive WHIP" still managed to lead the league 5 times and finish 2nd two other times, with 9 top 5 finishes. Grove also led the league in shutouts several times and was amoung the leaders almost every season. Lefty dominated in a period when most pitchers were just trying to survive.

He pitched in a hitter dominated/pitching weak era. No question about it. The average ERA in his league during the time he pitched was 4.54. That is why his career ERA+ of 148 is so high. His career 3.06 ERA for that time span is quite impressive. However the average league ERA during Eddie Plank's career was 2.87. Eddie Plank's career ERA was 2.35 for an ERA+ of 122. Now the question is if Grove would have pitched during Plank's time what would his ERA have been? We can all assume it would be considerably lower than his actual 3.06 ERA. But how much lower? He would have had to maintain a 1.93 career ERA to acceive the same 148 ERA+ number. Considering that only two pitchers in the history of baseball have finished their career with an ERA lower than that (Ed Walsh & Addie Joss) both of whom had a much shorter career with many fewer innings I think it quite unlikely that Lefty Grove over the course of 17 seasons and 3940+ IP's would have posted a 1.93 ERA. Instead I think it more likely that we would have seen an ERA around 2.20-2.30. Even a pitcher the caliber of Christy Mathewson pitching in the exact same era as Plank finished his career with a 2.13 ERA. Not all that much lower than Plank. And as for leading the league or being top 2 or top 3. That is all relative to the number of quality pitchers from that time span. Lefty was definitely the class pitcher from 25-41. In fact there are only three 300 game winners whos career even overlapped with that of Groves. Walter Johnson's last 3 seasons 25-27 at the age of 37-39, Pete Alexander's last 6 seasons from 25-30 at the age of 38-43, and Early Wynn's first 2 seasons 39,41 at the age of 19,21. On the other hand you had Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Christy Mathewson, & Kid Nichols all of whom had overlapping careers and were in their prime during Plank's career.

leecemark

04-30-2006, 10:26 PM

Pghfan987

05-01-2006, 01:49 AM

Dudecar:
I can only see an argument for Grover over Walter if you put a ton of emphasis on a 5-year peak and not the whole career (which you admit to doing.) Walter really seems to be at the top of his game his entire career, while Pete drops off from ridiculously great to really great after 6 or so seasons. Not something to be embarrassed about, but enough of a drop, IMO, to move him from the #1 spot. I love Walter's 12 20-win seasons, because we claim that this is such a team-dependent stat, and yet The Big Train played for a mostly pathetic Senators team during his career.

Walter's career stats are just too overwhelming for me. I don't see myself ever changing him from the top spot. You did, however, support your opinion well. But I am stuck with Walter.

Mark

The Dude

05-01-2006, 04:56 AM

Mark L.,
Wagner surpases my 66% of AB's requirement for players who played some part of their career in the 19th century Mark.

Yes, I understand Cy Young was a great pitcher. Were there limited changes between 1890 and 1910? I suppose. But there are enough for me to say that the type of league Cy young played in between 1890 and 1899 was different enough that I can't honestly compare him to say Warren Spahn and feel I'm telling an accurate tale.

I'm sure my one missed vote isn't going to kill the ballots though.

Mark (pgh),

I understand everyones choice for Walter, and it's not really a bad choice at all. Pete Alexander is somewhat lucky in that he is someone who has all the qualities of a player I like. Explosive peak and leading your league in IP to name the ones I've already gone over.

It probably doesn't hurt that he played for the Phillies. For some reason, I tend to really like Philadelphia players (Schmidt, Alexander, Roberts, Ashburn, Schilling, Magee, Cravath, Williams, Klein).*

*I'm not being serious in that this influences my opinion of Grover. I just thought it was interesting how many Phillies players I subconciously have petitioned for or rank high. Although I don't rank Williams high by any means of the word.

Captain Cold Nose

05-01-2006, 05:22 AM

1. W. Johnson
2. Grove
3. Clemens
4. Alexander
5. Young
6. Maddux
7. Seaver
8. Mathewson
9. Paige
10. R. Johnson

Pghfan987

05-01-2006, 05:39 AM

Dudecar:

If you love pitchers who have great peaks, how about Sandy Koufax? That might be a little too much great peak/ short career for you, but I put him at #10 strictly because of his 5 year run of unprecedented dominance.

Speaking about Phillies, how about Delahantey? This guy is underrated, IMO. He was the second best position player in Phillie history behind Mike Schmidt.

Mark

leecemark

05-01-2006, 05:46 AM

--Koufax 5 years are hardly unprecedented. Well I guess it may be unprecedented in that he quit in his peak. I suppose you can even argue that he had the best peak (although I'd strongly disagree), but he doesn't exactly blow away guys like Young, Mathewson, Johnson, Alexander, Grove, Maddux, etc even if you look ONLY at their best 5 years. The difference is that those other great pitchers had many other seasons near that peak level so their's doesn't stand out in such stark relief.

Pghfan987

05-01-2006, 06:39 AM

You are right, his peak does not blow away some of the all-time greats, but IMO, he was the best pitcher ever for five years, and that alone is enough for me to put him in my top ten, regardless of how narrow the margin is.

The Dude

05-01-2006, 06:55 AM

Mark (pgh),

I used to rate Koufax at no.1 because of my love of peaks. However, since then, I have taken many looks at Koufax and each time I slowly move him down in my rankings. He's about 17th right now. I don't see him moving much higher or lower than that.

The reasons I moved him down so much, is due to relooking at everything that was going on. Pitchers park and the lack of career arguement got to me. Yes, it is true that I am a peak guy, but I still believe there should be a good length career there. Sure, he went out on top, but that only gives him a few points in my book.

As for Delahanty, I doubt much that the BBF crowd underates him that much. Although, I wouldn't say he's the second best Phillies positional player. I believe that belongs to Richie Ashburn who is underated here.

I equate ranking players to painting. You can do paint by numbers, which sure, it will look right and clean. Or you can just paint the impression you get from everything you see (Numbers, special accomplishments, the other stuff), not just the numbers telling you what colour to put in.

Sockeye

05-01-2006, 11:50 AM

--Were the pitchers of Grove's era really so much worse than Plank's or were they just facing more difficult conditions? You didn't have to be a particulary good pitcher to keep the score down in the deadball era. Nobody was driving that dirty, spongey lump very far or hard. If Mathewson could post a 2.13 era I don't see any reason Grove couldn't post a 1.93. There is little doubt in my mind that Grove was better than Mathewson.

Well lets compare

Plank's era: Alexander, Bender, Brown, Chesbro, Johnson, Joss, Mathewson, Waddell, Walsh, Willis, Young

Top 10
Johnson
Mathewson
Young
Alexander
Plank
Walsh
Joss
Brown
Waddell
Bender

Grove's era: Dean, Faber, Grimes, Haines, Hoyt, Hubbell, Lyons, Pennock, Ruffing, Vance.

Top 10
Grove
Hubbell
Dean
Vance
Faber
Lyons
Hoyt
Grimes
Haines
Pennock

There is little question that the pitchers were better in Plank's era than in Grove era. In fact I'd take the 10th best pitcher from Plank's era (Chief Bender) over the 5th best pitcher from Grove's era (Red Faber)

csh19792001

05-01-2006, 03:27 PM

1) Clemens
2) W. Johnson
3) Young
4) Maddux
5) Alexander
6) Grove
7) Seaver
8) Paige
9) Spahn
10) Mathewson

Mark- Good to see you downgraded Grove appropriately in light of the new revelations about his usage patterns.

1. Roger Clemens
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young
4. Pete Alexander
5. Greg Maddux
6. Lefty Grove
7. Christy Mathewson
8. Tom Seaver
9. Bob Feller
10. Kid Nichols

Really hard to leave off Carlton, Big Unit, and Spahn but then rankings guys exactly is tough and imprecise. They could all be top 10 guys. Who knows?

Murderers Row

05-01-2006, 03:44 PM

Mark- Good to see you downgraded Grove appropriately in light of the new revelations about his usage patterns.

1. Roger Clemens
2. Walter Johnson
3. Cy Young
4. Pete Alexander
5. Greg Maddux
6. Lefty Grove
7. Christy Mathewson
8. Tom Seaver
9. Bob Feller
10. Kid Nichols

Really hard to leave off Carlton, Big Unit, and Spahn but then rankings guys exactly is tough and imprecise. They could all be top 10 guys. Who knows?

I find it hard to evalulate a player who played 75% of his career in the 19th century. Let alone put him in the top 10 in anything( speaking about Nichols)

csh19792001

05-01-2006, 04:27 PM

9. Cy Young
10. Pete Alexander

The best book yet penned on Cy Young. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558492623/002-1335908-7514443?v=glance&n=283155)

As to Alexander that low (and Matty that far ahead of him), I suggest you read over some of our old "greatest pitcher polls". I haven't heard a justifiable reason to have Mathewson ahead of Grove, if we're talking about their overall careers. If there is, I've yet to hear it.

Basically, Alexander was Mathewson without the panache, the alltime teams, and the NY media/all the hype.

I also can't wait for this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786424125/qid=1146524644/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-1335908-7514443?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) to be released.

csh19792001

05-01-2006, 04:44 PM

I find it hard to evalulate a player who played 75% of his career in the 19th century. Let alone put him in the top 10 in anything( speaking about Nichols)

Then I'd say you must be underappreciating Nichols. Last time we ran through our "greatest pitchers ever" threads/polls, Nichols was elected 13th by the majority of the regulars here, just ahead of guys like Bob Gibson and Pedro Martinez, and right behind Bob Feller.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=37489

He didn't get to pitch hardly at all with the foul strike rule and in the deadball era, when all of the advantages were conferred back over to the pitchers (after a ridiculous 10 year span prior, where just the opposite had been the case).

He has a .634 career winning percentage and 361 career wins. Among the guys who won 300, most had better run support and were on worse teams, yet few had better winning percentages.

Kid Nichols certainly has a legitimate claim to being an alltime top ten pitcher, and certainly one of the top 15.

W_Marone

05-01-2006, 05:21 PM

this isnt my vote or anything, but figured i'd put this on here too, it's what baseball experts like Peter Gammons and Timmy Kurkjian(spelling) thought the best pitchers of all time where. THIS IS NOT MY LIST.

1 Roger Clemens
2 Tom Seaver
3 Sandy Koufax
4 Bob Gibson
5 Greg Maddux
6 Bob Feller
7 Randy Johnson
8 Pedro Martinez
9 Steve Carlton
10 Juan Marichal

538280

05-01-2006, 05:41 PM

BoSox Rule

05-01-2006, 05:45 PM

Those are living pitchers.

W_Marone

05-01-2006, 05:47 PM

oops yeah they are, sorry my friends, but I've heard gammons, top five I belive it was, and I dont recall Grove being on the list, please feel free to correct me if im wrong.

538280

05-01-2006, 05:49 PM

Those are living pitchers.

Oh all right, then that makes it a lot more credible. But still, Koufax over Maddux is absolute insanity.

Matthew C.

05-01-2006, 06:01 PM

This was a poll released today from various ESPN "baseball experts", ranking the top 10 living pitchers. You should see the publics vote, it is even worse. Koufax #2, Ryan #3, Fingers ahead of Robin Roberts...

W_Marone

05-01-2006, 06:05 PM

but thats mostly influenced from casual fans most likely who only vote guys like fingers, ryan, and others ahead of greats like robin roberts, etc. becuase of their names, people recognize the name of a Nolan Ryan or Rollie Fingers and assume greatness with those names, altough many of us here know of guys like robin roberts and so should others, they just dont get credit from people who vote on them. As far as Koufax ahead of maddux, im not sure the date of the pole.

Matthew C.

05-01-2006, 06:08 PM

csh19792001

05-01-2006, 07:24 PM

Oh all right, then that makes it a lot more credible. But still, Koufax over Maddux is absolute insanity.

That's not Gammons' list, Chris.

Murderers Row

05-01-2006, 07:40 PM

Then I'd say you must be underappreciating Nichols. Last time we ran through our "greatest pitchers ever" threads/polls, Nichols was elected 13th by the majority of the regulars here, just ahead of guys like Bob Gibson and Pedro Martinez, and right behind Bob Feller.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=37489

He didn't get to pitch hardly at all with the foul strike rule and in the deadball era, when all of the advantages were conferred back over to the pitchers (after a ridiculous 10 year span prior, where just the opposite had been the case).

He has a .634 career winning percentage and 361 career wins. Among the guys who won 300, most had better run support and were on worse teams, yet few had better winning percentages.

Kid Nichols certainly has a legitimate claim to being an alltime top ten pitcher, and certainly one of the top 15.

Yea, but the rules were different. In his first two years, the distance between the mound and home plate was only 50 feet. There was also a "pitching box" instead of a rubber. The game was just way to different.

Windy City Fan

05-01-2006, 10:56 PM

Sockeye: You're right in pointing out that the top tier of pitchers in Grove's time isn't as impressive as other eras (however, Hubbell and Vance, who were NL pitchers, are deserving of mention before this top 25 list is done). This probably let Grove get a little more ink than he might have deserved, but it doesn't change the fact that Grove faced a level of competition that was far deeper. I could also list the numerous hitting stars Grove had to face on a regular basis, Foxx, Gehringer, Ruth, Gerhig, ect. The fact is top tier stars have very little impact on the overall stats of the league. Grove played in a time when scouting was improving and uncovering previously undiscovered talent. Probably not a huge gap between Grove's time and the previous deadball generation, but there was still a gap. And I for one agree with Mark, if Mathewson can post the ERA he did, there is no reason suggest Grove couldn't post an even better one.

Grove's counting stats are a little light, but he was held back for several years because the owner of the minor league Orioles didn't want to sell his contract. He dominated the minor league competition, even though he was quite wild if I recall.

....................................

Dude: I appreciate the love of peak, but what makes Alexander's peak superior to Maddux's? If you go for best two years, Maddux may be the best ever (unless you hold the strike and subsequent low but still lead leaguing IP totals against him). Even if you stack up their 5 best seasons, I think Maddux would win every time. His 5th best ERA+ tops Alexander's second best. For IP, Alexander has 7 times leading the league vs. Maddux's 5 times, but Maddux remained near the top much longer.

In my little Ink Value Score system, Alexander gets 92 points vs. Maddux's 120, a pretty substantial difference. If you value peak and endurance, I don't see how you can go against Maddux. He was a horse for his time and no one was tougher to score against.

The Dude

05-02-2006, 05:08 AM

Sockeye

05-02-2006, 08:46 AM

Sockeye: You're right in pointing out that the top tier of pitchers in Grove's time isn't as impressive as other eras (however, Hubbell and Vance, who were NL pitchers, are deserving of mention before this top 25 list is done). This probably let Grove get a little more ink than he might have deserved, but it doesn't change the fact that Grove faced a level of competition that was far deeper. I could also list the numerous hitting stars Grove had to face on a regular basis, Foxx, Gehringer, Ruth, Gerhig, ect. The fact is top tier stars have very little impact on the overall stats of the league. Grove played in a time when scouting was improving and uncovering previously undiscovered talent. Probably not a huge gap between Grove's time and the previous deadball generation, but there was still a gap. And I for one agree with Mark, if Mathewson can post the ERA he did, there is no reason suggest Grove couldn't post an even better one.

Grove's counting stats are a little light, but he was held back for several years because the owner of the minor league Orioles didn't want to sell his contract. He dominated the minor league competition, even though he was quite wild if I recall.

Ahh but as the age old question goes which came first the chicken or the egg? Was the great hitters in Grove's era due to the lack of great pitchers? Or was the lack of great pitchers the cause for the number of great hitters?

I'd also be careful to say that the hitters in Grove's era were better than the hitters in Plank's era. Players during Plank's era include Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner, Eddie Collins, Willie Keeler, Sam Crawford, Nap Lajoie, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Zack Wheat, etc. In fact in the ranking the legends post of the 25 greatest players of all time 5 were from Plank's era while only 3 came from Grove's era. So not only was the pitching better during Plank's era a strong case could certainly be made that the hitting was every bit as good if not better as well.

Lets not forget that Plank wasn't signed until after he graduated from Gettysburg college at the age of 25 and just like Grove he pitched 17 seasons until age 41. Winning 327 games.

SABR Matt

05-02-2006, 08:51 AM

Wow...I had no idea anyone still believed that Grove's AL was "deeper" than the leagues of many of the other great pitchers.

the 1930s major leagues were so severely imbalanced that if you played on a good team, your strength of schedule was often SCARILY poor. Especially Grove given his usage pattern favoring the weaker teams in the AL at the expense of Wes Ferrell.

Old Mike

05-02-2006, 09:14 AM

I think the main thing to keep in mind about the 30s was the huge difference in offensive between the AL and NL. The 1933 season that Hubbell achieved his hallmark season was, if I recall, the weakest offensive setting between 1920 and the 1967 AL pitching season (ERA). Am I correct on this? And since Hubbell didn't have to face one of the two teams with homer hitting power - his own, the Cubs being the other - he could afford to throw the ball across the plate. If I recall correctly the incidents of a pitcher issuing 100 or bases on balls in the AL in the 30s' was something like 80 times while it was done in the NL about 20. And Hubbell tossed something like 35 innings against Cincy without allowing a run. Hubbell had to worry about Cincy taking him deep like Grove had to worry about the '29-'30 Red Sox.

Please, though, don't get too carried away about Grove. His not facing the Yanks was strcitly limited to 1930 and 1931. In 1928 he was 1-6 against NY and 23-2 against the rest of the league. This could well have cost the A's the flag and Mack made a logical decision not to pitch Grove against them. He then won three straight flags, and that, afterall, is the prime directive.

Grove actually went more than a full calendar year, from the end of Aprl of 1930 to the end of May of 1931, without starting against NY. He was actually pretty much lights out against NY when he worked for Boston, although, oddly enough, it was the Browns who tatooed him in '35 and '36.

Still, no matter how one looks at it, Grove has to be in the top five or ten pitchers of all time.

yankillaz

05-02-2006, 09:50 AM

1.Walter Johnson
2.Lefty Grove
3.Pedro Martinez
4.Roger Clemens
5.Cy Young
6.Randy Johnson
7.Tom Seaver
8.Pete Alexander
9.Greg Maddux
10.Sandy Koufaxx
11.Christy Mathewson
12.Bob Gibson
13.Carl Hubbell
14.Warren Spahn
15.Nolan Ryan
16.Juan Marichal
17.Steve Carlton
18.Pud Galvin
19.Eddie Plank
20.Gaylord Perry
21.Bob Feller
23.Jim Palmer
24.Ferguson Jenkins
25.Robin Roberts

digglahhh

05-02-2006, 09:53 AM

1. W. Johnson
2. R. Clemens
3. G. Maddux
4. C. Young
5. P. Alexander
6. L. Grove
7. T. Seaver
8. C. Mathewson
9. P. Martinez
10. R. Johnson

Windy City Fan

05-02-2006, 10:12 AM

It's tough in my opinion, really to rank Maddux. I think there's enough data to suggest that his 1994/1995 campaigns were really that good (career high's in CG's and a K/9 far surpassing anything he's thrown), but I still have doubts just becuase it didn't happen, which is just like I have trouble ranking NeL players. I like to root things in statistics, and then see what could be behind that. If someone says to me "Greg Maddux' 1994 season was the best ever.", I'd look at it and say "Maybe.". There's just not enough there for me to clearly state yes, he was.

But, I would say that even without a full season, those two are some of the best ever. But with giving Maddux that credit, I don't see how we can't give credit to Grover for 1918. We can say sure, Maddux may have been bad in 1994-1995, we just didn't get to see him fall off the planet in late 1994 and early 1995. But would you really believe me if I said he was only bad at those times? I think it's highly unlikely that Alexander would have had a sub-par year. I think it may have actually gone on to be his best ever.

To be honest, there's really very little difference between Maddux and Alexander and keeping them from bieng tied or in reverse order. This season depending on the outcome for Maddux, will probably move him to no.1. Lefty Grove should be a few spots lower. I'm very lazy on updating my rankings when my opinion changes.

Alexander's missing 1918 campaign is something you might want to factor in, but I'm not sure why you would believe it could've been his best season ever. His best season was 1915. He set career high marks in ERA, ERA+, WHP, K/9, K/BB, and had his second best totals in CG, Sho, and it was his 3rd best season in IP. Any particular reason why you think in 1918 he could've eclipsed so many personal career highs?

That said, 1918 surely would've beena fine season for Alexander. 1915 to 1920 was his peak run, and so there is no reason to suggest he couldn't have turned in another fine season in 1918.

Still, when you do Maddux vs. Alexander, I think the overall numbers adn ink are close, but if you make adjustment for league depth, Maddux comes out solidly ahead. Maddux actually has a better career ERA+, his WHIP is only a hundreth of a baserunner above Alexander's. Then remember that Alexander pitched half of his career in the deadball era against weaker competition, and I think Maddux comes out ahead.

BTW, if you want to update your ballot (of if anyone else does) please post it here, as I'm keeping a running total and don't recheck ballots I've already tallied.

Matt: Yes, the talent was bunched up on certain teams in the 20's and 30's, but was it really any different than the dynasties that came before and after that era? My point wasn't that the league had parity, but that the overall talent level was deeper. Yes, Grove, being on one the top teams and his usage patterns helped him immensely, but I still would argue the average player in 1930 was better than the average player a generation ago.

I knock Grove down a bit for his usage pattern. His raw stats could give him a case for the top spot, but I have him at 5th, and might be open to sliding him down another spot or two. Still, usage patterns and all, I really don't see a case for putting him outside the top ten.

Windy City Fan

05-02-2006, 10:27 AM

W. Johnson (15) 140
Clemens (15) 122
Grove (14) 99
Alexander (15) 90
Maddux (15) 89
Young (14) 88
Mathewson (13) 55
Seaver (13) 49
Paige (7) 20
R. Johnson (7) 20
Matinez (6) 18
Spahn (7) 15
8 other pitchers recieved no more than two votes and 4 points in the poll.

I'll keep this open till sometime tonight, then we'll move on the the #2 slot.

The Dude

05-02-2006, 10:54 AM

Once again, this is all speculation.

The ERA+ in 1915 was amzing. 1916 and 1917 were just as good, but I think the move to Chicago was a boost to him. However, he was drafted and I believe that had he not been drafted and suffering from physcological problems, that 1918 would have been by far his best year, as look at how well he did in 1919-1920 with more problems than just his drinking.

NeverJustAGame

05-02-2006, 11:44 AM

1.Roger "The Rocket" Clemens
2.Walter "The Big Train" Johnson
3."Lefty" Grove
4.Grover Cleveland Alexander
5.Christy "Big Six" Mathewson
6.Tom "Teriffic" Seaver
7.Denton "CY" Young
8.Greg Maddux
9.Warren Spahn
10.Leroy "Satchel" Paige

Dudeman

05-02-2006, 11:46 AM

Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Roger Clemens
Christy Mathewson
Pete Alexander
Cy Young
Greg Maddux
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn
Bob Gibson

CoasttoCoast

05-02-2006, 12:01 PM

1. Roger Clemens
2. Walter Johnson
3. Robert Grove
4. Christy Mathewson
5. Pete Alexander
6. Greg Maddux
7. Tom Seaver
8. Denton Young
9. Leroy Paige
10. Warren Spahn
----------------------
11. Steve Carlton
12. Randy Johnson
13. Juan Marichal
14. Bob Gibson
15. Pedro Martinez
16. Sandy Koufax
17. Kid Nichols
18. Edward Ford
19. Jim Palmer
20. Gaylord Perry

SABR Matt

05-02-2006, 12:10 PM

Re: the dynasties comment...

Today's dynasties don't have NEARLY the kind of dominant sway over the league (in terms of wins, RS/RA...etc) that the Yankees did in the 30s. And in those leagues there were only eight teams, so getting one to win eight billion games meant a LOT more than it does when it comes to disposition of talent today and how it impacts your strength of schedule.

BlairRosen

05-02-2006, 01:19 PM

Walter Johnson
Christy Mathewson
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Lefty Grove
Roger Clemens
Cy Young
Tom Seaver
Satchel Paige
Warren Spahn
Bob Feller

csh19792001

05-02-2006, 01:36 PM

His not facing the Yanks was strcitly limited to 1930 and 1931. In 1928 he was 1-6 against NY and 23-2 against the rest of the league.

Grove actually went more than a full calendar year, from the end of Aprl of 1930 to the end of May of 1931, without starting against NY. He was actually pretty much lights out against NY when he worked for Boston, although, oddly enough, it was the Browns who tatooed him in '35 and '36.

Still, no matter how one looks at it, Grove has to be in the top five or ten pitchers of all time.

What about 1929? Do you have it broken down by innings and ERA?

1. Detroit: Ferrell 5-2, Grove 2-0
2. Philadelphia: Ferrell 4-1, Grove 0-0
3. New York: Ferrell 2-1, Grove 2-1
4. St. Louis: Ferrell 2-3, Grove 1-2
5. Washington: Ferrell 3-0, Grove 1-0
6. Cleveland: Ferrell 0-0, Grove 5-0
7. Chicago: Ferrell 2-1, Grove 2-2
8. Boston: Ferrell 3-2, Grove 7-1

I'll agree he's obviously top 10, and possibly top 5- but seeing as his reputation and statistical value are predicated mainly on quality/peak value, the fact that he didn't face two of the alltime great lineups hardly at all (relatively speaking) during his legendary run from 1929-31 really diminishes his case for being deemed as great as Clemens, Johnson, and Young.

Think if from 1998-2000 Pedro hardly faced the Yankees, and regularly faced Tampa Bay (he'd also never have had to face his own Sox lineup). Wouldn't that really deprecate his case? I think it certainly would. Now how about if there were only 8 teams in his league, instead of 14? Makes you think.

Grove went 79-15 from 1929-31. Had he been facing the A's at all and the Yankees with any regularity, neither his record nor his ERA+ would have been remotely close to that. The Yankees during those particular years were some of the greatest run producing lineups ever put together (even in relative terms).

The 31' Yankees scored 1067 runs, which is still the alltime (modern) record, even after 45 years of expansion and playing through the greatest HR era in history. They outscored the Indians by almost 200 runs!!! The 1930 Yankees are second alltime only to the 31' squad in runs scored (1,062).

Edgartohof

05-02-2006, 02:05 PM

Please include some discussion, as that's what makes these threads interesting. I'll kick things off by providing a few numbers on the top 5 choices in my mind.

Ten Best ERA+ Seasons
----------1st--2nd--3rd--4th--5th--6th--7th--8th--9th--10th--Career
Maddux---273---259--191--191--171--166--162--157--155--144---138
Clemens--221---211--177--176--175--169--164--154--145--142---143
Johnson--259---240--214--214--191--183--172--164--148--147---146
Grove----219---190--185--185--166--160--159--158--155--151---148
Young----216---194--176--166--153--152--148--145--145--143---138

I'll need to double check, but I believe that you left out Clemens' 1997 season with Toronto, in which he posted a 226 ERA+, so that would shift his season over by one, not that I believe that it changes the results, but forgetting one of his 200+ ERA+ seasons does make a difference.

Edgartohof

05-02-2006, 02:07 PM

1. Walter Johnson
2. Roger Clemens (he could possibly take over #1 if he comes back for a little bit and performs well)
3. Lefty Grove
4. Satchel Paige
5. Cy Young
6. Christy Matthewson
7. Greg Maddux
8. Grover Cleveland Alexander
9. Randy Johnson
10. Warren Spahn

WJackman

05-02-2006, 02:14 PM

I am hesitant to completely lump Grove's action against NY in '29 with his 1930-31 pattern because did have a sore arm in the second half of 1929.

Here is Grove's 1929 season broken down versus the teams in order of finish.

1. Philadelphia
2. NY: Grove had 2-1 record with 2.43 ERA in 33.1 innings. 5 starts
3. CL: Grove had 5-0 record with 1.83 ERA in 54 innings. 6 starts
4. SL: Grove had 1-2 record with 4.35 ERA in 31 innings. 5 starts
5. WA: Grove had 1-0 record with 3.13 ERA in 23 innings. 4 starts
6. DE: Grove had 2-0 record with 2.89 ERA in 37.1 innings. 4 starts
7. CH: Grove had 2-2 record with 2.68 ERA in 37 innings. 5 starts
8. BO: Grove had 7-1 record with 2.85 ERA in 60 innings. 8 starts

Windy City Fan

05-02-2006, 02:14 PM

I'll need to double check, but I believe that you left out Clemens' 1997 season with Toronto, in which he posted a 226 ERA+, so that would shift his season over by one, not that I believe that it changes the results, but forgetting one of his 200+ ERA+ seasons does make a difference.

You are right. Not sure how that slipped by me, but I'll make the change in the original post. Nice catch.

W_Marone

05-02-2006, 04:43 PM

top ten pitchers of all time: please forgive me if you disagree, I can be a bit stupid and miss things, here it goes.

1.Walter Johnson
2.Cy Young
3.Roger Clemens
4.Lefty Grove
5.Pete Alexander
6.Christy Matthewson
7.Warren Spahn
8.Greg Maddux
9.Tom Seaver
10. tie between Paige, Koufax, and Ryan

WJackman

05-02-2006, 04:55 PM

Here are a couple of more reasons why I think that, in context or their teams, that Wes Ferrell was the more valuable pitcher than Lefty Grove was from 1929-1931.

Here are the AL teams ranked in order of cumulative won-lost.

1. PH 313-143
2. NY 268-193
3. WA 251-203
4. CL 240-220
5. SL 206-254
6. DE 206-256
7. CH 177-282
8. BO 172-288

Let us remove Grove's 79-15 mark and Ferrell's 68-35 mark from their team's record. Now it is:

PH: 234-128
CL: 172-185

So really, after removing Ferrell from the Cleveland team, there were only three good teams in the AL - PH, NY and WA - from '29-'31 and then the rest of the pack.

So, against those teams, ranked in that order:

PH: Ferrell was 9-8 and Grove was 0-0
NY: Ferrell was 9-5 and Grove was 6-2
WA: Ferrell was 11-2 and Grove was 9-2
CL: Ferrell was 0-0 and Grove was 14-1
SL: Ferrell was 10-4 and Grove was 8-4
DE: Ferrell was 11-8 and Grove was 14-1
CH: Ferrell was 10-3 and Grove was 10-4
BO: Ferrell was 8-5 and Grove was 18-1

538280

05-02-2006, 04:57 PM

10.Sandy Koufax (simply because he was 30 when he walked away and at the time was one of the best not the best pitcher of that time)

So you're giving Koufax credit for time he didn't pitch? Not a good idea unless it's because of a war. Koufax's situation is an injury, and I think we all agree it's ridiculous to give injury credit.

W_Marone

05-02-2006, 05:05 PM

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to thier opinion, it would seem no matter who you put on your lists someone always has a problem. I look at it this way, in football people see Jim Brown as a top three running back of all time, and he left early in his career, I think the situation is the same with Koufax. He retired young, injury or not, he was the most dominante(spelling?) pitcher of his time, 3 Cy youngs, an MVP, two World Series MVPs, and four World Series Championships, 382 K's in 1965, pitched a no-hitter in four consecutive seasons, and had a perfect game in 65', won the era title five straight years, and won 25 games three straight years. If he had pitched past the age of 30 there is no doubt in my mind that he would have gone down as one of the top five best pitchers of all time. Not to add that many on this site seem to be bias toward Koufax. To know how good he was you simple have to seen how he pitched. Plus, it was pretty much a toss up between paige, koufax, and ryan. Thats right I said it, Ryan.

538280

05-02-2006, 05:11 PM

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to thier opinion, it would seem no matter who you put on your lists someone always has a problem. I look at it this way, in football people see Jim Brown as a top three running back of all time, and he left early in his career, I think the situation is the same with Koufax. He retired young, injury or not, he was a dominante player of his time, not to add that many on this site seem to be bias toward Koufax.

Jim Brown had 9 full seasons, Koufax had 4. Baseball Players generally tend to last much longer than football players as well. A 20 year career is an extremely long career in baseball, in football the equivalent would probably be about 12 years. Changing fooball standards to baseball ones, Brown is probably about a player with about 15 full seasons. That's 11 more than koufax. The analogy is not acceptable or relevant.

He was a dominant player in his time? Great, so was everyone else on our lists, the difference is that the others were dominant for 15+ years, Koufax was for four.

In addition, Koufax couldn't have the context he played in better suited to him. Take a look at his splits in 1964.

leecemark

05-02-2006, 05:15 PM

--Jim Brown retired early - but with the career rushing and touchdown records, as well as the single season ones. In a game where careers are generally (much) shorter, Brown's career value was enormous. Koufax career value is fairly low. I rank him higher than anybody else who pitched so few - or even close to as few - innings, but he falls short of the guys with greta peaks and logn and successfull careers.

W_Marone

05-02-2006, 05:18 PM

For some reason people on here seem to think that stats are everything, Where in which stats are not everything, but you know oh well, watch him play and decide if he wasnt simply amazing. An interesting quote, im not gonna argue with it because there is no winning with anyone on her but, Yogi Berra said "I understand how he won 25, what I dont understand is how he lost 5" And like I said before it was pretty much a tie between him, paige, and Nolan Ryan. Can anyone honor my opionon please? I'm not sure if anyone will ever agree with anyone else on here 100% but when it comes to Sandy Koufax I will say he is one of the top pitchers of all time until I die, I'll admit I've learned a lot about baseball from this site, but the Koufax thing is something I will never ever let anyone sway me on. Call me stubborn or retarded even o well. Anyone else have a top 10 list?

538280

05-02-2006, 05:21 PM

For some reason people on here seem to think that stats are everything, Where in which stats are not everything, but you know oh well, watch him play and decide if he wasnt simply amazing. An interesting quote, im not gonna argue with it because there is no winning with anyone on her but, Yogi Berra said "I understand how he won 25, what I dont understand is how he lost 5" And like I said before it was pretty much a tie between him, paige, and Nolan Ryan.

He was amazing, certainly-for 4 years. Those great quotes about him are all about him when he was at his best, and certainly his peak was among the best of all time if not the best. We're not denying that. But he just didn't last long enough to be a top 10 (or even top 20 IMO) pitcher.

csh19792001

05-02-2006, 05:28 PM

Here are a couple of more reasons why I think that, in context or their teams, that Wes Ferrell was the more valuable pitcher than Lefty Grove was from 1929-1931.

So, against those teams, ranked in that order:

PH: Ferrell was 9-8 and Grove was 0-0
CL: Ferrell was 0-0 and Grove was 14-1
DE: Ferrell was 11-8 and Grove was 14-1
BO: Ferrell was 8-5 and Grove was 18-1

The emboldened numbers are particularly salient. Yeah, you convinced me to throw out the usual metrics on this one- which scoff at the postulate of Ferrell being more valuable than Grove from 1929-31. Thanks for the fruit of some genuine in-depth historical research; unfortunately it's hard to come by on the internet.

W_Marone

05-02-2006, 05:29 PM

just adding to his line, he had a .095 era in world series starts, and with that I'm done, hey uhh, number guy, ahhh rats, what is it, im just gonna say little Joe, off subject but, ever been to Cooperstown? Pretty sweet place haha.:laugh Heaven. haha ok, I dont want to be grilled anymore haha, someone else please give me some help, ok revised list, tied for tenth, paige, koufax, and Nolan Ryan. Theres the new list. Tie thats right, I went there.

538280

05-02-2006, 05:32 PM

Windy City Fan

05-02-2006, 05:42 PM

On Koufax: He has 4 years of greatness and 2 more years of very good. He also has 6 years of nothing special. Koufax's case is built entirely on his last four years, but are they really that good?

ERA+ 190, 187, 161, 160
Two ERA+ titles, a second and third place finish
Two IP titles, one third place finish
Three WHIP titles, one second place finish

Keep in mind, he pitched in an extreme pitcher's park in an extreme pitcher's era. Guys like Marichal and Drysdale weren't that far behind Koufax in many catagories. He was the best. He was great. But I just don't see the best peak ever.

Let's take a look at a 5 year run by Greg Maddux

ERA+ 273, 259, 191, 191, 162
3 WHIP titles, a second and third place finish
2 IP titles, a second, a third, and an 8th place finish
Three ERA+ titles, two second place finishes

Now Maddux pitched in a offensive era, in a slight hitter's park, against a juiced league.

The best 4 or 5 consecutivge seasons of Walter Johnson, Grover Alexander, and Greg Maddux are just as good or better, plus they have the edge of another 10 - 15 productive years, compared to Sandy's 2 other productive years. Koufax has a great peak. Certainly worthy of being mentioned among the best 4 year stretches ever, but its not enough to overcome the sheer weight of careers like Seaver, Young, Grove, Clemens, Mathewson, Spahn, and others.

And Go Gomes: Don't take disagreement as a personal insult. Part of the fun around here is where we disagree. Afterall, there wouldn't be much to discuss if we were all in agreement. :)

W_Marone

05-02-2006, 05:52 PM

Yes, I've been to Cooperstown, it nice even if the HOF has done a lousy job selecting players. Still a great place for a baseball fan to go. But how is this relevant to this thread?

Uhh I said although its off topic, lets read the whole post buddy.:)

The Dude

05-02-2006, 06:58 PM

Don't forget about Randy Johnsons peak.

1999-2002
4 ERA+ Titles: 190, 184, 178, 177
Two IP Titles, 1 2nd, 1 3rd
1 WHIP Title, 1 2nd, 2 3rd's

baseballPAP

05-03-2006, 02:46 PM

Right on dudecar....
that's our point gomes....while Koufax's peak was great, it wasn't GREATER than a lot of pitchers. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 pitchers had as good of a 4 year run, and most without the benefit of a cavernous ballpark and a mountain to pitch from. Also, no worries...your opinions are your own....just don't expect us to agree :)

Windy City Fan

05-03-2006, 02:54 PM

This poll is closed. Results will be posted shortly, but the top guy is no surprise.

Windy City Fan

05-03-2006, 03:04 PM

Final Tally for #1 Pitcher of All-Time
W. Johnson (18) 168
Clemens (18) 150
Grove (17) 124
Alexander (18) 109
Maddux (18) 101
Young (17) 100
Mathewson (16) 75
Seaver (16) 61
Paige (9) 23
Spahn (10) 20
R. Johnson (7) 20
Matinez (6) 18

Gibson, Koufax, Ford, Carlton, Feller, Nichols, Plank, and Keefe also recieved votes.

No surprise that The Big Train finished in first, but Clemens is nipping at his heels. Grove managed to pull away from the Maddux/Alexander/Young pack to finish with a comfortable third.

Windy City Fan

05-24-2006, 08:05 PM

So far we have:

1. Walter Johnson
2. Roger Clemens

Who's next?

Windy City Fan

05-24-2006, 08:07 PM

1. Greg Maddux
2. Cy Young
3. Pete Alexander
4. Lefty Grove
5. Christy Mathewson
6. Tom Seaver
7. Randy Johnson
8. Satchel Paige
9. Bob Feller
10. Warren Spahn

csh19792001

05-24-2006, 08:13 PM

So far we have:

1. Walter Johnson
2. Roger Clemens

Who's next?

What was the vote total after you tabulated it? I'll bet that one was pretty darn close.

1. Cy Young
2. Pete Alexander
3. Greg Maddux
4. Lefty Grove
5. Christy Mathewson
6. Tom Seaver
7. Steve Carlton
8. Bob Gibson
9. Kid Nichols
10. Warren Spahn

Windy City Fan

05-24-2006, 08:19 PM

With 18 ballots cast in the first poll, Johnson had 168 points and Clemens had 150. In the second poll, only 15 ballots were cast. Clemens had 133. Young and Maddux had 112 each.

leecemark

05-24-2006, 08:35 PM

1) Young
2) Grove
3) Maddux
4) Alexander
5) Seaver
6) Paige
7) Spahn
8) Mathewson
9) R. Johnson
10) Feller

The Dude

05-24-2006, 08:52 PM

1.Pete Alexander*
2.Greg Maddux
3.Randy Johnson
4.Lefty Grove*
5.Warren Spahn*
6.Tom Seaver*
7.Christy Mathewson*
8.Carl Hubbell*
9.Bob Feller*
10.Robin Roberts*

Wee Willie

05-24-2006, 10:20 PM

1. Lefty Grove
2. Cy Young
3. Greg Maddux
4. Pete Alexander
5. Christy Mathewson
6. Tom Seaver
7. Satchel Paige
8. Randy Johnson
9. Warren Spahn
10. Kid Nichols

BaseballHistoryNut

05-24-2006, 10:59 PM

Grove, hands down, despite the deplorable wins-padding.

I have said previously that #2 is either Clemens or Maddux--probably Clemens, pending the ends of their careers--but that Pedro, the greatest inning-for-inning pitcher ever, still has a long way to go. I have further said: (1) that Spahn is probably #2 among lefties, but that Randy Johnson is a reasonable choice for that honor; and (2) that I would take a new, and open-minded, look at the possibility Walter Johnson should be rated with, or even above, Clemens and Maddux, pending the ends of their careers.

I'm now reading a Johnson bio which seems credible and not over-the-top schmaltzy, like his grandson's hagiography. Between it--and, more important, the persuasive arguments I have read from some of the brilliant baseball minds at this site (that's no b.s.)--I've been persuaded I should look HARD at the idea of Johnson as being ahead of Maddux and the Rocket. Y'all also have caused me to do serious introspection and realize that despite my CONSCIOUSLY knowing how wrong it is, I have been subconsciously crediting Clemens extra over Maddux because of his blazing fastball and Maddux's lack thereof. Trust me, I know how wrong that is. Y'all also have made me realize how I've failed to credit Maddux for his defensive brilliance.

Still, while one easily can toss aside Clemens' edge in Cy Young Awards as a product of the same flawed thinking--his Cy Young Award in the 20-3 year was a particularly bad joke--he DOES have the 7 ERA titles, to Maddux's 4. Those are harder to blow off.

Anyway, while I'm about 80% of my way to reconsidering my #2 lefty, and putting the Big Unit ahead of Spahn and (distantly) behind only Grove, I'm now vacillating between THREE righties, instead of two. And the SABR-touted bio I'm reading, along with further input from y'all, will play a big role in my ultimate decision as to the order in which I put my new top three righties--Maddux, Clemens and W. Johnson--pending the end of Pedro's career.

Thanks again to all the great baseball minds here for the help you've given me in my evolution on this and other issues. Many of y'all have complimented me on my posts, and I hope I've given some of you thought-provoking ideas which have helped you in the evolution of your ratings. I guarantee you that a good many of you have done so for me, and by no means solely with regard to this Johnson/Clemens/Maddux issue. He's just the most obvious example.

BHN

flash143817

05-25-2006, 01:45 AM

1. Lefty Grove
2. Cy Young
3. Sandy Koufax
4. Pedro Martinez
5. Tom Seaver
6. Greg Maddux
7. Randy Johnson
8. Pete Alexander
9. Christy Mathewson
10. Bob Gibson

I have Walter Johnson #1 and Roger Clemens #5 if they were still being ranked.

baseballPAP

05-25-2006, 05:45 AM

Lefty Grove
Greg Maddux
Cy Young
Pete Alexander
Pedro Martinez
Tom Seaver
Christy Mathewson ....Seaver and Big 6 are a dead heat right now for me....
Warren Spahn
Satchel Paige
Randy Johnson

My pitcher ratings are in flux....as we argue the slots, I fully expect them to change even more.

RogersMaris

05-25-2006, 05:53 AM

1 Cy Young
2 Greg Maddux
3 Pete Alexander
4 Christy Mathewson
5 Lefty Grove
6 Tom Seaver
7. Warren Spahn
8. Satchel Paige
9. Randy Johnson
10. Bob Feller

yankillaz

05-25-2006, 06:15 AM

I don't consider Clemens being #2, but since you've brought it up:

1. Lefty Grove
2. Pedro Martinez
3. Pete Alexander
4. Randy Johnson
5. Tom Seaver
6. Greg Maddux
7. Sandy Koufaxx
8. Christy Mathewson
9. Cy Young
10. Steve Carlton

Francoeurstein

05-25-2006, 07:07 AM

1. Mad Dog
2. Grove
3. Alexander
4. Mathewson
5. Unit
6. Paige
7. Seaver
8. Feller
9. Young
10. Spahn

csh19792001

05-25-2006, 07:28 AM

You guys are seriously slotting Cy Young 10th alltime? Dudecar doesn't feel he's one of the 11th best ever?

Francoeurstein

05-25-2006, 07:32 AM

Say what you need to say, I say he's overrated.

CoasttoCoast

05-25-2006, 07:33 AM

Lefty Grove
Pete Alexander
Cy Young
Christy Mathewson
Tom Seaver
Warren Spahn
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Steve Carlton
Pedro Martinez

The Dude

05-25-2006, 07:38 AM

You guys are seriously slotting Cy Young 10th alltime? Dudecar doesn't feel he's one of the 11th best ever?

I've you've voted in the other threads, you would know I don't assess players who've spent more than 33% of their career in the 19th century. My beliefs, take it or leave it.

csh19792001

05-25-2006, 08:40 AM

Say what you need to say, I say he's overrated.

If you love biographies and baseball history, you'll love this book.

Cy Young: A Baseball Life by Reed Browning
(http://www.biggerbooks.com/bk_detail.asp?ISBN=1558493980)
Once you've read this, I guarantee you won't summarily state "he's overrated". Trust me. :o

Dudecar, I completely understand you categorically omitting guys who played a certain amount of time under vastly different rules. I wouldn't be accepting at all of people who left him out of the top 10 based on some ridiculous perceived lack accomplishment and historical stature, however. In fact, anything outside of the top 5 is kind of silly, IMO.

Sockeye

05-25-2006, 09:11 AM

1. Christy Mathewson
2. Cy Young
3. Pete Alexander
4. Tom Seaver
5. Eddie Plank
6. Greg Maddux
7. Warren Spahn
8. Tim Keefe
9. Kid Nichols
10. Don Sutton

Wee Willie

05-25-2006, 09:59 AM

Say what you need to say, I say he's overrated.
Why is he that overrated to you?

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 10:15 AM

TheSandman

05-25-2006, 10:16 AM

1.Cy Young
2.Greg Maddux
3.Lefty Grove
4.Pedro Martinez
5.Pete Alexander
6.Tom Seaver
7.Christy Mathewson
8.Satchel Paige
9.Randy Johnson
10.Warren Spahn

Wee Willie

05-25-2006, 10:16 AM

I've you've voted in the other threads, you would know I don't assess players who've spent more than 33% of their career in the 19th century. My beliefs, take it or leave it.
That sounds very arbitrary. The "19th century" is not one big monolith by any means. The rules were very different in the 1870's and 1880's as opposed to the 1890's. From 1893 (when the mound was put to it's current distance), the conditions of the game were basically the same as during the early 20th-century deadball era. The 1890's were a very challenging period for pitchers who grew up pitching at the shorter distance, so anyone who excelled in that time (Young, Nichols, Rusie, etc.) should not be docked just because they spent a significant time on the other side of 1900.

However - for pitchers who are basically 1870's and 1880's greats (pitching from 45', not being charged with a walk until they threw 9 "balls", etc.) - I can certainly understand why one would conclude that the game at that time had not evolved enough for pitchers like Clarkson or Radbourn to be rated as high as those who came later.

Metal Ed

05-25-2006, 10:23 AM

Put me down for Young as #3. After that, 4) Grove, 5) Paige and 6) Maddux. After that, well, I've already B.S.-ed myself into thinking that my first 6 spots were actually legitimate in some sort of way, actually were meaningful comparisons. I'll quit while I'm ahead. :)

Budtaff

05-25-2006, 10:37 AM

1) Cy Young
2) Lefty Grove
3) Christy Mathewson
4) Greg Maddux
5) Pete Alexander
6) Tom Seaver
7) Randy Johnson
8) Warren Spahn
9) Sandy Koufax
10) Bob Feller

hbinways

05-25-2006, 10:56 AM

1) Cy Young
2) Lefty Grove
3) Christy Mathewson
4) Greg Maddux
5) Pete Alexander
6) Tom Seaver
7) Randy Johnson
8) Warren Spahn
9) Sandy Koufax
10) Bob Feller

1. cy young
2. grover alexander
3. greg maddux
4. tom seaver
5. lefty grove
6. christy mathewson
7. satch paige
8. warren spahn
9. bob feller
10. randy johnson

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 11:34 AM

BaseballHistoryNut

05-25-2006, 01:59 PM

I see Grove has a lot of early support. I know its been posted on these boards before, but I think its worth mentioning again. Grove was consistently sheltered from pitching against the Yankees (then the best team in the AL) for much of his career. His own teams (the A's and Red Sox) also had pretty good offenses that he never had to face. Grove often made most of his starts against the worst teams in the league. Keep in mind, in the 30's the disparity between the Yankees and the worst team in the league was huge. He also was brought in to vulture wins off his fellow starters from time to time, and generally as a basket case of a teammate.

His raw numbers are great, but Grove is definately someone you need to look a little deeper at to get a true sense of his actual value and accomplishments. I'm even considering bumping Grove down a few more slots, with Alexander, Mathewson, and Seaver all having a shot at surpassing him. More on this later ....

I know there is some factual basis for this, and it appalls me, but he's so far out ahead in my book that it takes more than that to knock him out of #1.

ANYWAY, when the Ruth/Gehrig Yankees were setting what I believe is a still-standing record for most consecutive games without being shutout, I s'pose y'all know who it was that stopped the streak? One Robert Moses Grove. So he was neither totally averse to pitching to them nor totally inept when he did so.

AND:

(1) It's hard to be "overrated" when you won 9 ERA titles in 17 seasons, in THOSE 2 parks, as a lefty, with FOUR of them coming after your 35th b-day, in Fenway--no matter how many phony wins you got; and

(2) Has anyone posted Grove's career total of starts against the 8 AL teams? I'll bet it doesn't show THAT dramatic a reduction in starts against the NYY. I'd be shocked if he didn't have well more starts against them than the A's or the Red Sox. A lot of people, for several decades, have been trying to hack away at the Grove-was-the-greatest school of thought, just as they have at the Ruth-was-greatest school. I suspect this thing is being overblown, though I agree that each and every single vulturized win was deplorable per se.

BHN

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 02:16 PM

I don't know if I've seen career numbers, but I have seen certain seasonal totals and it is dramatic. Grove was undeniably a great pitcher, but he certainly recieved a boost due to his very unique usage pattern.

I'm not sure what your talking about with this anti-Grove is number one movement. I know of very few people around here that ever ranked Grove number one. This is the third time we've done a top 25 pitcher poll (each with a slightly different method I believe), and Walter Johnson has won each time. Usually by a healthy margin.

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 02:31 PM

csh19792001 is the resident expert on Grove's usage patterns, so I wouldn't be surprised if he popped in here, but I can copy some of his work for you.

Lefty Grove from 1929-1931 pitched:

140.2 innings against Boston.
140.1 innings against Cleveland.
138.2 innings against Detroit.
125.2 innings against Washington.
124.1 innings against Chicago.
104.1 innings against St. Louis.

and

72 innings versus the New York Yankees.

In 1928 Grove was 24-8. He was 1-6 against NY and 23-2 versus the rest of the league. Mack then changed tactics. Anyone, he figured, could be cannon fodder for the Yankees but pitching Lefty against the weaker teams in the league was a sure victory. And since Mack won three straight pennants, who can argue with him.

In 1930 Grove went:

7-0 with a 2.85 ERA in 53.2 innings against Boston.
3-1 with a 2.10 ERA in 34.1 innings against STL.
3-1 with a 3.28 ERA in 35.2 innings against Chicago.
5-1 with a 1.50 ERA in 48.0 innings against Cleveland.
7-1 with a 2.25 ERA in 56.0 innings against Detroit.
2-1 with a 2.31 ERA in 46.2 innings against Washington.
1-0 with a 4.86 ERA in 16.2 innings against New York

csh has also stated, though I couldn't find any postings with statistical backing, that Grove often didn't pitch against the other top aces of the day.

yankillaz

05-25-2006, 02:58 PM

The thing about Grove is the same we take into account for Walter Johnson, and Pedro IMHO: He was Above the rest.

Sure, you had Hubbell, Dean, Vance, Gomez and a couple more. But nobody did it like Grove. He followed Johnson in "striking out" players, when nobody did.

csh19792001

05-25-2006, 03:26 PM

csh19792001 is the resident expert on Grove's usage patterns, so I wouldn't be surprised if he popped in here, but I can copy some of his work for you.

csh has also stated, though I couldn't find any postings with statistical backing, that Grove often didn't pitch against the other top aces of the day.

I wish I was an author (as WJackman is). These are the fruits of his hard work alone, and unfortunately I can't take any credit for it. He's the person who put in the endless hours into researching and authoring his book on the Ferrell brothers, and discovered how horribly underrated Wes Ferrell is and (too a similar degree) how inflated Grove's peak years are by his usage pattern. He's the guy to query if you're interested in Grove, the Ferrell brothers, or the American League in the 1930's. Those are the topics he's researched exhaustively.

He's currently writing a book on Cannonball Will Jackman, arguably the most unhearalded great to ever play.

Here's a tidbit, actually.

Cannonball Will Jackman:
The Least Known Best Pitcher Ever (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=400712&postcount=34)

BaseballHistoryNut- here's some more of his past work for you to peruse.

Lefty Grove in 1931. Stats as starting pitcher only (this is in order of runs scored).

BO: 3-0 record with 0.66 ERA in 3 starts (30 innings).
SL: 3-1 record with 1.03 ERA in 4 starts. (35 innings)
CH: 5-0 record with 1.40 ERA in 5 starts. (45 innings).
DE: 5-0 record with 1.80 ERA in 5 starts. (45 innings).
WA: 5-1 record with 1.73 ERA in 7 starts. (52 innings).
CL: 4-0 record with 3.61 ERA in 4 starts (36 innings).
NY: 2-1 record with 5.60 ERA in 3 starts (17.2 innings).

In 1931:
Against the best 4 teams in the league (including the Yankees, who he hardly faced in his best years but KILLED him when he actually did), Lefty Grove's ERA was 3.18, and against the worst three teams in the league (which went a combined 179-280), his ERA was 1.03.

Digging a little deeper into this particular issue.

Grove worked just 11.1 innings as a starting pitcher against NY in 1930 and 17.2 innings in 1931 for a total of 29 starter innings (I am not counting innings worked in relief).

Wes Ferrell, for comparison, and historically figured as the second-best American League hurler over those two season based on victories, worked 45 innings against NY as a starting pitcher in 1930 and 35 innings in 1931.

So that - in what is considered Grove's benchmark seasons - is 80 starter innings against NY for Ferrell and 29 for Grove. If you toss in the 99.2 starter innings that Ferrell worked against the Philadelphia A'sin 1930 (53.1) and 1931(46.1), it showsthat:

Ferrell worked 179.2 innings against two of the most legendary lineups of all time while Grove worked 29. Those innings are the equal of more that 15 complete games.

One more example of the holes in ERA+ (which is the same hole as in ERA).

Here are the big three of the 1930 Philadelphia Athletics.

The teams are listed in order of runs scored.

Grove pitched:

1. 16.2 innings against NY.
2. 46.2 innings against Washington.
3. 48.0 innings against Cleveland.
4. 56.0 innings against Detroit.
5. 34.1 innings against StL.
6. 35.2 innings against Chicago.
7. 53.2 innings against Boston.

Earnshaw pitched:

1. 32.2 innings against NY.
2. 33.3 innings against Washington.
3. 56.0 innings against Cleveland.
4. 46.2 innings against Detroit.
5. 47.2 innings against StL.
6. 38.2 innings against Chicago.
7. 41.0 innings against Boston.

Walberg pitched:

1. 54.0 innings against NY.
2. 52.1 innings against Washington.
3. 20.1 innings against Cleveland.
4. 17.0 innings against Detroit.
5. 38.1 innings against StL.
6. 19.0 innings against Chicago.
7. 08.2 innings against Boston.

Grove ERA+ 184
Earnshaw ERA+ 105
Walberg ERA+ 100

Someone sure took a bullet for the team, and I don't think it was Lefty.

The IP totals do not match up exactly to offical figures. I added them from TSN bosxcores.

Also, BaseballHistoryNut, I took the time to go back and exhume some more of Jackman's exemplary contributions that I thought you might appreciate and enjoy. I've linked them (below) for you.

Lefty Grove or Wes Ferrell? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=538135&postcount=73)

The (ostensible) impetus for Grove's usage pattern in his prime. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=519327&postcount=126)

Another link. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=230507&postcount=103)

The truth about 1930. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=217248&postcount=69)

The vital caveat of ERA+ (or ERA, for that matter) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=216858&postcount=56)

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 03:27 PM

A few other stats to consider:

Ten Best ERA+ Seasons
-------------1st--2nd--3rd--4th--5th--6th--7th--8th--9th--10th--Career
Maddux------273---259--191--191--171--166--162--157--155--144---138
Grove-------219---190--185--185--166--160--159--158--155--151---148
Young-------216---194--176--166--153--152--148--145--145--143---138
Alexander---225---170--168--167--157--153--133--129--128--127---135
Mathewson-230---222--168--168--159--156--151--147--138--134---135
Seaver-----193---175--166--150--142--140--137--136--127--122--127

Alexander was probably hurt a bit by having his peak years in the Baker Bowl, I doubt even adjusted park affects fully take that into account. Also Alexander was a huge horse during his peak. In 1916 he pitched 71 more innings than the runner up. In his other league leading years, he out paced his nearest competition by 20, 30, and even 50 innings. Truly a remarkable workload even for the era. This obviously hurt his rate stats a bit, but he was still one of the best rate pitchers.

Mathewson has almost his entire productive career covered here, with only two more productive seasons. The others on the list plenty of good to above average years to fill out their careers. Mathewson also probably played in the weakest league of any of them. The NL in the first decade of the 20th century lost almost all of its biggest names - except Mathewson and Wagner - to the AL.

Grove's figures have to be looked at in context, as talked about elsewhere.

Seaver pitched in a deep league, so its no surprise his rate stats don't quite add up, but he's easily the best pitcher of his generation and that says a lot when your generation include Perry, Ryan, Carlton, Marichal, Jenkins, Palmer, Niekro, and Gibson. (And Blyleven, Sutton, Kaat, Drysdale, and John to name the second tier guys)

Still Maddux pitched in a deeper league than anybody on the list accept maybe Seaver, and his peak ERA+ seasons are just remarkable.

Ink Value Score:
Innings Pitched
Young 123
Maddux 120
Alexander 92
Mathewson 84
Grove 74
Seaver 72

Not surprising to see Young on top here, but Maddux is right behind him. As far as being a consistent workhorse pitcher is concerned, Maddux is highly underrated. He has five consecutive IP titles and 6 more seasons in the top 4! As mentioned above, when Alexander lead the league, he did it by a wide margin. That probably limited him somewhat later in his career (he only finished in the top 5 twice after 1917).

Ink Value Score
WHIP
Young 151
Maddux 111
Alexander 107
Mathewson 101
Seaver 92
Grove 89

Young's lead here is amazing, and shows he was more than just a guy with a lot of wins and innings pitched. Young was a dominator for a loooong time. Maddux comes in second, and Alexander's finish is surprising considering he pitched in the hitter's paradise known as the Baker Bowl and then another hitter's park in Wrigley.

Note: Ink Value Score is a little thing I came up with to help put ink numbers in perspective. Black ink is too narrow in my mind to use as a definative comparison. Grey ink is too broad, as a second place finish counts for no more than a tenth place finish. So I took their grey ink finishes and added point values to them. Finishing first was worth ten Ink Value Points, finishing tenth was worth one.

After taking a hard look at Alexander, I'm ready to bump him up ahead of Grove. Alexander is kinda the opposite of the coddled Grove. Alexander had to overcome being overworked at a young age and playing in two horrible pitcher's parks.

EDIT: Added in Seaver and Mathewson for fun.

csh19792001

05-25-2006, 03:30 PM

After taking a hard look at Alexander, I'm ready to bump him up ahead of Grove. Alexander is kinda the opposite of the coddled Grove. Alexander had to overcome being overworked at a young age and playing in two horrible pitcher's parks.

Excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree.

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 03:32 PM

Wjackman: Sorry to give the wrong guy credit for your work.

Csh: Thanks for posting all of that and giving credit where credit is due.

Matthew C.

05-25-2006, 03:38 PM

1. Cy Young
2. Pete Alexander
3. Lefty Grove
4. Greg Maddux
5. Christie Mathewson
6. Warren Spahn
7. Tom Seaver
8. Satchel Paige
9. Randy Johnson
10. Kid Nichols

538280

05-25-2006, 06:19 PM

1.Greg Maddux
2.Satchel Paige
3.Lefty Grove
4.Cy Young
5.Pete Alexander
6.Bob Gibson
7.Tom Seaver
8.Warren Spahn
9.Pedro Martinez
10.Bob Feller

Next Up:
11.Christy Mathewson
12.Robin Roberts
13.Smokey Joe Williams
14.Randy Johnson
15.Kid Nichols
16.Gaylord Perry
17.Juan Marichal
18.Carl Hubbell
19.Dazzy Vance
20.Whitey Ford

I'll agree that some of the placings of Cy Young on this thread are ridiculous. Young gets a bad rap, much like Hank Aaron, for being just a compilier, a pretty good pitcher who stuck around forever. This is not true, Young was consistently among the best pitchers in the game his whole career, just like Aaron among the best position players. He was an elite player in his time, not just a long lasting compiler like Don Sutton. Young was in the top 10 in his league in ERA+ every year 1891-190, excpeting only 1897 and 1906. Young led twice and was in the top 5 just about every year. He was the best control pitcher in his time, and led the league in BB/9 just about every year. He was a consistent great pitcher, not just a compliler. Not overrated in any sense of the word.

The Dude

05-25-2006, 07:00 PM

Good to see that people are seeing how good Grover really was.

Windy City Fan

05-25-2006, 10:36 PM

Grover's now at my 5th spot overall with Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Young ahead of him. I'm curious to see what the Grove supporters have to say in regards to the points raised. For the top 4 guys I see the following points as being valid factors to consider:

Alexander:
Extreme hitters park from early to peak years (Baker Bowl)
Hitters park for the majority of the rest of his career (Wrigely Field)
Extreme overuse as a young pitcher/Ran away with IP titles 1911, 1914-1917, 1920
World War I Service which resulted in epilepsy, alcholism and hearing loss

Maddux:
Best league depth
Dominated in the Steriod/HR era
Best raw ERA+ numbers
Impressive ink in IP
Not a top tier K artist

Young:
Exceptional quantity while maintaining quality
Half of his career before 1900

Grove:
Extreme hitters era and pitched in hitters parks
Questionable usage pattern let him beat up on lesser teams
Poor teammate
Never led the leauge in IP/Not a workhorse like the other 3
Late start to career/Didn't have to pitch through youthful wildness in the majors

leecemark

05-26-2006, 06:13 AM

Francoeurstein

05-26-2006, 06:41 AM

Why is he that overrated to you?

Like dudecar, I just didn't really get the 19th century.

I think it was a whole different game... Not that he wasn't a good ballplayer, or anything, it's just hard for era adjustment pre-1910.

leecemark

05-26-2006, 07:17 AM

==Anybody who ranks Mathewson, but leaves Young off "because he was a 19th century guy" needs to due a little fact checking. Young's career overlapped the majority of Mathewson's. Cy retired after 1911 and Mathewson after 1916. Many of their best years came in the same seasons - with Young pitching in the stronger league.

Budtaff

05-26-2006, 07:59 AM

In 1931:
Against the best 4 teams in the league (including the Yankees, who he hardly faced in his best years but KILLED him when he actually did), Lefty Grove's ERA was 3.18, and against the worst three teams in the league (which went a combined 179-280), his ERA was 1.03.

Wouldn't this be somewhat true of almost every pitcher though? I mean that's why they're the worst teams because they lose to everybody! Same with the good teams, they beat everybody.

Do you have numbers for a guy like Whitey Ford? He was before my time but from what I've read he would be the exact opposite of Grove in that he was almost always matched against the best teams and the best pitchers and wasn't used much against the lesser teams. If this is true he would definitely be ranked much higher than his stats may indicate.

Windy City Fan

05-26-2006, 08:14 AM

Mark, glad you waded into this discussion.

1) We agree on this point. I wasn't listing it as a detraction, but rather a plus for Grove.

2) I'm not denying that even if Grove had pitched regularly against the Yanks, he would still been a top tier pitcher. Probably still the best in the league. However, it would've certainly dented his seperation from the pack. When looking at his stellar ERA+, one has to account that it most likely wouldn't be quite as stellar in certain years if he had a normal usage pattern for an ace pitcher in that era.

3) Cobb was an SOB, but there's not much evidence it bled over into the clubhouse and became a problem. Whereas Grove fueded with his Red Sox manager, Cronin, and berated teammates for making errors behind him. He once left a game on his own. He had a tendancy to sulk after losses, letting affect his next performance. Basically, Grove's personality problems bled over into what happened on the field. That's why I ding him, but not Cobb.

4) I'm not saying he wasn't a workhorse, but compared to the other 3 guys he's competing with for the top spot in this poll, he comes up short. In his era, it wasn't really uncommon for ace pitchers to double as relief aces. Pencock, Hoyt, Ferrell, Lyons, Gomez, Walberg, and Earnshaw also made appearances on the saves leader board during that era. Grove was consitently on the saves leader board, so he may have been used in that role a little more often, but not excessively so. And some of his relief appearances were there simply to vulture a win off a deserving teammate.

5) The late start issue cuts both ways. Yes he coulda racked up more counting numbers had he been able to start at a younger age, but Grove was also very, very wild as a young pitcher. Even in his first two years in the bigs, Grove was wild. Leading the league in free passes his first year and finishing 4th his second. WJackman posted about Grove's minor league career here (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=525299&postcount=59). Given his control problems, its quite possible Grove wouldn't have been anything special in the majors. So its arguable that Grove's late start protected him from a Koufax like begining, which would of course hurt his career rate and relative stats.

Windy City Fan

05-26-2006, 08:17 AM

Wouldn't this be somewhat true of almost every pitcher though? I mean that's why they're the worst teams because they lose to everybody! Same with the good teams, they beat everybody.

Do you have numbers for a guy like Whitey Ford? He was before my time but from what I've read he would be the exact opposite of Grove in that he was almost always matched against the best teams and the best pitchers and wasn't used much against the lesser teams. If this is true he would definitely be ranked much higher than his stats may indicate.

Its true that one can expect any player to have better stats against scrub opponents and see a dip against cream of the crop, but Grove often didn't face the cream and was allowed to beat up the scrubs a disproportionate amount of the time. Most ace pitchers in that era were used the opposite way, they were juggled to face the best teams and other team's top ace. Grove wasn't, and in fact was juggled to avoid the top team and top notch opposing pitcher, and it helped to inflate his stats.

Old Mike

05-26-2006, 09:00 AM

Its true that one can expect any player to have better stats against scrub opponents and see a dip against cream of the crop, but Grove often didn't face the cream and was allowed to beat up the scrubs a disproportionate amount of the time. Most ace pitchers in that era were used the opposite way, they were juggled to face the best teams and other team's top ace. Grove wasn't, and in fact was juggled to avoid the top team and top notch opposing pitcher, and it helped to inflate his stats.

This occured mostly in 1930 and 1931. Remember that Grove - during his 1928 season where he was 24-8 - was 1-6 against the Yankees and 23-2 versus the rest of the league. The A's lost that pennant and Mack switched tactics. Had Connie been employing the same pitching match-up/tactics in 1928 as he did in 1930 and 1931 then the A's might well have won 4 straight flags.

I suspect most great pitching season, if broken down on a game by game basis, will show that the pitcher's ERA will correspond with the offensive abilities of the opposing teams. Grove's pitching against Boston in '29 and '30, like Hubbell's work against Cincinnati in 1933, was a real ERA-padder for them.

None of this should really affect Grove's all-time standing. What is shows is that his greatest seasons - 1930 and 1931 - have be be viewed, like all pitchers, in the context/setting in which those stats were produced, and there is just too much statistical static to judge pitchers on yearly stats.

Budtaff

05-26-2006, 09:05 AM

Given the Yankees dominance in those years offensively that's not a bad tactic. In fact, it may have been the only way Mack saw that he could compete with the Yanks.

Old Mike

05-26-2006, 09:10 AM

Also remember that Mack (like McGraw who once tried a six-man rotation) was ahead of his time. In 1932 he changed tactics again and started using Grove against NY again on a regular basis. That produced an ERA versus NY for Grove of 5.49 in 42 innings, which was identical to Ferrell's 5.48, also in 42 innings.

In 1933, when he had pitching woes, Mack used Grove almost exclusively in relief for a six week period in May and June. He was experimenting, letting his younger pitchers work the first six or seven and then bringing in Grove to close. Note that Grove's relief ERA in '33 was 0.81 and his starting ERA was almost 4.00. I think this usage pattern was what caused Grove's '34 arm problems.

Grove was incredible. It is just that his moody personality played a vital role in how his and his teammates pitching stats evolved. Remember that Lefty was not well educated. While he got stuck up in the minor league reserve issues, Wes and Rick Ferrell, both well-educated, were bright enough to challenge/interpret the reserve issues and signed huge bonus contracts (for the time) directly with major league clubs.

Windy City Fan

05-26-2006, 09:13 AM

I'm not saying it was a bad tactic on Mack's part. As you said, it lead to 3 pennants, and who can argue with that? The thing is, as has been discussed before, when we're looking at the all time greats, the differences between them are very slight. Anything that could potentially make their stats look better/worse has to be factored in.

Also, a lot of us look at peak and take that into consideration. Grove's two peak years just happen to be the two years he had this unique usage pattern. Factoring that in, it takes a little of the luster off those 185 and 219 ERA+ seasons.

When it comes to Maddux vs. Grove, I really don't see a case for Grove. Both pitched in extreme offensive enviroments, but Maddux undoubtably played in the deeper league, which has to be factored in. Maddux's best years are also superior to Grove's best, even if you take his 1930 and 1931 seasons at face value. Maddux lead the league in IP 5 times, Grove never did. Maddux has 500 more career IP. He has 18 (not counting this year) productive years in the majors, Gove only has 14 productive seasons. (Productive = 100+ IP and an ERA+ 100 or better). Maddux is a good teammate. Grove was a jerk.

So tell me, other than the raw career ERA+ numbers, what makes Grove better than Maddux?

Old Mike

05-26-2006, 09:32 AM

I am in total agreement that some of the luster needs to be taken from Grove's '30 and '31 seasons. Of course, I am a firm believer that Wes Ferrell was every bit Grove's peak rival, and that Ferrell surpassed Grove in peak value/ability if one factors in offense.

However, I recall watching Maddux pitch against the Cards in the opening round on the NL playoffs a few years ago. When Edmunds came up in the first inning, the commentator stated that it was the first time that season that Edmunds had faced Maddux; the reason being that Maddux had not pitched at all against St. Louis in the regular season. Now I know that there are a lot more teams today, and you have to factor in the interleague play as well, but I was struck by the oddity that the potential Cy Young winner (Maddux did not win the award) was facing the potential league MVP (Edmunds did not win the award) for the first time of the year, after the "year" had ended.

Windy City Fan

05-26-2006, 09:47 AM

Imbalanced schedule. The Cards and Braves probably only hooked up for 6 games that year. It wouldn't be too much of a fluke for Maddux to have missed them on his regular rotation turns. Especially since with Glavine and Smoltz on their team, the Braves never really needed to juggle their rotation to get an ace pitcher into a series.

Wee Willie

05-26-2006, 09:59 AM

Like dudecar, I just didn't really get the 19th century.

I think it was a whole different game... Not that he wasn't a good ballplayer, or anything, it's just hard for era adjustment pre-1910.
I don't understand, what's so important about 1910?

It actually wasn't nearly as different game from 1893 to 1910 as it was from say, 1883 to 1910 - or even from 1883 to 1893, for that matter. Go back and read my earlier post in this thread about the 19th century. I just don't think it's right to treat the 19th century as one distinct entity when it comes to MLB. There is nothing pivotal about the year 1900 as relates to the game's evolution. The movement of the mound to 60-6 in 1893 is really the defining condition of the modern game. Pitchers who excelled in the 1890's shouldn't be treated any differently from those who excelled in the early 20th century deadball era. Young and Nichols really belong in Matty and Alexander's era, not John Clarkson's.

Old Mike

05-26-2006, 10:00 AM

So tell me, other than the raw career ERA+ numbers, what makes Grove better than Maddux?

Grove wasn't better than Maddux. Maddux wasn't better than Grove. Neither was any better or any worse than Bill Jackman. They all attained a level of greatness than cannot be denied. Really we are not defining greatness but rather rating accomplishments and value. But we can't really do that because of the differences in the eras and societies in which they lived and performed.

Windy City Fan

05-26-2006, 10:03 AM

Better, more valuable, greater, use whatever term you want to describe this ranking process, but I still don't understand Grove ahead Maddux (or Young and Alexander, but their supporters can take their case).

Myankee4life

05-26-2006, 03:57 PM

1. Grove ( my #1 alltime as well)
2. Maddux
3. Grover C. Alexander
4. Young
5. Paige
6. Mathewson
7. Spahn
8. Seaver
9. R. Johnson
10. Gibson

BaseballHistoryNut

05-26-2006, 04:17 PM

1) Era/park factors: That he dominated in a hitters era and hitters park is a tribute to him, not something to detract from his greatness.
2) Usage patterns: His 3.18 ERA vs the best teams in 1931 would still have been number 2 in the league. The only pitcher to record a lower one, Lefty Gomez, pitched in a pitchers park for the best offensive team in the league. Still his ERA vs all teams (and NEVER facing the best hitting team) was only slightly ahead of what Grove did exclusively against the best teams.
3) Poor teammate: Hey we've got Cobb #2 amoung position players. He wasn't exactly Mr Congeniality.
4) Not a workhorse?: Its true Grove never led the league in IP - but he was in the top 6 every year but one (1934 when he had a sore arm) from 1926-37 (11 times). That includes 2 2nds and 2 3rds. Part of what kept him from leading the league is that he was the A's relief ace, as well as top starter, every year up until the arm injury. Grove was amoung the league leaders in saves every year from 1926-33, leading in 1930 (this also explains some of the supposedly excessive days between starts). When he started Grove finished as much as anyone, again making the top 6 in CG those same 11 of 12 years (leading 3 in a row) as IP - and finishing 5th as a 39 year old lefty in Fenway park in 1939 (while also leading the league in ERA).
5) Late start: Grove did get a late start for an all timer. This wasn't because he wasn't wanted/ready for the majors though. He pitched for the Baltimore Orioles, an minor league team which wasn't inclined to sell their stars quickly or cheaply. When Mack was finally able to pry Grove loose it was for the highest amount ever paid for a ball player (minor OR major).

EVERY one of these things is true. As are the 9 ERA titles, while pitching in atrocious parks.

I get that he dodged the Yankees in his prime, but then his "prime" was really his entire MLB career except 1940 and 1941.

I'd sure like to see a career list of innings pitched vs. all 8 teams. I doubt it would show a severely low # vs. the NYY. Granted, what he did was reprehensible, and vulturizing Earnshaw's wins was a lot worse (what the hell was Mack thinking of, allowing that sort of garbage?).

But it seems to me many of you are selectively picking facts that cut against Grove. He has the highest career Adjusted ERA ever (not counting Pedro, of whom I'm a huge enough fan that I already have him at #5). He lost 5 years, about, due to being locked up on the Orioles, and still won 300 games in the Live Ball Era. His W-L record wasn't good his first two years, but he led the league in ERA in Year Two. He had an incredible W-L record, even if 1930 and 1931 should have had a few more losses. His durability was great enough to lead the league in K's his first 7 years. And he won four ERA titles, after his 35th birthday, in Fenway.

As y'all know, there's a lot more than just those stats, but who needs more? I'm an enormous Maddux fan, and am probably about two or three weeks of reflection away from admitting to myself that I have only been rating Clemens ahead of him because Clemens' power is more fun to watch than Maddux's slop. Apart from that, Clemens' case comes down to the 7 ERA titles, with Maddux having the #2 and #3 peak seasons ever (don't tell me about 1880). Despite his current funk, I believe Maddux is far from done.

But Maddux over Grove? Not for me. Not a chance. MAYBE in two or three more years, but even then, with 9 ERA titles as a southpaw in Shibe and Fenway? I'm not likely to change my view.

Now, of course, the Yankees of the late 1930's were as dominant as they ever were with Ruth. If Grove dodged THEM, too, then I could be persuaded to take a different point of view. But what I've heard so far is all about two or three years.

Does anyone have Grove's career breakdowns of innings, or at least games, pitched against the 8 different teams? I know that's a lot to ask for, but I'm wondering if anyone's done that work already. If he insisted on dodging them during his incredible renaissance years (1935-1939), then I WILL be persuaded that, while still obviously the #1 southpaw, he needs some serious reconsideration.

BHN

BaseballHistoryNut

05-26-2006, 07:30 PM

I wish I was an author (as WJackman is). These are the fruits of his hard work alone, and unfortunately I can't take any credit for it. He's the person who put in the endless hours into researching and authoring his book on the Ferrell brothers, and discovered how horribly underrated Wes Ferrell is and (too a similar degree) how inflated Grove's peak years are by his usage pattern. He's the guy to query if you're interested in Grove, the Ferrell brothers, or the American League in the 1930's. Those are the topics he's researched exhaustively.

He's currently writing a book on Cannonball Will Jackman, arguably the most unhearalded great to ever play.

Here's a tidbit, actually.

Cannonball Will Jackman:
The Least Known Best Pitcher Ever (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=400712&postcount=34)

BaseballHistoryNut- here's some more of his past work for you to peruse.

In 1931:
Against the best 4 teams in the league (including the Yankees, who he hardly faced in his best years but KILLED him when he actually did), Lefty Grove's ERA was 3.18, and against the worst three teams in the league (which went a combined 179-280), his ERA was 1.03.

Also, BaseballHistoryNut, I took the time to go back and exhume some more of Jackman's exemplary contributions that I thought you might appreciate and enjoy. I've linked them (below) for you.

Lefty Grove or Wes Ferrell? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=538135&postcount=73)

The (ostensible) impetus for Grove's usage pattern in his prime. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=519327&postcount=126)

Another link. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=230507&postcount=103)

The truth about 1930. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=217248&postcount=69)

The vital caveat of ERA+ (or ERA, for that matter) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=216858&postcount=56)

Thank you for the thought provoking, fact-filled and educated-opinion filled materials from the past. Lotta stuff I never knew.

BHN

Sockeye

05-27-2006, 08:07 AM

CHRISTY MATHEWSON

373 wins (4th all time)
79 shutouts (3rd all time)
2502 strikeouts (27th all time)
2.13 ERA (8th all time)
1.06 WHIP (5th all time)
135 ERA+ (20th all time)
.665 Winning % (17th all time)
84 HOF standards (1st all time)
303 HOF monitor (5th all time)
353 gray ink (4th all time)
92 black ink (9th all time)

csh19792001

05-29-2006, 12:32 PM

In the last chapter of his Cy Young biography, Reed Browning makes a very strong case as to why Young has a legitmate claim as being deemed the greatest pitcher of all time. I'll leave it to those interested and motivated enough to read the entire book and analyze his contentions, but I wanted to share one small excerpt that I found very interesting with everyonehere. If nothing else, it's a refreshing digression from the endless linear numbers palaver that tends to dominte this board (esp of late). A more abstract, layered analysis. And in the end, more fundamentally important to the assessment of his career juxtaposed with the other historical titans.

"The second consideration is that Cy Young chalked up his remarkable record of protracted greatness while coping with a stream of alterations in the way baseball was played. There were changes in the rules, most significantly the great discontinuity of 1893 that lengthened the pitching distance, but also the adoption of the foul strike rule in 1903. There were shifts in the definition of bunts and balks, the emergence of a raised mound for the pitcher, the deepening of pitching staffs, the adoption of fielders gloves, the evolving concept of scientific baseball. It was because the game was almost constantly in very visible transition that Cy Young labored so hard to add deliveries to his repertory. And it is a mark of his success both in the year in which major league batting averages reached their all time high (.309 in 1894) and in which they reached what was their alltime low (.239 in 1909) until the 1968 season snuck beneath it. In short, Cy Young lasted as long as he did not simply because he was blessed with a tough body and durable arm, but also because he used his intelligence to study, adapt, and learn. He was one of the smartest pitchers in baseball history.

So, again, was Cy Young the greatest pitcher of all times? We don't know, of course. There's no way-- pace all the sabermetricians in the audience--that we can even out all the changes in equipment, in paying rules, in strike zone dimensions, in ground rules, in travel circumstances, in ball parks, in times of play, in pitchers, in strategy, in training practices, in coaching assistance, in umpiring, in protection of injured players, in media attention, in roster sizes, in housing/travel circumstances, and in off-season activities that have occurred over the years. And that means that there is no way we can compare the distilled pitching essence of Cy Young to the distilled pitching essences of Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Bob Feller, Tom Seaver, or Greg Maddux. Moreover, much depends on how you define "greatest"- are you talking about absolute dominance over a short span of time? Or are you talking about enduring success over a wide span of years? Or perhaps blending these two measures in some unspoken formula? By whatever definition one operates, Cy Young is clearly a candidate for the honor. And the greater the weight you give to sustaining of excellence over a long period of time, and the more you are willing to assume that a man who had proved himself extremely smart and adaptable in his own (ephemeral) day would continue to show those traits in a later era, the stronger Cy Young's candidacy becomes."