Top 50 Pitchers of All-Time v. 3.0: Pitchers #25-30

[Matthew C.]

1. Walter Johnson
2. Greg Maddux
3. Roger Clemens
4. Lefty Grove
5. Cy Young
6. Pete Alexander
7. Tom Seaver
8. Randy Johnson
9. Satchel Paige
10.Christy Mathewson
11. Warren Spahn
12. Pedro Martinez
13. Kid Nichols
14. Bob Feller
15. Bob Gibson
16. Steve Carlton
17. Gaylord Perry
18. Sandy Koufax
19. Robin Roberts
20. Phil Niekro
21. Carl Hubbell
22. Juan Marichal
23. Fergie Jenkins
24. Bert Blyleven
25. Joe Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halfway home:


26. Nolan Ryan
27. Eddie Plank
28. Ed Walsh
29. John Clarkson
30. Tim Keefe

Very hesitant with these last two, but I think they have been LQ'd enough at this point.

[Bigfoot 88]

26-Nolan Ryan
27-Ed Walsh
28-Eddie Plank
29-Dazzy Vance
30-Rube Waddell

[leecemark]

26) Hal Newhouser: the Koufax of the 40s
27) Ed Walsh: workhorse even by deadball standards
28) Jim Palmer: the anti-Bly, his rep has fallen almost as much as Bly's has risen since retirement
29) Nolan Ryan
30) Whitey Ford
--coming soon; Mordeci Brown, John Clarkson, Rube Waddell, Dazzy Vance, Tom Glavine

[Blackout]

Mariano Rivera
Whitey Ford
3 Finger Brown
Johan Santana
Rube Waddell

[Los Bravos]

Mussina
Glavine
Ford
Palmer
Ryan

[BigRon]

26. Mordecai Brown
27. Jim Palmer
28. Ed Walsh
29. Whitey Ford
30. Nolan Ryan

I'm still reluctant about Ryan. There are other pitchers who I see as superior to him, but the sheer length and weight of his career pushes him ahead of guys like Vance, Mussina, Waddell. Blyleven- who had a long career- is also in the mix for the next group.

[DoubleX]

Mordecai Brown
Ed Walsh
Jim Palmer
Mariano Rivera
Nolan Ryan

[BigRon]

Mariano Rivera

Obviously the most dominant reliever ever. But, 70 innings per year. Yes, a lot of them are high pressure high leverage innings, but by no means all. There are still quite a few great pitchers out there who racked up 3,000- 4,000 and more innings.

[DoubleX]

Obviously the most dominant reliever ever. But, 70 innings per year. Yes, a lot of them are high pressure high leverage innings, but by no means all. There are still quite a few great pitchers out there who racked up 3,000- 4,000 and more innings.

Normally, I agree with you. But at some point, Rivera's unique dominance deserves consideration. Relief pitchers are pitchers and Rivera is far and away the greatest ever.

I also am normally of the position of that relievers tend to be failed starters and if you put an ace starter into a 1-2 inning relief role, his dominance would be even greater. That being said, I think such a pitcher would be hard pressed to match Rivera's dominance in the pen - I think Rivera represents really the best that any pitcher could expect to achieve in that role over as long a period as Rivera has done it, and that's why he's got my vote here.

Also, Rivera was more than a 70 IP/season pitcher for most of his career, especially when you factor in the 15 or so additional innings in the postseason. It's still apples and oranges to starters, but again, I can't imagine many starters, even the best, being more dominant than Rivera for as long as Rivera has done it.

[Matthew C.]

Since fewer people are able to vote on the weekends, I may push this round through Tuesday evening. IF anyone is interested: Walsh, Ryan, Brown, Palmer, and Ford would be elected as of now.

[BigRon]

Since fewer people are able to vote on the weekends, I may push this round through Tuesday evening. IF anyone is interested: Walsh, Ryan, Brown, Palmer, and Ford would be elected as of now.

Where are the voters? Feels like an off-year primary.

[Freakshow]

Blyleven- who had a long career- is also in the mix for the next group.

A moot point, of course, since he is already on the list at #24.

[brett]

26. Nolan Ryan
27. Eddie Plank
28. Ed Walsh
29. John Clarkson
30. Tim Keefe

Very hesitant with these last two, but I think they have been LQ'd enough at this point.

Rivera has almost matched Walsh in career WAR! no LQ adjustment. No leverage adjustment.

26) Nolan Ryan
27) Rivera
28) Mussina
29) Glavine
30) Smoltz

Then Plank, Ford, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe.

Its tough though with Plank, Clarkson, Keefe. Were they better than Schilling and Smoltz and Glavine? Glavine is to Clarkson as Spahn is to Nichols perhaps?

[BigRon]

A moot point, of course, since he is already on the list at #24.

Oops! How did I miss that? Well, won't comment on positioning of guys who are already placed.

[Matthew C.]

Rivera has almost matched Walsh in career WAR! no LQ adjustment. No leverage adjustment.

And Walsh got 50 of his 57 WAR in just 6 years and 55 in 7!. Worse LQ of course, but based on raw WAR, a better 6 year peak than Koufax.

And WAR does leverage relievers...about .5 of WPA. I am okay with that level of leveraging the 9th inning- I do not like giving 9th inning guys full leveraging. Its like we are making up stuff to justify their placement among the all-time greats and in the HOF. According to WPA, Hoffman was more valuable than K. Brown, Ford, Sutton, Saberhagen, Jenkins, Drysdale, Carlton and Blyleven. Shows the danger of over leveraging the 9th inning.

You use WAR in an argument against Walsh in comparison to Rivera, then rank Ford higher than (or close to) Schilling? Ford's WAR is 57 with only one season over 6 and one more over 5. Now I rank Ford higher than does WAR due to Korea and postseason success (I am also weary of the more extreme defensive-saved numbers), but if you want to consider WAR, why Ford over Schilling (more WAR, better peak, also great in the postseason, higher LQ) ?

And on LQ in general, I am much more moderate on LQ than most sabermetric-minded people. Most sabes are going to pick the 7th/8th best pitcher from the high LQ league over the 2nd/3rd best from the 19th century. I will not do so automaticaly.

[brett]

And Walsh got 50 of his 57 WAR in just 6 years and 55 in 7!. Worse LQ of course, but based on raw WAR, a better 6 year peak than Koufax.

And WAR does leverage relievers...about .5 of WPA. I am okay with that level of leveraging the 9th inning- I do not like giving 9th inning guys full leveraging. Its like we are making up stuff to justify their placement among the all-time greats and in the HOF. According to WPA, Hoffman was more valuable than K. Brown, Ford, Sutton, Saberhagen, Jenkins, Drysdale, Carlton and Blyleven. Shows the danger of over leveraging the 9th inning.

You use WAR in an argument against Walsh in comparison to Rivera, then rank Ford higher than (or close to) Schilling? Ford's WAR is 57 with only one season over 6 and one more over 5. Now I rank Ford higher than does WAR due to Korea and postseason success (I am also weary of the more extreme defensive-saved numbers), but if you want to consider WAR, why Ford over Schilling (more WAR, better peak, also great in the postseason, higher LQ) ?

And on LQ in general, I am much more moderate on LQ than most sabermetric-minded people. Most sabes are going to pick the 7th/8th best pitcher from the high LQ league over the 2nd/3rd best from the 19th century. I will not do so automaticaly.

I probably didn't have time to get Ford right. That's why I'm trying to get a little discussion. Ford looks similar I guess unless you factor in his team defense.

[brett]

I wanted to add that the reason I am posting upcomers is so that I can get a little input before its too late.

[brett]

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/...ve-never-heard

[curveball]

Rivera has almost matched Walsh in career WAR! no LQ adjustment. No leverage adjustment.

26) Nolan Ryan
27) Rivera
28) Mussina
29) Glavine
30) Smoltz

Then Plank, Ford, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe.

Its tough though with Plank, Clarkson, Keefe. Were they better than Schilling and Smoltz and Glavine? Glavine is to Clarkson as Spahn is to Nichols perhaps?

I honestly have no idea how reliable the rdef component is in WAR, but Glavine takes a big hit because he supposedly had very good defensive support. He only had 4 years where his WAR was 5+. I used 5+ because that is what is defined as an all-star type season. Those 4 years only came in at 23.6, which is an average of 5.9. Schilling had 6 such seasons (37.9), and averaged 6.32. The other guys were at,

Ryan 5, 34.2, 6.84
Mussina 7, 41.2, 5.89
Smoltz 1, 6.1, 6.1
Plank 7, 41.8, 5.97
Ford 2, 12.1, 6.05
Clarkson 6, 67.4, 11.23
Keefe 8, 70.5, 8.81

Glavine and Smoltz seem to lack peak. If there is one guy who really got shortchanged by his defense, it is Rick Reuschel. The guy has more WAR than Smoltz, and has just .7 less WAR than Glavine. He also had 6 seasons of 5+ WAR (36.2), which averages out to 6.03. If you really trust WAR, I would put Glavine and Smoltz behind Ryan, Mussina, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe, Palmer, Walsh, and Drysdale, just to name a few.

[PVNICK]

Clarkson
Keefe
Palmer
Glavine
Ryan

this is getting to be quite the crapshoot

Plank is probably next then Jenkins, Brown, Walsh and I'm not sure

[Matthew C.]

I honestly have no idea how reliable the rdef component is in WAR, but Glavine takes a big hit because he supposedly had very good defensive support. He only had 4 years where his WAR was 5+. I used 5+ because that is what is defined as an all-star type season. Those 4 years only came in at 23.6, which is an average of 5.9. Schilling had 6 such seasons (37.9), and averaged 6.32. The other guys were at,

Ryan 5, 34.2, 6.84
Mussina 7, 41.2, 5.89
Smoltz 1, 6.1, 6.1
Plank 7, 41.8, 5.97
Ford 2, 12.1, 6.05
Clarkson 6, 67.4, 11.23
Keefe 8, 70.5, 8.81

Glavine and Smoltz seem to lack peak. If there is one guy who really got shortchanged by his defense, it is Rick Reuschel. The guy has more WAR than Smoltz, and has just .7 less WAR than Glavine. He also had 6 seasons of 5+ WAR (36.2), which averages out to 6.03. If you really trust WAR, I would put Glavine and Smoltz behind Ryan, Mussina, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe, Palmer, Walsh, and Drysdale, just to name a few.

First of all, once you include Glavine's offense (5 WAR), he has three 6+ WAR seasons and five 5+ WAR seasons overall. A stretch of 50 WAR over 10 seasons. Not Pedro, but a solid HOF peak. Not including pitcher offense in WAR is silly unless one is possibly comparing a rare HOF level post-DH AL pitcher with a non-DH pitcher.

Secondly, 5 is not an All-Star level year. 4 is. The average WAR for the 10th best pitcher (All-Start level during Glavine's era and league) is around 3.8. This BR mistake has been the source of many problems.

Third, Sean Smith miscalculated Glavine's defensive support from 2003-2007. I have talked with this about him personally. Total Zone has the 2003-2007 Mets defenses at -38 runs. However Glavine is creditited with +20 defensive runs saved over that time. For that to be true, the Mets would have needed to be +130 runs saved by their defenses. Smith admitted that something was wonky, but said that he did not have the time to look into it. Glavine is closer to 50 to 60 runs saved by his defenses than 80. And TZ assumes that the Braves staff had no influence on team BABIP on GB or FB. The truth is, based on the shear volume of pitchers on the Braves who had better-than-mates BABIP @1 SD or more (Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Naegle, Avery, Merker, Trachsel, Pedro), - Glavine's defenses may be closer to 40 runs prevented.

Fourth, Glavine has a +3 clutch score, meaning he saved about 30 runs over the course of his career pitching better during close games than in blowouts. I choose to credit pitchers for .5 of their clutch score, as it can be influence a lot by luck. Most of the pitchers you mentioned have negative clutch scores.

Finally, not as good as Schilling or Smoltz, but Glavine threw 200+ innings in the postseason vs. strong competition and had better ERA numbers than he did in the regular season. Glavine gets a slight postseason boost too.

I have run some WAR numbers that include: 1. UZR defense instead of TZ from 2002-2008 (which is more accurate and weeds out the TZ issue), 2. includes offensive WAR, and 3. gives a pitcher .5 credit for "clutch". Glavine's real WAR would be closer to 76 and a WAE of near 30. I believe this is much more accurate of what Glavine really did than rWAR.

As far as Rueschel - Rick was a horrible postseason pitcher, and is another example of a pitcher who benefits unnecesarily well by park factors. As an extreme groundballer, Rueschel was not hurt by the HR tendancies of Wrigly the way everyone else was. He clutch score was very poor too. I have Ruechel's true WAR beong closer 61-62.

I agree that "Mussina, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe, Palmer, Walsh, and Drysdale," are better than Glavine. It is the "to name a few" part that I would take issue with.

[Freakshow]

26 Nolan Ryan
27 Ed Walsh
28 Mariano Rivera
29 John Clarkson
30 Joe Rogan

Coming up: Plank, Palmer, Glavine, Keefe, Ford, Brown, Wilhelm

[brett]

First of all, once you include Glavine's offense (5 WAR), he has three 6+ WAR seasons and five 5+ WAR seasons overall. A stretch of 50 WAR over 10 seasons. Not Pedro, but a solid HOF peak. Not including pitcher offense in WAR is silly unless one is possibly comparing a rare HOF level post-DH AL pitcher with a non-DH pitcher.

Secondly, 5 is not an All-Star level year. 4 is. The average WAR for the 10th best pitcher (All-Start level during Glavine's era and league) is around 3.8. This BR mistake has been the source of many problems.

Third, Sean Smith miscalculated Glavine's defensive support from 2003-2007. I have talked with this about him personally. Total Zone has the 2003-2007 Mets defenses at -38 runs. However Glavine is creditited with +20 defensive runs saved over that time. For that to be true, the Mets would have needed to be +130 runs saved by their defenses. Smith admitted that something was wonky, but said that he did not have the time to look into it. Glavine is closer to 50 to 60 runs saved by his defenses than 80. And TZ assumes that the Braves staff had no influence on team BABIP on GB or FB. The truth is, based on the shear volume of pitchers on the Braves who had better-than-mates BABIP @1 SD or more (Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Naegle, Avery, Merker, Trachsel, Pedro), - Glavine's defenses may be closer to 40 runs prevented.

Fourth, Glavine has a +3 clutch score, meaning he saved about 30 runs over the course of his career pitching better during close games than in blowouts. I choose to credit pitchers for .5 of their clutch score, as it can be influence a lot by luck. Most of the pitchers you mentioned have negative clutch scores.

Finally, not as good as Schilling or Smoltz, but Glavine threw 200+ innings in the postseason vs. strong competition and had better ERA numbers than he did in the regular season. Glavine gets a slight postseason boost too.

I have run some WAR numbers that include: 1. UZR defense instead of TZ from 2002-2008 (which is more accurate and weeds out the TZ issue), 2. includes offensive WAR, and 3. gives a pitcher .5 credit for "clutch". Glavine's real WAR would be closer to 76 and a WAE of near 30. I believe this is much more accurate of what Glavine really did than rWAR.

As far as Rueschel - Rick was a horrible postseason pitcher, and is another example of a pitcher who benefits unnecesarily well by park factors. As an extreme groundballer, Rueschel was not hurt by the HR tendancies of Wrigly the way everyone else was. He clutch score was very poor too. I have Ruechel's true WAR beong closer 61-62.

I agree that "Mussina, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe, Palmer, Walsh, and Drysdale," are better than Glavine. It is the "to name a few" part that I would take issue with.

PCA puts Tiant above Palmer. I think that Palmer's DNRA+ is 115.

[curveball]

First of all, once you include Glavine's offense (5 WAR), he has three 6+ WAR seasons and five 5+ WAR seasons overall. A stretch of 50 WAR over 10 seasons. Not Pedro, but a solid HOF peak. Not including pitcher offense in WAR is silly unless one is possibly comparing a rare HOF level post-DH AL pitcher with a non-DH pitcher.

Secondly, 5 is not an All-Star level year. 4 is. The average WAR for the 10th best pitcher (All-Start level during Glavine's era and league) is around 3.8. This BR mistake has been the source of many problems.

Third, Sean Smith miscalculated Glavine's defensive support from 2003-2007. I have talked with this about him personally. Total Zone has the 2003-2007 Mets defenses at -38 runs. However Glavine is creditited with +20 defensive runs saved over that time. For that to be true, the Mets would have needed to be +130 runs saved by their defenses. Smith admitted that something was wonky, but said that he did not have the time to look into it. Glavine is closer to 50 to 60 runs saved by his defenses than 80. And TZ assumes that the Braves staff had no influence on team BABIP on GB or FB. The truth is, based on the shear volume of pitchers on the Braves who had better-than-mates BABIP @1 SD or more (Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux, Naegle, Avery, Merker, Trachsel, Pedro), - Glavine's defenses may be closer to 40 runs prevented.

Fourth, Glavine has a +3 clutch score, meaning he saved about 30 runs over the course of his career pitching better during close games than in blowouts. I choose to credit pitchers for .5 of their clutch score, as it can be influence a lot by luck. Most of the pitchers you mentioned have negative clutch scores.

Finally, not as good as Schilling or Smoltz, but Glavine threw 200+ innings in the postseason vs. strong competition and had better ERA numbers than he did in the regular season. Glavine gets a slight postseason boost too.

I have run some WAR numbers that include: 1. UZR defense instead of TZ from 2002-2008 (which is more accurate and weeds out the TZ issue), 2. includes offensive WAR, and 3. gives a pitcher .5 credit for "clutch". Glavine's real WAR would be closer to 76 and a WAE of near 30. I believe this is much more accurate of what Glavine really did than rWAR.

As far as Rueschel - Rick was a horrible postseason pitcher, and is another example of a pitcher who benefits unnecesarily well by park factors. As an extreme groundballer, Rueschel was not hurt by the HR tendancies of Wrigly the way everyone else was. He clutch score was very poor too. I have Ruechel's true WAR beong closer 61-62.

I agree that "Mussina, Schilling, Clarkson, Keefe, Palmer, Walsh, and Drysdale," are better than Glavine. It is the "to name a few" part that I would take issue with.

I just use b-ref for the WAR scores, and they have pitching and batting separate for pitchers, which is absolutely fine, but it would be nice if there was a site that combined both for pitchers. Thanks for the input. I still have tons to learn, and haven't yet compiled a complete top 50 list for pitchers.

[Matthew C.]

PCA puts Tiant above Palmer. I think that Palmer's DNRA+ is 115.

Tiant is near that group and I plan on voting for him before this project is over. I still think PCA is undervaluing Palmer since PCA does not include situational splits, something Palmer was very good at. Palmer also has a +7.4 clutch score; one of the best of any pitcher I have seen. Unlike Morris and Hunter, Palmer really did give up a disporportionate number of his runs during garbage time. Neither PCA or WAR recognize this.

Palmer is definitley overrated compared to the low-20's he used to be placed in, but I think he is better than the 40's that most sabes are putting him now.