Top 50 Pitchers of All-Time v. 3.0: Pitchers #46-50

[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
26. Nolan Ryan
27. Ed Walsh
28. Jim Palmer
29. Mordecai Brown
30. Mariano Rivera
31. Eddie Plank
32. John Clarkson
33. Whitey Ford
34. Mike Mussina
35. Rube Waddell
36. Tom Glavine
37. Curt Schilling
38. Dazzy Vance
39. Don Drysdale
40. Hal Newhouser
41. John Smoltz
42. Tim Keefe
43. Hoyt Wilhelm
44. Jim Bunning
45. Roy Halladay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46. Kevin Brown
47. Red Ruffing
48. Wes Ferrell
49. Dennis Eckersley
50. Luis Tiant

Contenders if we continue: Rusie, Lyons, Radbourn, Wynn, Reuschel, Steib, Sutton, Saberhagen,

[Los Bravos]

Tiant
Eckersley

Sutton (I would place him rather higher if making a list on my own...I overlooked his not being on the list when I first started voting...)

Saberhagen
Tommy John

[nerfan]

Kevin Brown
Don Sutton
Dave Steib
Red Ruffing
Bret Saberhagen

[leecemark]

46) Roy Halladay
47) Bullet Joe Rogan
48) Stan Coveleski
49) Red Ruffing
50) Don Sutton

[Matthew C.]

Rivera was selected a long time ago.

[DoubleX]

It's getting very tough at this point.

46) Stan Coveleski
47) Joe Rogan
48) Amos Rusie
49) Red Ruffing
50) Dennis Eckersley

[leecemark]

--Rusie was the toughest cut from my ballot.

[Bigfoot 88]

46-Kevin Brown
47-Don Sutton
48-Luis Tiant
49-David Cone
50-Babe Adams(5 time WHIP crown, great control pitcher)

[BigRon]

Hmmm..... Out of town, don't have access to all my reference info.

46. Don Sutton
47. Stan Coveleski
48. Kevin Brown, with some misgivings
49. Red Ruffing
50. Dennis Eckersley, with some misgivings

I seriously considered Ferrell. He was an excellent pitcher and probably the best hitting modern day pitcher. BUT, his career was short. If we continue, he'll definitely be somewhere in my 50s. Lemon also merits consideration.

I feel like I'm missing somebody- oh well.

[Matthew C.]

I know I am bringing up two things many do not consider, but if you do...

Ferrell had an eight year span of 52.6 tWAR (combining pitching with offense). That is 6.57 per season for 8 years. He finished top 5 of all AL players 4 times; two more top 10 finishes on top of it. I bet half of the pitchers we have selected so far cannot boast that for their top 8 seasons.

If somebody cares about offense, I see no defensible way to leave Ferrell off.

Granted, he had absolutely nothing outside of those 8 years... with only .7 tWAR otherwise.

[BigRon]

I know I am bringing up two things many do not consider, but if you do...

Ferrell had an eight year span of 52.6 tWAR (combining pitching with offense). That is 6.57 per season for 8 years. He finished top 5 of all AL players 4 times; two more top 10 finishes on top of it. I bet half of the pitchers we have selected so far cannot boast that for their top 8 seasons.

If somebody cares about offense, I see no defensible way to leave Ferrell off.

Granted, he had absolutely nothing outside of those 8 years... with only .7 tWAR otherwise.

I guess I'm between you and DoubleX on the hitting issue. I know it has value, and can help win games. On the other hand, the bar is SO low on pitcher hitting that I guess I struggle a bit with the concept that an outstanding pitcher (which Ferrell was) produced more than 20% of his career value above replacement with the bat. Yes, he was an outstanding hitter for a pitcher, but in the end he still was roughly an average ML hitter, and was in the lineup 1 day in 4.

There are good arguments for Ferrell in the top 50, and I believe there are good arguments to place him a bit lower. I choose to put him in the latter.

[Matthew C.]

I guess I'm between you and DoubleX on the hitting issue. I know it has value, and can help win games. On the other hand, the bar is SO low on pitcher hitting that I guess I struggle a bit with the concept that an outstanding pitcher (which Ferrell was) produced more than 20% of his career value above replacement with the bat. Yes, he was an outstanding hitter for a pitcher, but in the end he still was roughly an average ML hitter, and was in the lineup 1 day in 4.

There are good arguments for Ferrell in the top 50, and I believe there are good arguments to place him a bit lower. I choose to put him in the latter.

Right, but we are not comapring Ferrell to a major lrague hitter - he produced 12 WAR more than an average major league pitcher - oWAR is position adjusted. I have no problems believing that the best hitting pitcher ever could be 10 runs better per season than an average MLB pitcher. Thats a couple more walks, a couple more XBhits, and a couple more singles than the average Joe pitcher. Overtime, it adds up to be a lot, however. The fact that the hitting bar is so low is why guys like Ferrell, Lemon, and Ruffing were that much more valuable.

I am sure they are using baseRuns or some other linear weights to determine offense, so as long as we are okay with the amount of positional credit awarded, the oWAR totals should be fine.

[BigRon]

Right, but we are not comapring Ferrell to a major lrague hitter - he produced 12 WAR more than an average major league pitcher - oWAR is position adjusted. I have no problems believing that the best hitting pitcher ever could be 10 runs better per season than an average MLB pitcher. Thats a couple more walks, a couple more XBhits, and a couple more singles than the average Joe pitcher. Overtime, it adds up to be a lot, however. The fact that the hitting bar is so low is why guys like Ferrell, Lemon, and Ruffing were that much more valuable.

I am sure they are using baseRuns or some other linear weights to determine offense, so as long as we are okay with the amount of positional credit awarded, the oWAR totals should be fine.

Well, it still says that more than 20% of his TOTAL value as a player above replacement level was due to the fact that he had an OPS+ (using that as a proxy) of 100. That would feel a lot more sensible to me if he had been just a pretty good pitcher. But- he was not- he was very good. No doubt the math computes- I'm just not completely sold on the logic.

[Bigfoot 88]

David Cone seems be getting overlooked, but maybe I just like his strikeout numbers and H/9 numbers.

Here are his best rankings in terms of K/9:

1988-5th
1989-4th
1990-1st
1991-1st
1992-1st
1995-6th
1997-2nd
1998-3rd
1999-3rd

Rankings in terms of H/9:
1988-5th
1990-6th
1992-5th
1993-3rd
1994-2nd
1995-5th
1997-3rd
1998-4th
1999-2nd

He did walk a few guys, and while walks are important they aren't as important as hits. Being able to limit hits and strike out people is dominant and walks can be worked around. It isn't like he walked people as Nolan Ryan did; he had a 3.5 BB/9 for his career.

I'd say his 121 ERA+ in 2,900 innings is very solid, and if you take out his last 3 bad years he has a 129 ERA+ in 2,600 innings.

[Matthew C.]

Well, it still says that more than 20% of his TOTAL value as a player above replacement level was due to the fact that he had an OPS+ (using that as a proxy) of 100. That would feel a lot more sensible to me if he had been just a pretty good pitcher. But- he was not- he was very good. No doubt the math computes- I'm just not completely sold on the logic.

I see what you are saying. The fact that he had an 100 OPS+ when the average pitcher was down in the...who knows, 50's? That is where the math starts making sense to me. A 100 OPS+ was loads better than the average pitcher. Maybe even more SD away than his pitching was from average.

[Matthew C.]

David Cone seems be getting overlooked, but maybe I just like his strikeout numbers and H/9 numbers.

Here are his best rankings in terms of K/9:

1988-5th
1989-4th
1990-1st
1991-1st
1992-1st
1995-6th
1997-2nd
1998-3rd
1999-3rd

Rankings in terms of H/9:
1988-5th
1990-6th
1992-5th
1993-3rd
1994-2nd
1995-5th
1997-3rd
1998-4th
1999-2nd

He did walk a few guys, and while walks are important they aren't as important as hits. Being able to limit hits and strike out people is dominant and walks can be worked around. It isn't like he walked people as Nolan Ryan did; he had a 3.5 BB/9 for his career.

I'd say his 121 ERA+ in 2,900 innings is very solid, and if you take out his last 3 bad years he has a 129 ERA+ in 2,600 innings.

I prefer to look at what stats instead of how stats when evaluating pitchers. Any pitcher could look pretty good or pretty bad if we isolate their best or worst components. I mean, John Lieber would look like one of the top 20 pitchers in history if I focused on K/BB rate in isolation.

Randy Johnson was average to below average in BB/9, HR/9, BABIP, HBP, WP, Stolen bases allowed, and with situation splits. Really only above average in K/9...but man, how dominating was that component! Without weighing all of the components, we will never get the full read on the pitcher. That is why WAR or even ERA+ for that matter is better than focusing in on any single component.

But yes, Cone is a HOFer. IF the project continues, it will not be too long before I vote for him too.

[Bigfoot 88]

I prefer to look at what stats instead of how stats when evaluating pitchers. Any pitcher could look pretty good or pretty bad if we isolate their best or worst components. I mean, John Lieber would look like one of the top 20 pitchers in history if I focused on K/BB rate in isolation.

Randy Johnson was average to below average in BB/9, HR/9, BABIP, HBP, WP, Stolen bases allowed, and with situation splits. Really only above average in K/9...but man, how dominating was that component! Without weighing all of the components, we will never get the full read on the pitcher. That is why WAR or even ERA+ for that matter is better than focusing in on any single component.

But yes, Cone is a HOFer. IF the project continues, it will not be too long before I vote for him too.

Well there are certain primary stats. SB allowed, WP, and HBP are not very important. H/9 and K/9 are two of the most important he was great at both. I mentioned walks being a downside, but they weren't that excessive. He was pretty good at limiting homers. I did mention his ERA+

Cone is 47th in bWAR and 44th in wWAR as well.

[Matthew C.]

Well there are certain primary stats. SB allowed, WP, and HBP are not very important. H/9 and K/9 are two of the most important he was great at both. I mentioned walks being a downside, but they weren't that excessive. He was pretty good at limiting homers. I did mention his ERA+

Cone is 47th in bWAR and 44th in wWAR as well.

Yeah, he was a great pitcher.

SBA, HBP, and WP can help/cost a pitcher 5-10 WAR over their careers if they are very good or bad at them. It can be a big deal. Our boy Glavine, for example picked up about 5 WAR that way. Ryan was close to -12 WAR that way. It appeared to cost Johnson about 8 career WAR.

[Matthew C.]

More on Cone:

We (and by "we" I mean "I") may be underrating him and here is why:

Everybody was okay with the 4 Big Boyz being HOFers. People were okay with #5 when Glavine won 300. People were okay with #6 when Smoltz did the whole closer/novelty thing. Over time, many people began to accept Mussina and Schilling as #s 7-8. Those who do not dock for PEDS will pick Brown as #9.

All of a sudden, people start looking at Cone's impressive numbers, but say "10 guys is too many from one era." I have heard this said many times, despite the fact that nobody complains about the 11-12 starters from the 70's or the 8-10 HOF starters from lower LQ, pre-integration/pre-Hispanic eras like the 1890's and 1920's (with half the teams to draw from on top of it).

I have no problem with 10 starters coming into the HOF from one era. Just like I have no problem believing that 3 of the top 7 all-time centerfielders all played at the same time in the same city. Why does talent have to be evenly distributed across position and across eras?

[BigRon]

I see what you are saying. The fact that he had an 100 OPS+ when the average pitcher was down in the...who knows, 50's? That is where the math starts making sense to me. A 100 OPS+ was loads better than the average pitcher. Maybe even more SD away than his pitching was from average.

Absolutely his batting was more SD away from average than his pitching. But, he had 120 PA/yr and faced 1200 batters/yr as a pitcher. Even throwing in defensive contributions, his pitching should have had a heck of a lot more effect than his hitting- in my mind, considerably more than 4X as much. But, who knows....

[leecemark]

--Doing a review of all the pitchers mentioned thus far in the thread. I find that Roy Halladay has already accomplished way more than enough to belong in the top 50. My ballot has been edited accordingly. I am always slow to add active players to my rankings, but Doc is definately due.

[DoubleX]

--Doing a review of all the pitchers mentioned thus far in the thread. I find that Roy Halladay has already accomplished way more than enough to belong in the top 50. My ballot has been edited accordingly. I am always slow to add active players to my rankings, but Doc is definately due.

You may want to re-edit, as Halladay clocked in at no. 45.

[Matthew C.]

Absolutely his batting was more SD away from average than his pitching. But, he had 120 PA/yr and faced 1200 batters/yr as a pitcher. Even throwing in defensive contributions, his pitching should have had a heck of a lot more effect than his hitting- in my mind, considerably more than 4X as much. But, who knows....

That was what I was saying - the relative distance apart from his peers in quality of hitting made up for the difference in quantity advantage of pitching. Like I said, I do not think a 10 runs created per year gap is that big of difference when comparing the greatest hitting pitcher ever vs. an average hitting pitcher. That would be one run over replacement created every 4th game.

[Matthew C.]

With all the talk about peak over longevity, I am surprised to see Sutton scoring so highly here.

I am wondering why Brown is left off of so many ballots - is it the PEDs thing?

[leecemark]

You may want to re-edit, as Halladay clocked in at no. 45.

I guess others are quicker than me to get active players on their lists