Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christy Mathewson's status:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christy Mathewson's status:

    I want to take Christy Mathewson's temperature on Fever. Where do we rank him in our consensus?

    Way back when, traditional, historical opinion ranked him either second to Big Train, or even first in many fans' minds. Seems his stock has dropped significantly here. Not sure why, but here's our chance to explain our feelings on Matty.

    Please vote on where you rank him on your all-time pitcher's list. And also, if he still makes your all time A team. In order to make your all-time A team, in my system, he must come in your top 8.

    Meaning, one of your top 4-5 starting pitchers on your A team, or one of your relievers. In my system, we have 2 long relievers, a short reliever and a closer. Please note that we do NOT have to use only those relievers who were "actual relievers" during their careers. For example, here are the pitcher's on my all time A team.

    P------------------Walter Johnson
    P------------------Christy Mathewson
    P------------------Nolan Ryan
    P------------------Sandy Koufax
    LongRP------------Pete Alexander
    LongRP------------Warren Spahn
    Short Reliever-----Satchel Paige
    Closer-------------Rube Waddell

    So, I'd like to know where you rank Matty all time among pitchers, and if he still makes your A team.
    204
    I rank Christy Mathewson #1.
    3.43%
    7
    I rank Christy Mathewson #2.
    13.73%
    28
    #3
    12.75%
    26
    #4
    9.31%
    19
    #5
    12.25%
    25
    #6
    5.88%
    12
    #7
    5.39%
    11
    #8
    4.90%
    10
    #9
    4.41%
    9
    #10
    2.45%
    5
    #11
    2.45%
    5
    #12
    1.47%
    3
    I rank Matty lower than #12 on my all time pitcher's list.
    2.94%
    6
    I still have Matty on my all time A team.
    12.25%
    25
    I do not still have Matty on my all time A team.
    6.37%
    13
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-12-2009, 04:06 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 538280
    I can't see how you can put him anywhere near the top 5. Those ERA+ are extremely inflated by the defense behind him, and the competition he was performing against. Deadball era ERA+ are much, much higher than ERA+ of any other era.
    Black Ink:

    Matty - 92
    Gibson - 20

    Gray Ink:

    Matty - 352
    Gibson - 204

    Even taking era and competition into account, there is a monstrous gap between those numbers. Matty was a lot better compared to his contemporaries than Gibson was against his. Don't get me wrong, I hear you when you say that it was tougher for Gibson, but I don't think the gaps in black and gray ink should be that wide. I'll take Matthewson.

    One thing, regarding Matty's/Gibson's defenses: the fields were larger when Matty pitched. It was tougher to hit for power, of course, but his fielders had more ground to cover.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 12-08-2005, 11:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by [email protected]

      I have no idea why you use league strength to minimize such a good pitcher. If the inferior league was the reason for his success early, then he would have folded when the league got good in 1908. Yet that is when he peaked. 1908-09 is when he rose to the occasion and showed his total mastery of his competition. And he kept it up until his arm gave out in 1915.

      There was no worsening of his record from 1908-1914, when the league was tough, as from 1900-07, when it supposedly, sucked. So the issue of league strength is moot. At least in Matty's case. His talent rose above his league, weak or short.

      Bill Burgess
      Bill,

      You're really missing the point here. I said Gibson was better because his league was harder to dominate. That is true, and I'm sure even you can't dispute that. What you said is true, the quality of play did increase in 1908. However, it still wasn't anywhere near the 1960s NL's quality (Gibson's league). Before 1908, Matty played in a league that sucked. After 1908, he played in a better league, but still not all that great. When taking the whole career into consideration, Gibson still leaps ahead of Matty in all those career rate stats mentioned.

      Here's another thing for you. As I'm sure you know, the folks at BP translate historical stats, adjusting for era and quality of play. Adjusting the stats, this is how Gibson and Mathewson turn out:

      Christy Mathewson
      Code:
      Translated Pitching Statistics 
      AGE YEAR TEAM    IP     H    ER   HR   BB  HBP  SO    ERA    W   L  SV   H/9  HR/9 BB/9 SO/9
       19 1900 NY_-N   28.0   28   23    4   19    2   29   7.39   0   3   0   9.0  1.3  6.1  9.3
       20 1901 NY_-N  263.3  190   80   18  100    8  249   2.73  21   8   0   6.5   .6  3.4  8.5
       21 1902 NY_-N  217.3  179  102   29   83    7  187   4.22  14  10   0   7.4  1.2  3.4  7.7
       22 1903 NY_-N  281.7  244  105   32   83    5  315   3.36  21  11   2   7.8  1.0  2.7 10.1
       23 1904 NY_-N  272.7  261  121   39   65    1  243   3.99  18  14   1   8.6  1.3  2.1  8.0
       24 1905 NY_-N  269.0  223   86   33   44    0  243   2.88  22   9   3   7.5  1.1  1.5  8.1
       25 1906 NY_-N  223.0  257  111   27   72    1  156   4.48  14  13   1  10.4  1.1  2.9  6.3
       26 1907 NY_-N  266.7  232   98   35   36    0  245   3.31  19  11   2   7.8  1.2  1.2  8.3
       27 1908 NY_-N  307.7  254   90   35   27    1  331   2.63  27   9   4   7.4  1.0   .8  9.7
       28 1909 NY_-N  243.0  191   65   25   24    0  200   2.41  21   6   2   7.1   .9   .9  7.4
       29 1910 NY_-N  282.7  277  102   31   50    2  240   3.25  22  10   0   8.8  1.0  1.6  7.6
       30 1911 NY_-N  254.7  262   86   24   27    1  168   3.04  20  10   3   9.3   .8  1.0  5.9
       31 1912 NY_-N  279.0  294  102   28   20    2  177   3.29  19  12   4   9.5   .9   .6  5.7
       32 1913 NY_-N  271.0  277  102   32   19    2  118   3.39  20  11   2   9.2  1.1   .6  3.9
       33 1914 NY_-N  257.3  274  141   53    0    0   82   4.93  15  15   2   9.6  1.9   .0  2.9
       34 1915 NY_-N  158.7  175  104   32   13    1   66   5.90   6  12   0   9.9  1.8   .7  3.7
       35 1916 NY_-N   55.0   54   34   12    4    0   14   5.56   2   4   4   8.8  2.0   .7  2.3
       35 1916 CIN-N    7.7   13    9    3    1    0    3  10.57   1   0   0  15.3  3.5  1.2  3.5
       
           Career    3938.3 3685 1561  492  687   33 3066   3.57 282 168  30   8.4  1.1  1.6  7.0
      Bob Gibson
      Code:
      Translated Pitching Statistics 
      AGE YEAR TEAM    IP     H    ER   HR   BB  HBP  SO    ERA    W   L  SV   H/9  HR/9 BB/9 SO/9
       23 1959 STL-N   74.0   66   24    3   32    2   59   2.92   5   3   0   8.0   .4  3.9  7.2
       24 1960 STL-N   86.7   90   51    6   43    2   85   5.30   4   5   0   9.3   .6  4.5  8.8
       25 1961 STL-N  223.0  185   75   13  102    8  221   3.03  17   9   1   7.5   .5  4.1  8.9
       26 1962 STL-N  224.7  156   66   13   78   11  248   2.64  17   9   1   6.2   .5  3.1  9.9
       27 1963 STL-N  230.0  197   95   18   87   14  218   3.72  16   9   0   7.7   .7  3.4  8.5
       28 1964 STL-N  268.7  215   89   25   78   11  279   2.98  20   9   1   7.2   .8  2.6  9.3
       29 1965 STL-N  267.7  187   81   28   86   11  276   2.72  21   8   1   6.3   .9  2.9  9.3
       30 1966 STL-N  257.3  179   72   18   71    6  244   2.52  23   6   0   6.3   .6  2.5  8.5
       31 1967 STL-N  165.7  147   62   14   35    4  148   3.37  12   7   0   8.0   .8  1.9  8.0
       32 1968 STL-N  278.0  188   50   21   56    9  279   1.62  25   5   0   6.1   .7  1.8  9.0
       33 1969 STL-N  272.0  212   58   13   67   11  249   1.92  24   5   0   7.0   .4  2.2  8.2
       34 1970 STL-N  267.0  215   68   12   56    5  286   2.29  24   4   0   7.2   .4  1.9  9.6
       35 1971 STL-N  230.7  188   81   16   65    9  201   3.16  16  10   0   7.3   .6  2.5  7.8
       36 1972 STL-N  260.3  204   68   18   71    4  218   2.35  23   6   0   7.1   .6  2.5  7.5
       37 1973 STL-N  188.0  151   64   13   46    5  156   3.06  14   7   0   7.2   .6  2.2  7.5
       38 1974 STL-N  228.3  206  101   29   86    8  145   3.98  13  11   0   8.1  1.1  3.4  5.7
       39 1975 STL-N  104.0  102   60   12   57    6   68   5.19   4   8   2   8.8  1.0  4.9  5.9
       
           Career    3626.0 2888 1165  272 1116  126 3380   2.89 278 121   6   7.2   .7  2.8  8.4
      Last edited by 538280; 09-12-2005, 04:34 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        For what its worth : Career Win Shares

        Young - 635
        Johnson - 564
        Alexander - 477
        Mathewson - 426
        Spahn - 411
        Grove - 391
        Gibson - 320

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
          Smokey Joe Williams and Bullet Joe Rogan say hello

          Yes... I know about Williams and Rogan and I have both of them in 11-20 range in my all time list...

          And my great grandpa had Williams as the greatest pitcher of all time OVER Rogan, Paige, Walter Johnson...
          "Back before I injured my hip, I thought going to the gym was for wimps."
          Bo Jackson

          Actually, I think they were about the same because I lettered in all sports, and I was a two-time state decathlon champion.
          Bo Jackson

          My sophomore year I placed 2nd, and my junior and senior year - I got smart and piled up enough points between myself and second place where I didn't have to run the mile.
          Bo Jackson

          Comment


          • #6
            Looks as if the house is treating Christy pretty fair in this poll. 24 members have him in their Top 5, and 9 do not. I think that is encouraging to Christy loyalists like me.

            So thank you Fever brothers. Looks like this wasn't a flop after all, as I feared. I still hope Christy comes in top 3 on the Pitchers poll.

            Bill

            Comment


            • #7
              Bill,

              Mathewson was the second greatest pitcher of all time, behind Johnson.

              We are in the era of adjusting statistics, which is pure garbage because there are so many uncontrolled variables that comparisons based on statistics are mere guesses.

              Take a league composed of teams that all lost at least 100 games in a season and have them play a season against each other.

              Take a league composed of teams that all won at least 100 games in a season and have them play a season against each other.

              Do not use names. Use codes for the players and then compare their statistics.

              Fascinating, simple, and the truth, for those who can handle the truth.

              Back to Mathewson.

              The Celebrant gives an excellent, outstanding picture of Mathewson's greatness. You, Bill, have reports, articles, columns, etc. about Mathewson.

              If one were to go to the New York Times, a rag I usually avoid but a rag that had some excellent baseball writers until the last decade, one could read the descriptions of Mathewson's pitching abilities and his greatness and realize that few were his equal.

              A major point is that he was not primarily a power pitcher, although he could throw hard. One could make a case that Johnson was not as fast as some of today's pitchers and therefore not as great, if one considers throwing hard a sign of greatness. But that does not apply for Mathewson.
              Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by [email protected]
                I have no idea why you use league strength to minimize such a good pitcher. If the inferior league was the reason for his success early, then he would have folded when the league got good in 1908. Yet that is when he peaked. 1908-09 is when he rose to the occasion and showed his total mastery of his competition. And he kept it up until his arm gave out in 1915.
                Why 1908? What happened in 1908?

                Matty had one of the all-time great World Series performances in 1905, pitching three shutouts to power the Giants to the flag over Connie Mack's A's. In 1908, Mathewson had one of the all-time great seasons by a pitcher, going 37-11 with a 1.43 ERA and 11 shutouts.

                Mathewson was a great, great pitcher. Excellent fielder too. Not much of a hitter, but you can't have everything.

                But. The National League of the first two decades of the 20th century was not a very powerful league. There was Matty, and Honus....and who else? The other big stars were all in the AL. Cobb, Collins, Speaker, Lajoie, Cy Young...all with the Americans.

                Mathewson had a tremendous run. But other pitchers, from Cy Young to Pete Alexander to Walter Johnson to Lefty Grove to Robin Roberts to Tom Seaver to Roger Clemens have had such runs of quality. Of all pitchers historically, I think Matty was most like Seaver. Cerebral, level-headed, based in New York, went from there to Cincinnati....it's kinda creepy, actually.
                Rooting the Reds home.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                  For what its worth : Career Win Shares

                  Young - 635
                  Johnson - 564
                  Alexander - 477
                  Mathewson - 426
                  Spahn - 411
                  Grove - 391
                  Gibson - 320
                  To me, it's worth quite a bit.

                  That said, Mathewson has dropped in my estimation since I started studying the game seriously. This is despite that fact that his raw stats are impeccable, and his mean adjusted stats are still outstanding.

                  Why?

                  1. Over 70% of all big leaguers went to the American League in 1901. The National League couldn't have been that strong for several years afterwards, now could it?

                  2. If Matty had been on the Brooklyn Dodgers, with that run support and those defenses, would he be a legend? If he hadn't played in NY, would his legacy be as godlike? Walter Johnson was simply awesome without any of these important advantages. Walter and Pete Alexander both had to pitch against the live ball, also, after pitchers had been divested of all their weapons.

                  I think Matty would still have been great- certainly the best in his league some years- but playing in a stronger league and/or on a team that wasn't nearly as great, he almost certainly would have come back to the pack some.

                  He's a lot like Babe Ruth, really. He was great, but he was also one of the luckiest players ever. All the luck and ballyhoo in the world came together for those two. When you look deeper at the context that allowed their numbers to happen, they don't look so untouchable anymore.

                  Just for comparison's sake, just in an attempt to affix a hard number to the advantages Matty had...

                  Matty
                  Actual record: 373-188
                  Adj W/L: 363-198

                  Walter Johnson
                  Actual record: 417-279
                  Adj W/L 436-260

                  http://runsupportindex.blogspot.com/...-pitchers.html

                  Other arcana:
                  His amazing 1905 ERA and ERA+ were greatly aided by an unusually high number of unearned runs. Almost half of his runs allowed were unearned, while the rest of the staff had only 25% of their runs not count against their ERAs. If Mathewson had the same % of unearned runs as his teammates, he would've had 16 more earned runs - an increase of 33%.

                  No wonder the most common HoFer vs HoFer pitching match up (of the 20th century at least) was Christy Mathewson vs. Mordecai Brown. In 24 starts against Brown - Mathewson's team won 10 times. From 1906-8 he started 8 games against the Three Fingered one and the Giants lost every time. He did defeat his longtime nemesis 10-8 in what turned out to be the last start of his career on September 4, 1916.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ps

                    I'd probably rank Mathewson somewhere around 7th-8th alltime.

                    I haven't had time to really reconsider my alltime list lately with appropriate effort, and it was far too biased towards pre-1950 pitchers the last time I ranked everybody (which was a few years ago now).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We are in the era of adjusting statistics, which is pure garbage because there are so many uncontrolled variables that comparisons based on statistics are mere guesses.
                      Tell me, Lou Gehrig, who was the better pitcher - Pedro Martinez or Slim Sallee? Slim had the better ERA. And we can't adjust that, right? I think we've got to go with ole Slim.
                      "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
                      - Danielle Rousseau

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mac195
                        Tell me, Lou Gehrig, who was the better pitcher - Pedro Martinez or Slim Sallee? Slim had the better ERA. And we can't adjust that, right? I think we've got to go with ole Slim.
                        Everybody knows that Tim Keefe's 1880 season was the greatest pitching performance of all time. His ERA+ was 294.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by csh19792001
                          No wonder the most common HoFer vs HoFer pitching match up (of the 20th century at least) was Christy Mathewson vs. Mordecai Brown. In 24 starts against Brown - Mathewson's team won 10 times. From 1906-8 he started 8 games against the Three Fingered one and the Giants lost every time. He did defeat his longtime nemesis 10-8 in what turned out to be the last start of his career on September 4, 1916. [/I]
                          This is a big part of why I can't fathom leaving Brown out of your top 10 list.
                          "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                          Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I've got a book called "The Great All-Time Baseball Record Book", by Joseph Reichler. It has a list of the fastest pitches in it. It says "official clocking", which makes little sense considering radar guns don't go back that far.

                            Nolan Ryan, 1974 - 100.8 MPH
                            J.R. Richard, 1978 - 100.0 MPH
                            Walter Johnson, 1914 - 99.7 MPH
                            Jim Maloney, 1965 - 99.5 MPH
                            Rich Gossage, 1980 - 99.4 MPH
                            Bob Feller, 1946 - 98.6 MPH


                            Others of note:

                            Don Drysdale, 1960 - 95.3
                            Joe Wood, 1912 - 94.5
                            Sany Koufax, 1960 - 93.2

                            Christy Mathewson, 1914 - 91.3

                            Matty's 1.59 BB/9 innings is pretty sweet. It ranks among the very elite if you raise the minimum IP for eligibility to 2500. After all, he threw over 4700 innings, why should any list be based on a minimum 1000 IP. Sorta lame.
                            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 12-08-2005, 11:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ha! No one dared comment on BP's adjusted stats for Gibson/Matty. I really nailed all the Mathewson supporters, and they refuse to reply. This is making me want to start Gibson/Matty poll.....We'll save that for later, as we already have enough pitcher debate going on.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X