Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steve Carlton vs. Eddie Plank

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Steve Carlton vs. Eddie Plank

    Here's a battle of the southpaws.

    Both pitchers were 300-game winners (Carlton: 329, Plank: 326). Carlton bests Plank in wins, strikeouts, games, games started, innings, batters faced and black ink, while Plank beat Carlton in winning percentage, ERA, walks allowed, complete games, shutouts, ERA+, WAR and grey ink.

    Carlton won at least 20 games six times and led the league in that category four times. Plank won at least 20 games eight times, but he never led the league in that category. He led the league in shutouts twice to Carlton's once, however, though Carlton led the league in strikeouts five times to Plank's never.

    Two all-time greats...but which one was better?
    20
    Steve Carlton
    95.00%
    19
    Eddie Plank
    5.00%
    1
    Tags: None
  • #2
    I'll take Carlton based on league quality and a better top 3-4 seasons. Not as far apart as many would think, however.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015

    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

    Comment

    • #3
      Gettysburg Plank was a slow worker, you prob got bored watching him-he was great all the same-going with Lefty much in part to timeline considerations and his neato '72 yr.

      Comment

      • #4
        Steve Carlton
        "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

        Comment

        • #5
          --Carlton was the best pitcher in his league quite a few times, while Plank never was. Plank was usually not even the ace of his team. And this was in leagues of significanly lower quality. I don't see this as close at all. In a modern settig I'd say best case scenario comp for Plank would be Tom Glavine. So Carlton is in the teens all time for me, while Plank is in the 30s.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by leecemark View Post
            --Carlton was the best pitcher in his league quite a few times, while Plank never was. Plank was usually not even the ace of his team. And this was in leagues of significanly lower quality. I don't see this as close at all. In a modern settig I'd say best case scenario comp for Plank would be Tom Glavine. So Carlton is in the teens all time for me, while Plank is in the 30s.
            Glavine isn't a bad comparison by any means. I was thinking a lower comparison by the first 4 sentences.
            "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

            Comment

            • #7
              Steve Carlton, yeah Plank reminds me more of Glavine too.
              "(Shoeless Joe Jackson's fall from grace is one of the real tragedies of baseball. I always thought he was more sinned against than sinning." -- Connie Mack

              "I have the ultimate respect for Whitesox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Redsox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country."--Jim Caple, ESPN (Jan. 12, 2011)

              Comment

              • #8
                I am sure if we went season by season we would find times in which Plank was the best pitcher on his team; just like Glavine who won a Cy Young and was the ace of two WS teams before Maddux ever showed up.

                Even so, I am not sure why that matters. Some seasons Joe Montana was the second best player on his team. Some seasons Paul Coffey was the 4th best player on his team. For at least one season, Torry Holt was the 3rd most prolific pass catcher on his team behind two HOFers.

                That being said, I already gave my vote for Carlton - but not because I discount him for not being as good as Bob Gibson in 1969. I do like the Glavine comp. Maybe Lyons or Mussina would be two other good comps?
                Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 01-12-2013, 07:16 PM.
                1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015

                The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                Comment

                • #9
                  That was a pun, by the way.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Is this what the HISTORY section has turned into? This player vs this player. It's getting out of hand. This should be about all the users gathering resources and posting information that the casual observer doesn't have access to. From there debates can happen and we all learn. But so and so VS so and so? It's becoming a joke. Why not a "VS" section in the statistical analysis section. Would be more fitting.
                    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 01-12-2013, 10:27 PM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TomBodet View Post
                      That was a pun, by the way.
                      Because he worked at Gettysburg, Tom?
                      "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                        Is this what the HISTORY section has turned into? This player vs this player. It's getting out of hand. This should be about all the users gathering resources and posting information that the casual observer doesn't have access to. From there debates can happen and we all learn. But so and so VS so and so? It's becoming a joke. Why not a "VS" section in the statistical analysis section. Would be more fitting.
                        Very true! :applaud:
                        "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                          Is this what the HISTORY section has turned into? This player vs this player. It's getting out of hand. This should be about all the users gathering resources and posting information that the casual observer doesn't have access to. From there debates can happen and we all learn. But so and so VS so and so? It's becoming a joke. Why not a "VS" section in the statistical analysis section. Would be more fitting.
                          You're free to start your own message board.

                          There's only so much information that can get "pooled". The Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio and Ty Cobb lovefest threads get old after 80 pages or so.
                          Last edited by Cowtipper; 01-13-2013, 04:39 AM.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Plank. Bored.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Eddie was a type of pitcher that ran counter to the current of pitchers of his time. While most pitchers took a while to get acclimated to the big leagues, he was a success right from the start.

                              Eddie. Counter current.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎