Best Starting Pitcher of all Time?

[gunnarthor]

This is an interesting study...

Www.freewebs.com/stlcards2/

Not sure if link works from my phone.

Actually, that's a pretty solid list.

 

[StanMarsh51]

This is an interesting study...

Www.freewebs.com/stlcards2/

Not sure if link works from my phone.

Before someone flips their sh1t:

Pitcher A - .526 win %, 112 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP, 2.04 K/BB, 5386 innings, 222 complete games
Pitcher B - .534 win %, 118 ERA+, 1.20 WHIP, 2.80 K/BB, 4970 innings, 242 complete games


Pitcher A was Nolan Ryan...pitcher B was Bert Blyleven.

 

[navamind]

Before someone flips their sh1t:

Pitcher A - .526 win %, 112 ERA+, 1.25 WHIP, 2.04 K/BB, 5386 innings, 222 complete games
Pitcher B - .534 win %, 118 ERA+, 1.20 WHIP, 2.80 K/BB, 4970 innings, 242 complete games


Pitcher A was Nolan Ryan...pitcher B was Bert Blyleven.

BUT THE NO HITTERZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I feel funny about it, but part of me wants to say Pedro. He had arguably the two best pitching seasons of all time and had a five or six year run as dominant as any other in baseball - and it was in the height of the steroid era. Of course, he could have also been juicing, so who knows.

I have a hard time voting for guys who played so long ago. I love and appreciate the history of the game, but I'm not sure that I buy that the best pitcher and hitter were both playing a hundred years or so. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I feel funny about it, but part of me wants to say Pedro. He had arguably the two best pitching seasons of all time and had a five or six year run as dominant as any other in baseball - and it was in the height of the steroid era. Of course, he could have also been juicing, so who knows.

I have a hard time voting for guys who played so long ago. I love and appreciate the history of the game, but I'm not sure that I buy that the best pitcher and hitter were both playing a hundred years or so. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

I cant call him the greatest, but I can see the argument for him...

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I cant call him the greatest, but I can see the argument for him...

That's kind of where I am. I just feel like most people wouldn't even consider him. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

That's kind of where I am. I just feel like most people wouldn't even consider him. Maybe I'm wrong.

He deserves to be on the list... But I would probably take Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens over him...

 

[steveringo]

At his peak, Martinez was more dominant than any other pitcher. I do wish he pitched longer...

I'd put him right behind Clemens and ahead of Johnson.

 

[GNG]

Warren Spahn

 

[navamind]

At his peak, Martinez was more dominant than any other pitcher. I do wish he pitched longer...

I'd put him right behind Clemens and ahead of Johnson.

Not seeing it. Pedro's 2000 tops any of Johnson's best years, but Johnson's peak was still fantastic and he was n absolute workhorse. Johnson had 7 seasons of 8+ bWAR while Pedro had 4. Not to mention he has ~1300 more career innings.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Randy Johnson.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Not seeing it. Pedro's 2000 tops any of Johnson's best years, but Johnson's peak was still fantastic and he was n absolute workhorse. Johnson had 7 seasons of 8+ bWAR while Pedro had 4. Not to mention he has ~1300 more career innings.

<makes jerking off motion>

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Not to mention he [Johnson] has ~1300 more career innings.

From '93-'04, Johnson had a legendary twelve year stretch (2,550 Inn / 2.78 ERA). He bookended those years with 1,585 innings of mediocre pitching ( '88-'92 & '05-'09 / 4.11 ERA).

I'm not sure Pedro could have hung on to pitch another 1,300 innings of shit to equal Johnson's career innings, but if he had, it wouldn't mean much to me when comparing the two.

Pedro's twelve seasons between '94-'05 he pitched 2,398 Inn with a 2.72 ERA.

I'm going with Pedro over Johnson.

 

[gunnarthor]

From '93-'04, Johnson had a legendary twelve year stretch (2,550 Inn / 2.78 ERA). He bookended those years with 1,585 innings of mediocre pitching ( '88-'92 & '05-'09 / 4.11 ERA).

I'm not sure Pedro could have hung on to pitch another 1,300 innings of shit to equal Johnson's career innings, but if he had, it wouldn't mean much to me when comparing the two.

Pedro's twelve seasons between '94-'05 he pitched 2,398 Inn with a 2.72 ERA.

I'm going with Pedro over Johnson.

Well, if you adjust for parks, the ERA+ numbers are 167 v 166, not much of a difference, esp considering the innings difference, which is why Johnson's WAR over that period is better. Pedro had a great peak but it's hard to put him in consideration with guys like Clemens, Johnson, Maddux who all had equally good peaks and thousands of more innings.

 

[StanMarsh51]

From '93-'04, Johnson had a legendary twelve year stretch (2,550 Inn / 2.78 ERA). He bookended those years with 1,585 innings of mediocre pitching ( '88-'92 & '05-'09 / 4.11 ERA).

I'm not sure Pedro could have hung on to pitch another 1,300 innings of shit to equal Johnson's career innings, but if he had, it wouldn't mean much to me when comparing the two.

Pedro's twelve seasons between '94-'05 he pitched 2,398 Inn with a 2.72 ERA.

I'm going with Pedro over Johnson.

Johnson had an ERA+ of 104 from 2005-2009 and an ERA+ of 101 from 1988-1992, so one could make the case that he was a bit above average during those extra innings (to call them 'shit' would be underrating him).

Considering Pedro had an ERA+ of 94 from 2006-2009, if he were somehow able to hang on for an extra 1300 innings, I wouldn't bet on him having an ERA+ of 101 given how those final few years went collectively.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Well, if you adjust for parks, the ERA+ numbers are 167 v 166, not much of a difference, esp considering the innings difference, which is why Johnson's WAR over that period is better. Pedro had a great peak but it's hard to put him in consideration with guys like Clemens, Johnson, Maddux who all had equally good peaks and thousands of more innings.

The difference in innings over that period averages out to 12 per season, which I don't consider to be too big of a deal. Especially considering that they basically started the same amount of games.

I took Johnson's 12 best consecutive years ('93-'04) and compared it to Pedro's best 12 consecutive years ('94-'05). I did not compare their "peaks."

In Pedro's "peak," the seven years from '97 to '03, he averaged 201 innings per with a 213 ERA+. Consider that for a second: seven years with an ERA+ of 213. To put that into perspective, Randy Johnson never had a single season with an ERA+ over 200 and only had three over 190.

Johnson's peak was not equal to Pedro's. At all. In fact, I don't think there is another pitcher who averaged 200+ innings with a +200 ERA+ over seven consecutive seasons.

Prior to '93, Johnson pitched 818 innings with a 101 ERA and after '04, 767 innings with a 104 ERA. If you want to say that Johnson was a better pitcher than Pedro because he started his career slowly, hung on too long, and in doing so amassed 1,300 more innings (of average ball) than Pedro did, so be it.

Knowing the numbers, if the Indians could some how pick between having Johnson's career or Pedro's career, starting from years #1, I'm taking Pedro.

 

[StanMarsh51]

The difference in innings over that period averages out to 12 per season, which I don't consider to be too big of a deal. Especially considering that they basically started the same amount of games.

I took Johnson's 12 best consecutive years ('93-'04) and compared it to Pedro's best 12 consecutive years ('94-'05). I did not compare their "peaks."

In Pedro's "peak," the seven years from '97 to '03, he averaged 201 innings per with a 213 ERA+. Consider that for a second: seven years with an ERA+ of 213. To put that into perspective, Randy Johnson never had a single season with an ERA+ over 200 and only had three over 190.

Then again, I don't think you'd deny that throwing more innings in a season can have an adverse effect on your rate stats, as pitchers can tire out more, hitters get more looks, etc. In other words, in many cases there's a tradeoff between innings and rate stats. The numbers as a result need to be taken into context, otherwise we'd think that Chris Sale was better than Corey Kluber last year.

The best example is probably Clemens' 1997 season, since it could've been comparable to Pedro's 2000 if he threw less innings

• Through 219 innings, Clemens had a 1.73 ERA (virtually the same as Pedro's 2000)
• In his final 45 innings, he had a 3.57 ERA, and ended up at 2.03

If Clemens' season had ended to injury after 219 innings, that season would be much more praised than it was. But with a lot more innings, his rate numbers were hurt.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Johnson had an ERA+ of 104 from 2005-2009 and an ERA+ of 101 from 1988-1992, so one could make the case that he was a bit above average during those extra innings (to call them 'shit' would be underrating him).

Considering Pedro had an ERA+ of 94 from 2006-2009, if he were somehow able to hang on for an extra 1300 innings, I wouldn't bet on him having an ERA+ of 101 given how those final few years went collectively.

Generally speaking, I would agree with you that an ERA+ around 100 is not "shit." However, when we're discussing the best pitchers of all time, I'm fine with calling average "shit."

You make a valid point about Pedro's '06-'09 and his physical ability to pitch another 1,300 innings. He likely couldn't, but maybe he could have added some average, or "shit," innings to the beginning? Who knows? That part is just conjecture.

I'm still taking Pedro over Johnson, if for no other reason that Johnson's name is synonymous with penis.

 

[Tharvot]

I think its impossible to name one. You can narrow down the top 5 or so from each generation or set of years, but they are pretty interchangeable. The way the game has evolved, its impossible to measure up statistics from the early days of MLB to recent times.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Then again, I don't think you'd deny that throwing more innings in a season can have an adverse effect on your rate stats, as pitchers can tire out more, hitters get more looks, etc. In other words, in many cases there's a tradeoff between innings and rate stats. The numbers as a result need to be taken into context, otherwise we'd think that Chris Sale was better than Corey Kluber last year.

The best example is probably Clemens' 1997 season, since it could've been comparable to Pedro's 2000 if he threw less innings

• Through 219 innings, Clemens had a 1.73 ERA (virtually the same as Pedro's 2000)
• In his final 45 innings, he had a 3.57 ERA, and ended up at 2.03

If Clemens' season had ended to injury after 219 innings, that season would be much more praised than it was. But with a lot more innings, his rate numbers were hurt.

Well aren't we bouncing around the room now? You're moving us from comparing Pedro's and Johnson's careers to comparing Pedro's 2000 season to Clemens' 1997 season. I've got some work to do, so I don't think I'm going to pick up a new flag. However, my first thought would be that while Pedro may have been juicing in 2000, we know that Clemens was in '97.