Best Starting Pitcher of all Time?

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I don't think it implies any such thing. I think it's just a consequence of my ability to do math. For decades after Robinson broke the color line the % of black position players was much higher than the % of black pitchers. Why that was the case is irrelevant with respect to assessing their impact (or absence had) on the accomplishments of those who played before and after. Hispanic players have had a huge impact on the game, obviously, especially the past 25 years or so. But while the talent pool is larger there is one thing about MLB that makes it different than any other sport when comparing eras. MLB was virtually the only way a guy could make a nice living using his athletic ability for the first several decades of the 20th century. Today there are probably millionaire competitive skateboarders. Name virtually any sport or game and there are guys getting rich playing it for money. So that's the other side of the talent pool coin. Today dozens of sports are drawing athletes for money who had no other avenue but baseball in the 20s. But that's another discussion.

Regarding the baseball players of the 20s making a nice living, it simply wasn't true. Many ball players kept off season jobs just to make ends meet. The ones "getting rich" were few and far between. So not only was baseball not drawing from the best African American and international athletes, they weren't even always drawing from the best white athletes. There's no other side of that coin.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

I don't think it implies any such thing. I think it's just a consequence of my ability to do math. For decades after Robinson broke the color line the % of black position players was much higher than the % of black pitchers. Why that was the case is irrelevant with respect to assessing their impact (or absence had) on the accomplishments of those who played before and after. Hispanic players have had a huge impact on the game, obviously, especially the past 25 years or so. But while the talent pool is larger there is one thing about MLB that makes it different than any other sport when comparing eras. MLB was virtually the only way a guy could make a nice living using his athletic ability for the first several decades of the 20th century. Today there are probably millionaire competitive skateboarders. Name virtually any sport or game and there are guys getting rich playing it for money. So that's the other side of the talent pool coin. Today dozens of sports are drawing athletes for money who had no other avenue but baseball in the 20s. But that's another discussion.

Do you have anything to support that? I'm not saying that it's not true, just that I don't know of anything that says it is. Even if it was, I'd say the fact that at any given time, there's at least eight position players on the field for every pitcher -- be them white, black, brown or yellow -- could skew that ratio.

I will say that the second black player in the majors was a pitcher, and if Josh Gibson can be included in the discussion of best catcher off all time, certainly Satchel Page could be in the discussion of best Pitcher.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Regarding the baseball players of the 20s making a nice living, it simply wasn't true. Many ball players kept off season jobs just to make ends meet. The ones "getting rich" were few and far between. So not only was baseball not drawing from the best African American and international athletes, they weren't even always drawing from the best white athletes. There's no other side of that coin.

Honestly, Waz, even if your argument here was true, it'd still be a non starter in this context. Even if the majority of MLB players in the twenties were getting rich, they still weren't black, hispanic or Asian.

Not that it's germane to this conversation, but it may be interesting to note that while MLB was hanging on by a thread during the depression, the ***** League was flourishing. I've always found that interesting.

 

[Wazmankg]

Regarding the baseball players of the 20s making a nice living, it simply wasn't true. Many ball players kept off season jobs just to make ends meet. The ones "getting rich" were few and far between. So not only was baseball not drawing from the best African American and international athletes, they weren't even always drawing from the best white athletes. There's no other side of that coin.

Regardless, baseball was it if athletes were going to make a buck playing a sport and many made very good money for their time. The average salary in the early 1900 was > $5k or nearly $200k in today's dollars... and there was no income or SS tax.

All-Star Earners - Forbes

There were no unions and some lesser lights may have had off season jobs but I doubt many were turning their noses up at that to be famous sports stars and play ball for 6 months a year.

 

[Wazmankg]

Do you have anything to support that? I'm not saying that it's not true, just that I don't know of anything that says it is. Even if it was, I'd say the fact that at any given time, there's at least eight position players on the field for every pitcher -- be them white, black, brown or yellow -- could skew that ratio.

I will say that the second black player in the majors was a pitcher, and if Josh Gibson can be included in the discussion of best catcher off all time, certainly Satchel Page could be in the discussion of best Pitcher.

I'll try to find some numbers but I thought it was common knowledge that there has always been a disparity between the % of black position players compared to the % of black pitchers.... catchers too, ftm. In fact it's been a point of controversy in some circles ... sort of like the lack of black QBs thing but not to that extent. But I think you're missing the point when mentioning the fact that there are more overall position players, skewing the ratio. That's not the key. It's the % of blacks taking previously whites only pitching vs position player spots.

An example. Let's assume the discrepancy is and has been true (I'd bet my house on it) and ~20% of position players were black but only ~5% of pitchers were. That means just about every time out a pitcher is going to have to face 2 black guys they otherwise would not have had to face in a segregated league. But a hitter is only going to see a black pitcher a few times per year. Some teams didn't have any black pitchers in the 60s and 70s when the % of blacks in the game approached 20%. Consequently the breaking of the color line strengthened the hitting lineups to a greater extent and resulting in a tougher time for pitchers than hitters comparatively speaking. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[gunnarthor]

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.

But even over those 7 years, they were about as valuable in terms of WAR. Johnson's best 7 consecutive season run he threw over 200 innings more than Pedro. And if you don't do consecutive seasons but just the best seven in their career, Pedro isn't even in the top 20 among pitchers all time. His rate stats were nice but there's more to pitching then just ERA. Innings means a lot. And that's why Pedro falls off when compared to even contemporaries like Johnson, Clemens and Maddux.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

But even over those 7 years, they were about as valuable in terms of WAR. Johnson's best 7 consecutive season run he threw over 200 innings more than Pedro. And if you don't do consecutive seasons but just the best seven in their career, Pedro isn't even in the top 20 among pitchers all time. His rate stats were nice but there's more to pitching then just ERA. Innings means a lot. And that's why Pedro falls off when compared to even contemporaries like Johnson, Clemens and Maddux.

I think I care more about innings per game than innings per season... Yes, they should mirror eachother... But still...

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

But even over those 7 years, they were about as valuable in terms of WAR. Johnson's best 7 consecutive season run he threw over 200 innings more than Pedro. And if you don't do consecutive seasons but just the best seven in their career, Pedro isn't even in the top 20 among pitchers all time. His rate stats were nice but there's more to pitching then just ERA. Innings means a lot. And that's why Pedro falls off when compared to even contemporaries like Johnson, Clemens and Maddux.

What's the formula for WAR?

 

[gunnarthor]

What's the formula for WAR?

WAR = WAR_rep + WAA + WAA_adj (Pitcher WAR Calculations and Details | Baseball-Reference.com

But even if you don't like WAR (and it has flaws) you can't just rely on one rate stat which is what you are doing. The nice thing about WAR (both versions) and a few other stats (Bill James' win shares was big in those years) is that they try and focus on everything the pitcher gives you so you don't end up overrating rate stats)

Even simple back of the envelope stats show the differences and how hard it is to maintain high rate stats with lots of innings. Compare the number of seasons a pitcher finished both top 10 in ERA+ and IP (it's a lot harder than you would think). Pedro managed it 5x while Johnson did it 8x. Maddux did it 11x and Clemens did it 12x.

 

[steveringo]

Great debates here... Some quantity over quality talks. I picked Pedro because of his insane peak. I can't fault anyone for picking RJ ahead of him. He pitched a very long time during the steroid era.

I'm also wondering if he should get a boost for being a lefty...

 

[Chewbaccer]

Spahn was tough, gritty and a great pitcher, but not the best ever. I rank him as the 3rd best lefty ever behind Randy Johnson and Lefty Grove.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I give up. You're right, man. Pitching a qualifying 200+ ERA+ season isn't that big of a deal. I'm going to just overlook the fact that there have only been 37 such seasons in the entire fucking history of Major League Baseball. I know that if all these great pitchers who pitched 250+ inning seasons had limited themselves to only 200 innings, they'd all have tons of 200+ ERA+ seasons. Nothing to see here.

It's clear that you don't seem to understand the value/importance of innings, so in your world Chris Sale had a better 2014 than Corey Kluber, correct? It's essentially the same concept here.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Great debates here... Some quantity over quality talks. I picked Pedro because of his insane peak. I can't fault anyone for picking RJ ahead of him. He pitched a very long time during the steroid era.

I'm also wondering if he should get a boost for being a lefty...

I'm with you.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

It's clear that you don't seem to understand the value/importance of innings, so in your world Chris Sale had a better 2014 than Corey Kluber, correct? It's essentially the same concept here.

No, it's not the same concept. At all.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Do you have anything to support that? I'm not saying that it's not true, just that I don't know of anything that says it is. Even if it was, I'd say the fact that at any given time, there's at least eight position players on the field for every pitcher -- be them white, black, brown or yellow -- could skew that ratio.

I will say that the second black player in the majors was a pitcher, and if Josh Gibson can be included in the discussion of best catcher off all time, certainly Satchel Page could be in the discussion of best Pitcher.

Larry Doby was a pitcher?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Larry Doby was a pitcher?

Fuck. Larry Doby was the 2nd black player in the majors. Satchel Paige joined him on the Indians a year later. I can't tell you how many times I've fucked that up and it's embarrassing as a Tribe fan. I suppose a "they all look alike" joke won't get me out of this one. . .

I appreciate you calling me on it - at least I know someone's reading my posts!

 

[Band of Brothers]

Only one man I want on the mound for me especially in a big game. Bob Gibson

Talk about a bad ass !

I like the way Bumgarner is coming on. Love that dude. My boy ! 6 beers at a time.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Satchell Paige

He pitched against the Boston Red Sox in 1965 at the age of 59. Carl Yaz was one of the batters. He pitched the first three innings and allowed ZERO runs.

 

[Wazmankg]

Satchell Paige

He pitched against the Boston Red Sox in 1965 at the age of 59. Carl Yaz was one of the batters. He pitched the first three innings and allowed ZERO runs.

ERA+ of about 145 in 155 innings at the age of 41 & 42. Too bad he never got a shot in his prime. He'd be in this conversation.

 

[StanMarsh51]

No, it's not the same concept. At all.

Sale had a much better ERA+ than Kluber in a lot fewer innings, just as Pedro had a much better ERA+ than Johnson in a lot fewer innings.

How is that not comparable?


If you look at it from this perspective:

In 2014, Sale had an ERA+ 17% better than Kluber in 18% less innings.
In their careers, Pedro had an ERA+ 14% better than Johnson in 31% less innings.