History Comp-Greg Maddux vs Randy Johnson

[Lemon Harang Pie]

Ace of the Seattle staff that saved the team in Seattle. Huge trade when he went to Houston for a late season run.

He didn't become the ace of anything till about his 30th birthday.

I admit "early in his career" is a bit subjective but who really considers 30 early in any professional athletes career? Greg Maddux and Tom Seaver, also mentioned in this thread, had won 3 CY's by their 30th birthdays and were in the process of winding down their careers.

I guess if you're looking for someone to compare Randy Johnson to there is Roger Clemens who won 4 CY's between the ages of 34 and 41 but I'm not sure if Johnson would be overly happy with that comparison.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Time to start a new comparison thread....

My last one bombed so any ideas

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

Give me a break...

Before 1999, Johnson had already:
-1 Cy Young, with 3 other seasons finishing in the top 3
-129 career ERA+
-4 seasons of 290+ K's, and 7 seasons of 200 K's
-4 seasons of 18+ wins

Not to mention, from 1993-1998 he had a 156 ERA+, 1.12 WHIP while averaging 250+ K's a season


If you think that's middle of the rotation stuff, I think you have a severe misperception of what a middle of the rotation pitcher looks like.

Of course not but I also wouldn't consider age 34 early in Johnson's career.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

My last one bombed so any ideas

Mickey Mantle vs. Clay Buchholz?

 

[The Derski]

Randy Johnson's stats from 1999-2002 were flat out insane. Having watched him in person for much of that time period it was a beautiful sight. In 2001 he nearly struck out 400 batters. Simply jaw dropping considering this was in the middle of the steroid era. We probably think of Verlander (although Darvish and Scherzer recently) as the strikeout master of today's game but none of them even come close to what Randy was doing back then.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I give a big edge to Johnson. He was a strike out pitcher extraordinaire. Maddox was greatly helped by an incredibly WIDE strike zone.

 

[jalopy]

I give a big edge to Johnson. He was a strike out pitcher extraordinaire. Maddox was greatly helped by an incredibly WIDE strike zone.

You are kidding, right?

 

[The Derski]

I never realized how similar their late career success was until now.

Between '99 - '04 (age 35-40) Randy Johnson won 4 straight Cy Young awards and finished 2nd once whereas between '00 - '04 (age 35-39) Barry Bonds won 4 straight MVP award and finished 2nd once. At least Barry Bonds had success early in his career. Johnson was basically a middle of the rotation guy.

 

[The Derski]

I never realized how similar their late career success was until now.

Between '99 - '04 (age 35-40) Randy Johnson won 4 straight Cy Young awards and finished 2nd once whereas between '00 - '04 (age 35-39) Barry Bonds won 4 straight MVP award and finished 2nd once. At least Barry Bonds had success early in his career. Johnson was basically a middle of the rotation guy.

Before Johnson was on the Diamondbacks he was a 5 time allstar, 4 time strikeout champion, and had a Cy Young on his mantle. I know wins are not necessarily a stat you should use to rate the success of a pitcher, but having seasons of 18, 19, and 20 wins don't happen by luck. Again this was done before 1999. So I really am puzzled how you see Johnson as a "middle of the rotation guy" pre 1999.

 

[navamind]

Randy Johnson Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Johnson's 95 and 97 seasons were on par with 99-04.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

Before Johnson was on the Diamondbacks he was a 5 time allstar, 4 time strikeout champion, and had a Cy Young on his mantle. I know wins are not necessarily a stat you should use to rate the success of a pitcher, but having seasons of 18, 19, and 20 wins don't happen by luck. Again this was done before 1999. So I really am puzzled how you see Johnson as a "middle of the rotation guy" pre 1999.

I didn't say he was.

Stan, who considers Mickey Mantle the Clay Buccholz of his generation, ignorantly thought thirty-four years old is early in a professional athlete's career. I said Randy Johnson was basically a middle of the rotation guy EARLY on in his career and he was. Just look at his numbers from '88 to '93, age* 24 to 29:

IP: 1,073.1, ERA+: 108, WHIP: 1.353

Which can be summed up with the word: "meh". I guess you could say he ate innings, which is definitely useful, but he certainly wasn't on any Hall of Fame trajectory at that point. He has a very solid '94 to '98, age* 30 to 34:

IP: 905.0, ERA+ 162, WHIP: 1.120

That's a very good stretch of ball but still not on a Hall of Fame trajectory. Then there is his '99 to '04, age* 35 to 40:

IP: 1389.2, ERA+: 175, WHIP: 1.042

The knock against Sandy Koufax will always be that he had an incredible five year run but then his career was literally over. Those five years were good enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. Just as a point of reference here are Sandy's numbers from that run between the ages* of 26 and 30:

IP: 1377.0, ERA+: 167, WHIP: 926

Keep in mind Koufax's numbers come during the era with the lowest offense outside of the Dead Ball Era while Johnson's, very late in his career, during the era with the highest offense ever largely due to steroids. As I said earlier, I just don't understand why Johnson's name doesn't come up more often when it comes to steroid use. Even the years of his historic production almost align identically with Barry Bonds'. I wonder if there are any non-***** league Hall of Famers whose entire Hall of Fame credentials were earned at 35 or older.

* All ages are approximate

 

[navamind]

Johnson struggled until he cut down on the walks. Once he got the walk rate down to a respectable level (3.5 in '93), he was really good.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I said Randy Johnson was basically a middle of the rotation guy EARLY on in his career and he was. Just look at his numbers from '88 to '93, age* 24 to 29:

IP: 1,073.1, ERA+: 108, WHIP: 1.353

How come you consider "early" in Bonds career to be 7 seasons of significant playing time (considering you mention those MVPs, which were in years 4, 6, 7), but when it comes to "early" in Johnson's career, it's really just 5 years of significant playing time he had (you're not really considering a 26 inning season as a rookie a full year), which conveniently ignores his 1994-1995 seasons when he had a 172 ERA+.

So you pick and choose arbitrary dates to suit your argument? Yea, nobody's going to catch onto that....

 

[StanMarsh51]

Actually, I was a year off...Bonds' MVPs were years 5, 7, 8.

So 8 years is the 'early part' of Bonds' career...but Johnson only gets 5.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

How come you consider "early" in Bonds career to be 7 seasons of significant playing time (considering you mention those MVPs, which were in years 4, 6, 7), but when it comes to "early" in Johnson's career, it's really just 5 years of significant playing time he had (you're not really considering a 26 inning season as a rookie a full year), which conveniently ignores his 1994-1995 seasons when he had a 172 ERA+.

So you pick and choose arbitrary dates to suit your argument? Yea, nobody's going to catch onto that....

At least Barry Bonds had success early in his career. Johnson was basically a middle of the rotation guy.

Could you elaborate? I don't see a single reference to an arbitrary date or MVPs....

I concede that "early" is a bit subjective but it's certainly not arbitrary and regardless of how subjective "early" is, it's hard for me to really consider years in his 30's as "early" in his career. I mean you figure he started in the minors at 21 and retired at 42.

CC Sabathia will start the season at 33. Is he still early on in his career?

 

[fordman84]

How about making the question for this poll "If you hit a HR of each guy, which would you be less likely to stand at the plate and admire it?"

Or somethign that isn't worded like a drunk wrote it

 

[StanMarsh51]

I concede that "early" is a bit subjective but it's certainly not arbitrary and regardless of how subjective "early" is, it's hard for me to really consider years in his 30's as "early" in his career. I mean you figure he started in the minors at 21 and retired at 42.

Age is irrelevant..playing time is how it's measured. If a player's career lasts from ages 21-26, is he still early in his career at age 25? Of course not, considering that's near the end of his career.

Johnson's first 'season' (not including the year he was a Sept callup) was around age 25, and considering he played 21 seasons, you could reasonably breakout the career into thirds and use the first 7 years ('89-'95) as the early part of his career, the next 7 ('96-'02) as the middle part, and the final 7 ('03-'09) is the later part. Therefore if he started at 25, you can certainly include seasons in his 30s as the early part since it's still in the first third of his career.

Regarding CC, the stage of his career he is in right now will be based on how long he plays, but unless he retires sooner than expected, it's probably the ending stage of the middle third of his career or the beginning of the later part of his career.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

Johnson struggled until he cut down on the walks. Once he got the walk rate down to a respectable level (3.5 in '93), he was really good.

'88 to '92:

IP: 818.0, ERA+: 101, WHIP: 1.428, BB/9: 5.7, SO/9: 9.0

'93 to '99:

IP: 1160.1, ERA+: 156, WHIP: 1.119, BB/9: 3.3, SO/9: 11.7

'99 to '04:

IP:1389.2, ERA+: 175, WHIP: 1.042, BB/9: 2.3, SO/9: 11.9

I can buy that to an extent. It's not unreasonable that he was a bit immature and didn't fully come into his own until the '93 season but it still doesn't explain the out-of-this-world jump in his production in '99 at age 35. Strikes and injuries can account for some of the difference in IP but he has huge jumps in his ERA+, WHIP, and BB/9. He did switch leagues but at his age is it really reasonably to believe the difference in talent was so stark and if you say yes, can it really explain why his best season in the NL (in his career too!) came his fifth year in the league at age 38?

I don't know man ...

 

[KansasSooner]

What was different about Maddux is he would actually turn and position his infielders sometimes before the pitch and they would hit the ball right to that fielder, it was like Maddux knew where the ball would go if it was hit by the batter based on the pitch he was going to make. He wasn't a strike out king but he knew how to pitch to get the out he needed most of the time.

 

[jalopy]

How about making the question for this poll "If you hit a HR of each guy, which would you be less likely to stand at the plate and admire it?"

Or somethign that isn't worded like a drunk wrote it

No likey? No play!