Top Pitchers of all time !!!
jaxxr
Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
A website, baseball-reference.com provides many informative stats about MLB.
I found most interesting the ERA plus stat, which takes into account the average of the league, the ballparks, and the pitcher himself. Based upon such, the top 3 HOF starting pitchers, in order, ARE......
1. Lefty Grove, 2. Walter Johnson, 3. Ed Walsh
To me this list is very hard to dispute, and also quite interesting, Pedro, still active and not yet a HOFer, is ahead of them all !!l
What do you guys ( and/or gals ) think ???
I found most interesting the ERA plus stat, which takes into account the average of the league, the ballparks, and the pitcher himself. Based upon such, the top 3 HOF starting pitchers, in order, ARE......
1. Lefty Grove, 2. Walter Johnson, 3. Ed Walsh
To me this list is very hard to dispute, and also quite interesting, Pedro, still active and not yet a HOFer, is ahead of them all !!l
What do you guys ( and/or gals ) think ???
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
0
Comments
First, I honestly believe Roger Clemens is a much better pitcher than Pedro - not only in the stats presented on a relative basis on baseball-reference.com, but simply from a reliability basis.
Anyway, let's look at Roger and what he has to face today. Teams will send scouts out a few series in advance to analyze what Roger Clemens is doing. Tapes are analyzed and reanalyzed to determine any weak points and then teams will try to take the pitcher down. Many a pitching careers have been destroyed in this fashion. It takes the league a season to know what the guy is up to, then study him, and then the guy becomes the next $0.10 bargain card. LOL. And while teams do the same analysis on batters, one must bear in mind that the stats are greatly stacked against batters from the get-go. Thus, teams likely spend a lot more time analyzing pitchers to gain a competitive advantage.
Plus, it is my opinion that batters can adapt more readily than pitchers. If a pitcher finds out that he is tipping his pitches or cannot find the right delivery point, it is my opinion that it is much harder to change than a batter who simply needs to close his stance. Pitchers need to change their mechanics many times, and some pitchers need a whole season for that. Swinging, after all, is a much more natural motion that pitching a ball that nearly rips your shoulder out each time you do it.
Anyway, I'm not saying the list is wrong or irrational. I'm simply stating that it is difficult to compile a list of this nature. Imagine if batters were able to go to the clubhouse at the end of an inning to see how Walter Johnson was pitching. Would he have been as great of a pitcher? I don't know.
Also, one can state: “Imagine how great Walter Johnson would have been if he has a personal trainer, prepared meals waiting for him, extensive sports treatments, etc.”
It is simply too difficult to compare pitchers across eras. It is simply best to keep them within their own eras.
NOTE: I wrote this at 10:30pm, so I cannot take the blame for grammar and spelling.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>It is simply too difficult to compare pitchers across eras. It is simply best to keep them within their own eras. >>
I agree that it is difficult but adj. ERA+ is a useful tool in making it less difficult. It is a pretty good measure of how dominant a pitcher was compared to the other pitchers of his time - so the fact that condiions were different then compared to now makes little or no difference.
By itself, though, I don't think it's a great way to rank pitchers; but if you multiply the adj. ERA+ by innings pitched you've got a decent starting point for a greatest pitchers list. Ed Walsh was a great pitcher, but at 7 complete seasons he just can't be considered "better" than pitchers like Clemens IMO.
Without hestitation, DiMaggio named Satchel Paige who he had faced many times on off-season barnstorming tours as the toughest hurler he had ever gone up against.
-- Yogi Berra
I knew a fella who watched Ted Williams ALL THE TIME, and he watched Bo Jackson ALL THE TIME. He was very knowledgeable, knew how to play himself, you name it. He was convinced that Bo Jackson was a better baseball player than Ted Williams. He reasoned that Jackson could run much better, had a much better arm, could play much better defense, and hit the ball harder and farther than Williams. He said he never saw a guy that could do all those things as good as Bo Jackson, and he reasoned he was better than Ted Williams based on what he saw.
I've also had someone claim that Brett Butler was a better leadoff man than Rickey Henderson, because he was a good guy, and the value of his bunting ability was astronomical.
The fact is, baseball lends itself very well to accurate measurement of a PLAYERS WORTH. Based on countless observation, record keeping, and good evaluative methods, you can get a pretty clear picture on who is better. Fans, players, broadcasters, writers, etc...constantly over value certain things, and undervalue others. Strikeouts by a batter is a prime example, as for batting average. People constantly give too much negative value to a strikeout, more than what it really is. I can go at bat by at bat with anybody, if they wish to disagree with those findings.
Same for clutch ability and observational evidence! I hear people all the time, yeah this guy is clutch, he is therefore superior to a better player. An example is a guy on these boards swearing by the fact that he personally saw Joe Carter get dozens of late inning hits and home runs to win games at Fenway park. Well, when every one of Joe Carters at bats at Fenway were checked, he had a grand total of one hit that met his detailed criteria, and nothing else remotely close. That is why we don't rely on heresay, because it is usually wrong, or looked at through blinders.
People usuually rebuff a good evaluative method because it sheds more truth on the subject, and in turn may take their hero down a notch from where he has been PERCEIVED to be for so long. It is a tough pill to swallow sometimes. Or they full don't understand the method.
I still have people not understand that pitching in the AL in the DH era is more difficult than in the NL. You want to know the people who argue with me about that?? People who's favotie teams happen to be NL teams. I will bet that people on this board will still say, "The NL is a pitchers league, and the AL is a hitters league." When in reality the difference in the runs is all related to the pitcher batting, as opposed to the DH. Somebody will still argue with me, then I will have to present overwhelming evidence, and then they resort to the stuff that you just proposed, because it destroyed a long time belief of theirs.
As for the toughest guy a hitter faced? You can ask a hitter who the toughest pitcher he ever faced, and he is going to tell you somebody he didn't have much success against. That doesn't make that pitcher better than somebody else.
P.S. I had a reply for the pluses and negatives of ERA+, but I read the previous post.
Iv'e seen Roberts, Koufax, Marichal, Seaver, Carlton, Etc, pitch... very very good , almost the best. But Pedro tops them all via the ERA + stat, so how good is he, might he be ???
Who were the best MLB pitchers during the time frames reference below:
1900-1920
1921-1945
1945-1969
1970-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
As coinkat is saying, you have to dig a lot deeper if you want to compare eras. ERA+ is quite poor for comparing pitchers from different eras.
ERA+ is also missing the IP factor. If you take into account the innings pitched, you get a better idea of the pitchers worth to a team. A pitcher with an ERA+ of 150 over 75 innings has nowhere near the value of a pitcher with an ERA+ of 150 over 250 innings(same era).
Without getting into the detailed cross era comparison, here is how a few of the greats from Pedro's time stack up. Remember, longevity also plays a factor, which is another thing to wade through.
Runs saved above average pitcher in their career, via baseballprospectus...
Clemens 627
Maddux 449
Pedro 430
Unit 430
Schilling 303
K. Brown 260
Notice Schilling. He gets up there because of the amount of IP. He had three years over 250, and one at 268, and a bunch more that were in the 220's. Pedro's BEST three in his career are 243, 233, and 217. That is where ERA+ doesn't tell the whole story.
In the end, Pedro will end up being the second best pitcher of his generation. But that is looking at it vs the league average pitcher.
Some people prefer to measure the pitcher vs. the replacement level player, and that does have some merit. The numbers then become runs saved over what a league average REPLACEMENT level player....
Clemens 1769
Maddux 1521
Unit 1327
Pedro 1057
Schilling 1028
Measuring it that way, Pedro and Schilling have had about the same value up to this point, and Pedro may end up finishing fourth when it is looked at it like that. Being that Clemens is clearly on top of both lists, then it is a no brainer who is number one.
It can be reasonably argued by somebody that Pedro falls anywhere from 2nd to 4th within his era, depending how you view longevity and such.
You don't want to see the numbers for the old time guys, because it is crazy. It isn't because the old time guys are better, just the environment that allowed them to do so. ER+ fails to accurately measure cross comparison evaluation, and I've butted head with some of the stat guys who write the books/articles on it.
Bri, you are correct in that some of the stat guys do adhere to strongly to the computurized lists, but that doesn't diminish the need for a strong factual based evidence.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
The numbers ARE history, and they ARE reality. They tell you what the player actually did(the right numbers anyway) It isn't based on heresay, or on opinion(which are either biased, slanted, or just plain misinformed).
If you are referring to history in, "So and so once played with a splinter under his nail, even afte a night of drinking, he came back the next day and while sitting in the dugout he figured out the pitcher was tipping his pitches. He then let the pitcher fool him in his third at bat on purpose, just so he could then trick him in his later at bat and hit a game winnig HR." Or, "CUrt Schilling one time pitched a World Series game with a bloody sock."
That stuff is all fine and dandy to talk about and romance about, but that really doesn't do anything to determine which player was better.
If you are saying the numbers don't mean much, and you must rely on what you see, then I guess that guy was right in Bo Jackson being better than Ted Williams, and Bret Butler being a better leadoff man than Rickey Henderson. Because he was knowledgeable, and he SAW it.
I'm not an accountant, and I have been an analyst. I base things on what really happened, not bias, not misinformation, and certainly not heresay. People say things that are so incorrect, like the Joe Carter clutch man, that it is usually bashed down with a few simple facts. People place an incorrect value on something like a strikeout, which is also batted down, albeit with more time consuming facts. The list goes on.
If you are saying that Clemens, Maddux, Unit, and Pedro need no distinction between them, then fine, lump them together into the Hall of Fame, as that is sort of its purpose. But, baseball thrives on the more precise comparisons, AND THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF ITS HISTORY, and A LARGE PART TO BOOT. People want to know who was better, and that is as much as basseball lore as anything. The problem is fans etc...usually go about the comparisons in much misinformed ways.... ways that usually would feed their bias, or need to have their hero be the one on top.
Steve
you could look it up.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
As I stated in the first post, The top 3 HOF starting pitchers ( confimed by a stat ) are...
Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, and Ed Walsh, in that order.
While many have expressed views on the limitations of some statistics, delight in their own favorite statistics, various problems with time eras, individual perceptions, and so on, I find it quite an accurate list.
Walter Johnson is considered by many, if not most, baseball experts to be the best pitcher of all time, some truly outstanding achievments in his days. Lefty Grove has the best winning percentage of any 300 game winner, some super seasons. Ed Walsh, always under-rated, was the last 40 game winner and does hold the all-time lifetime ERA record.
I feel either Grove or Johnson would be a correct number one pick, and Walsh , perhaps not quite the 3rd best ever, but maybe he is, certainly deserves at least a top ten rank.
People wanting to overlook the likes of Clemens or Pedro simply because the 'old timers' have this mythology surrourding them are flawed in their thinking.
I wouldn't necessarily say best ever, but I don't see how you can have a discussion of all time best without mentioning Clemens.
7 time cy young
1 MVP award
7 ERA titles (last year under 2.00 at age 42!)
4 time leader in wins
11 time all star
5 time strikeout leader
2nd in all time strikeouts
and a career .665 winning percentage.
And numbers do tell the story. I don't feel the need to go into as much depth on stats as some people, but when you rely on second (and third, and fourth) hand accounts of what happened, about 'he was the greatest ever!', I think you lose credibility.
As far as Dimaggio citing Satchell as the toughest pitcher, that may have been true then. But I'd like to see those old time hitters go up against Rocket or Unit or Pedro and see how well they fare in today's game, and then tell me some pitcher from back then was the toughest ever.
<< <i>Walter Johnson is considered by many, if not most, baseball experts to be the best pitcher of all time, some truly outstanding achievments in his days. Lefty Grove has the best winning percentage of any 300 game winner, some super seasons. Ed Walsh, always under-rated, was the last 40 game winner and does hold the all-time lifetime ERA record.
I feel either Grove or Johnson would be a correct number one pick, and Walsh , perhaps not quite the 3rd best ever, but maybe he is, certainly deserves at least a top ten rank.
>>
Walsh's claim to a top-10 spot, if there is one, is based on his accomplishments in the seven complete seasons that he pitched. Personally, I don't think he's even close to the top 10 but that may be because I place more value on a pitcher's longevity than others do. But, even if one places zero value on any seasons pitched beyond a pitcher's top seven seasons, I still don't think Walsh gets within shouting distance of the top-10. If we look only at a pitcher's top seven seasons, Walsh has an average ERA+ for those seasons of 157. That's 12 points higher than his career mark and its great.
But what about the top seven for some other pitchers? In addition to losing that battle to the HOFers everyone thinks of first - Johnson, Grove, Alexander, Young, Mathewson - he also loses that battle to HOFers Mordecai Brown, Kid Nichols, Hal Newhouser, Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver and then loses that battle again to future HOFers Martinez, Maddux, Johnson and Clemens.
Based on the accomplishments of an entire career - factoring in how long a pitcher was great - Walsh might be a top-25 pitcher. If we ignore everything that happens outside a pitcher's top seven seasons - which sounds absurd to me - Walsh moves up to number 15. And that's looking only at ERA - which puts Walsh in as favorable a light as possible. If you consider strikeouts, etc., then pitchers like Ryan, Feller, Koufax, etc. can move past Walsh as well.
Any argument to put Walsh in the top 10 must necessarily include the argument that the seasons other pitchers pitched beyond the seven that Walsh pitched not only have no value but actually have negative value. There is no other way to get him past any of the pitchers listed above.
Bottom line, I just don't see an argument for Walsh being any higher than 15 on the all-time list, and I think the arguments that he should be at least 10 spots below that are much more convincing.
Good points made and with some merit. At least you seem to agree Grove and Johnson are the two best.
True enjoyment can come from intelligent debate, and I certainly respect other's views and usually take pleasure in hearing them.
There is probably no "Correct" answer as to Ed Walsh's rank among the greatest pitchers of all time, primarily opinion, much like which color is better red or blue ? I feel the lifertime ERA plus stat is a very true measure, adjusts for ballparks, the yearly average, Etc., and puts Walsh right up there with the best. He won more game in a single season than Grove or Johnson ever did, or any other HOFer for that matter ! His lifetime ERA is better than Grove or Johnson, or any other pithcer ever !
Ed has thrown over 400 IP twice, has been the season leader in Ks, Wins, IP, ERA, shutouts, and even saves, four different times ! His World series record is 2-0 with a 1.80 ERA.
I realize seven full seasons may be an adverse factor, much like Koufax' only six winning seasons effect his overall perception. It's hard to agree on a time span, any perfect game pitcher was the best for one day, Johnny VanderMeer was the best for two games with back to back no hitteres, Hersheiser for about 59 innings, and so forth. Still great fun to discuss.
I agree, it doesn't get much better than talking baseball.
And I also agree that there can never be a single correct answer regarding who is "better" - at least when we are comparing two great pitchers. Bill James ranks Walsh 19th (maybe a little lower now if one or two of the modern pitchers have passed him), you rank him in the top 10, I would rank him somewhere around 25 to 30. But even assuming he is 25th - that's still the 25th best pitcher of all time and that certainly makes him a great pitcher.
The difference in our three rankings comes down to the weight we put on longevity: James weights it roughly equally with "peak" performance (top 3 consecutive) and with the pitcher's combined top 5 seasons - or roughly a 1/3 weight. I think it's more important than that - at least half, maybe 2/3. It sounds like you are weighting it less than 1/3. I think your weighting is probably consistent with what I read in threads like this one fairly often - the "who would you want for one big game or for one season" standard. And in his top two or three seasons Walsh was certainly a monster on the mound, piling up wins, innings and shutouts like they were easy. I don't agree that that is the best standard to use, but I can't say that any standard is "wrong" - "better" is not exactly a scientific term.
I imagine that when I argue (as I have frequently) that Blyleven and Kaat belong in the HOF you must think I'm crazy - but I am more impressed by how long they pitched well than by how great they were at their peaks. It's also why I cringe whenever a relief pitcher makes the HOF with fewer innings pitched than Walsh had in 3 or 4 seasons.
And, finally, I definitely agree that Johnson and Grove were the two best, and in this case I would say that someone was "wrong" if they said another pitcher was better than either of them. Those who weight longevity the most will say Johnson is number 1 and those who rate it least will say Grove is number 1, but short of calling Johnny Vander Meer the greatest pitcher of all time, one of those two has to come out on top.
For pure dominance check out Pedro Martinez:
ERA + 1st all time by a healthy margin
K-BB ratio - 1st all time for any 20th century pitcher and 2nd all-time
WinPct - 3rd all time -2nd among 20th century pitchers
WHIP - 3rd all time but easily the modern leader
In reality what can a starting pitcher control? His K's, his BB's and his HR's allowed.
Martinez is great in these three areas. Maddux and Clemens also are very good and it is remarkable how few homers they give up. I am always surprised in these discussions the lack of respect Maddux receives. For what a pitcher can control Maddux is brilliant.
Based on the reasons others have mentioned, length of career, lack of innings, Martinez might not be the best pitcher ever but based on what a pitcher can control and for pure dominance he has to be at the top of any list.
You are correct, while Martinez is standing on the mound, his 'rate' of effectiveness is better than anyone from his era. When he is throwing the ball, he can do it with more effectiveness than anyone from his era. So in that sense he is the best.
Of course, 'better' usually, or logically, is based on ones contribution towards winning games. In a pitchers case, the amount of runs saved compared to others, and in the batters case the amount of runs produced compared to others, are the key measuring sticks. Creating or Preventing runs are the currency of the game. Taking it a step further would be the situations that those instances occured...not all situations are created equal. With good in depth analysis, one can get a pretty clear idea on how many runs a player produces or saves.
In Martinez's case, which is better for a team? -In the same environment....210 IP, ERA of 2.40, or 270 IP, ERA 2.55? Like most are saying, it is almost splitting hairs when you get to that level, but there is a small difference as the runs chart above does help clarify it a bit.
Or like a hitters example. Take Ken Phelps. In his prime he would routinely slug in the .520 range, better than almost every hitter in the league, so when he was yielding the bat, it was as effective as nearly anyone. However, he was only able to do that against RH pitching, and so he only got 250-300 at bats per year. What did that mean for his team? Well, somebody else had to play for the other half of the time. If the team was very lucky, they may have had a bat nearly as good, but more than likely it would have been much lower. If it was as good, then they would have to pay for it at the sacrifice of something else on their team.
Or they could have let Phelps just play vs. Lefties, but then the result would be a slugging percentage MUCH lower than what it was, which would then have shown the true value, or how good Phelps really was.
In Pedro's case, when he comes out after the sixth inning, a lesser pitcher is coming in, and what really needs to be measured is not only Pedro's contribution to the game, but the effect of him leaving early more often. That is where the the runs saved above a league average pitcher is utilized(the chart above)
In Walsh's case, as Dallas pointed out, he had seven brilliant seasons, great! But Tom Seaver, or Clemens(or others) had seven brilliant seasons too, but then added more brilliant seasons on top of that, more very good seasons on top of that, and more average seasons on top of that.
On the flip side of a Walsh or Koufax short career, is the real life economic impact a long time player has. He is well paid! And inevitably, he will be over-paid at some point in the end of his career...grossly overpaid in some instances. Though a good GM would know when to hold 'em or fold 'em.
Take McGwire. We had the debate of McGWire vs. Palmeiro. Brilliance vs. compiler (steroids aside please). McGwire retired, and his salary saved turned into Scott Rolen. So there is a benefit of putting up greatness, and not hanging around for a long time. Of course, a lot of that depends on the ability of the GM. But all of that should be measured in a neutral environment, assuming a neutral level GM, etc....
So really, there is a matter of philosophy on the longevity vs. Greatness. However, when players are close in greatness and one of them also adds the longevity, it should be more clear on which player is 'better', ala Clemens vs. Pedro, or WJ vs. Walsh.
That is pretty good, but my god he dominated in IP in his prime!! He led the league FIVE times in IP, and by WIDE margins in some of those years!
Take 1940 for instance. Bob Feller was second in ERA+ at 161, right behind Bob Newsom 169 ERA+. Bob Feller threw an AMAZING 371 IP that year to Newsoms 250! What an astronomical difference. Get this, Feller led the league with 371 IP, and the SECOND PLACE finisher in the league was at 292! Third was at 278. Feller is the runaway best pitcher in the league.
In 1939 Feller led with 296, second at 291, and third at 269
In 1940 Feller led with 371, secon at 292, and third at 278
In 1941 Feller led with 353, second at 300 and third at 263.
WAR TIME
In 1946 Feller led with 320, Second at 289, third at 280
In 1947 Feller led with 299, second at 285, third at 276
Those years happen to be the same years as his ERA+ leaderboard apperances. I didn't run the numbers, but I would summize that puts him as the best pitcher in the league in that time frame. So yes, the war took out three prime years from him.
Yeah, I know, I don't like wins as a measuring tool, but his wins are in line with his IP and ERA.
How about Runs saved above average pitcher and above replacement pitcher? How about in his PRIME YEARS? Top FOUR seasons..
Runs saved above average pitcher and runs saved above replacement level pitcher....
FELLER
65 and 147
54 and 126
46 and 112
46 and 110
PEDRO
64 and 119
57 and 116
49 and 108
42 and 87
Alnavman, you are correct, FELLER DOES NOT GET ENOUGH CREDIT IN THESE DISCUSSIONS!!
Compared vs. Pedro, Feller is ONLY ONE RUN behind Pedro compared to league average, and is 65 RUNS AHEAD OF PEDRO when measured vs. replacement level. Who knows what kind of years Feller could have had if there was no war in the prime of his career. It is very realistic he could have had one or two more like his best year! Those years are the years immediately surrounding the war time break.
No I didn't use career numbers, and it really isn't fair to do so being that Feller would have three more dominating years to his career. The only thing hurting Feller is that he was basically done by age 35, so he loses a touch of longevity. But, in his peak, he was as dominant as Pedro(who is usually hailed as one of the most dominant ever).