Complete games Ryan 222 Maddux 108 Yes, more of a product of generational pitching
Shutouts Ryan 61 Maddux 35
Strikeouts Ryan 5714 Maddux 3195 Ryan K'd 300+ in a season 6 times
ERA Ryan 3.19 Maddux 3.07 That is virtually no difference
WHIP Ryan 1.247 Maddux 1.136 Yes, that is a GREAT WHIP by Maddux
Awards and Winning percentages are pretty subjective.
Both are dominant pitchers of their decades but Im not seeing where Maddux is hands down better than Ryan. I can see arguements both ways depending on what stance you want to take but by all means not hands down. I would agree that Maddux is by far a better fielder than what Ryan was.
I'm not here trying to say that Ryan is/was better than Maddux...just making a point where it could be argued that they are comparable pitchers and a persons opinion could easily sway either way.
As you said Dallas, you cant read minds but you did attempt to when you assumed that I meant that Ryan was "better" if he was on a team that could have won him more games. Im not trying to play words with you...just dont be so quick to jump on something someone made a quick comment on. And did anyone say that he was better than any of the pitchers you mentioned? Nope. But Im sure some would attempt the arguement and would make some good points.
And Ryan a "novelty"? First Ive heard that used to describe Ryan. (At least when a bobblehead isnt involved!)
Megatron, first and foremost, there really has to be a more defined criteria for the all time lists in terms of Peak and career value. For example, if it is peak, then Spahn is clearly ahead of Koufax(as the list shows)...but peak would also mean that Dick Allen should be ahead of Dave Winfield, which the list does not reflect. To answer your question, this has to be defined.
Second, the "best pure hitter" doesn't mean anything. Basically, all you are saying is a guy who makes contact and hits for a high average. The best hitter is the guy that is responsible for the most runs with his bat, period. Whether he does it with a combination of HR & BB, or if he does it with lots of singles and triples...it makes no difference the avenue he does it, but simply the WORTH OF WHAT HE HAS DONE!
Third, this is the best PLAYER and takes into account position, defense, and baserunning as well. This is the facet that puts Morgan and Henderson ahead of Gwynn.
To answer your question, IN TERMS OF PEAK (ten years)...the following players were better than Gwynn offensively for their best ten years....
Mantle Aaron Mays McCovey Brett Schmidt Stargell Yaz Frank Robinson Barry Bonds Dick Allen Reggie Jackson George Brett Eddie Murray Vladimir Guerrero Manny Ramirez Frank Thomas Jeff Bagwell..........too name a few. And they all played a good chunk AFTER Ted Williams.
A quick way to measure how good they were in the meat of their career is their best OPS+ rankings. This will give you a pretty good idea of how they fared relative to their peers, and how much their offense actually contributed to scoring runs. Gwynn's best rankings were......3,4,6,7,7,10,10
Reggie Jackson, whom people somehow feel is overrated on this list(primarily because his avenue of offense was different than Gwynn's...HR & BB) had the following OPS+ rankings....
Reggie OPS+rankings 1,1,1,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10.
Is this difference not painfully obvious? It should be very clear which of those two are better with the bat in the meat of their career.
In fact, I believe every one of those hitters finished in the top three at least FIVE TIMES, while Gwynn did it just ONCE! Many of them led a bunch of times, or finsihed second a bunch of times. Gwynn's best was third as you can see.
I stick with the ten years so we don't have to get into the old man years value above replacement level player, etc... Ten years is a long enough measuring stick, and they all played at least ten years. As you can see, Gwynn is beat handily in this regard. Oh, and it isn't as if those guys were sprinkling bad years among their peak years...their bad years were either the very beginning of their career, or near the very end.
GWYNN didn't have as many 23 yr old and younger at bats, or 40 and older at bats as many of those guys, so his career percentages get saved a bit. Another 850 at bats at age 21 &22 like his age 22 stats should give an idea how that would affect his stats...and another 600 at age 40&41 should as well. There is a way to look at all that, but lets keep it simple.
P.S. Gwynn isn't a 'product' of the live ball era, but he sure as heck benefitted to a great degree and was fortunate that he was just young enough to take full advantage of it. He most certainly saw a big offensive jump in the mid 90's...just like the rest of the league.
<< <i>ERA Ryan 3.19 Maddux 3.07 That is virtually no difference >>
Oh, but that is an enormous difference. Ryan compiled his ERA with Anaheim Stadium and the Astrodome as his home parks. Only Oakland had an easier park for pitchers in the 70's and nobody had an easier pitcher's park than Houston in the 80's. Compare that to a career spent in Atlanta and Wrigley - Atlanta was relatively neutral over Maddux's years there, but Wrigley was, and always has been, a pitcher's nightmare. Maddux compiled his 3.07 ERA where average pitchers were throwing 4.17 - over a full run per game better; Ryan compiled his 3.19 where average pitchers were throwing 3.57 - a little over a third of a run per game.
As for the rest of the stats, obviously Ryan struck out a whole lot more people but it really makes very little difference HOW a pitcher gets a batter out; all that matters is whether or not any runs score and ERA already measures that. And I have no doubt at all that Maddux could have completed many more games than he did, with several more shutouts, if he had pitched when Ryan did. And if he'd pitched in the parks Ryan got to pitch in the only argument today would be whether or not he was better than Walter Johnson.
Again, I'm a huge fan of Nolan Ryan and I don't want to make this sound like he wasn't a great pitcher. But saying that he wasn't as good as Greg Maddux doesn't mean that; and Nolan Ryan clearly was not as good - not nearly as good - as Greg Maddux.
And thank you, skinpinch. Hearing Reggie Jackson referred to as "overrated" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me; that gets repeated so often that he is by now probably among the most underrated players.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'm very curious about this big debate about Ryan vs. Maddux in terms of who should be ranked higher on the list. I was born and raised in Chicago and have remained a Cub fan for over 35 years and Maddux was the perfect model of consistency with both the Cubs and especially with the Braves. However, even though this "hired gun" may not be the most popular guy now outside of the Big Apple, why isn't anyone lobbying for Clemens to be moved up the list. Clemens has more wins, less losses, the same strikeout to walk ratio of 3 - 1, more shutouts, and Cy Youngs than Maddux and essentially the same career ERA (facing 1 additional dangerous hitter each game).
I think the big feather in Maddux' cap is that he doesn't have the perceived ego of Clemens, he is perceived to be more of a student of the game and making more of his physical abililty than the bigger, stronger, Clemens. Maddux is also an excellent hitter and fielder.
However, in terms of pure pitching, it would be hard to argue that more pitchers were dominant over a longer period of time than Clemens.
One of the most interesting stats I have read about Aaron is the that if you take away all of his 755 homeruns, he will still have over 3000 hits. Amazing
How can you not recognize Gehrig as one of the best hitters and sluggers of all time
Career .340 Avg 493 HR's - No doubt would have well over 500, maybe 600, if not for illness. Career .632 Slugging Ave (3rd Alltime) Slugged over .700 4 times 1995 Career RBI's - No doubt would be alltime RBI leader if not for illness. 150+ RBI's seven times!!
I'm sure there is more I left out.
This all done in basically 14 seasons. First two years he only had 26 and 12 AB's resepectively. And last year he had 28 AB's. That my friends is incredible!!
Actually his consecutive game streak actually masks how great of a hitter he was because that is what people focus on instead of his hitting.
<< <i>You prove my point Dallas...all kinds of ways anyone can argue, even 0.12 ERA difference because they had a few extra games in specific ball parks. >>
I'm sure it was an oversight, but you left out a word. What you meant to write was "...a few HUNDRED extra games in specific ball parks."
Because either you understand pitching in context or you don't. I assume you must or else you'd be arguing that the top 100 pitchers all pitched before 1920, and the top 100 hitters all played in the 1920's and 1930's (as TSN appears to). Even Maddux's spectacular 3.07 career ERA places him 183rd on the all-time list. But, of course, it's confusing to assume that you do understand that the pitcher's environment is an integral part of determining how good he really was when you dismiss it in the Ryan/Maddux comparison. Because if Ryan was better than Maddux, then Doc White was better than either of them - a LOT better than either of them.
But I'm glad I could help you prove a point. Maybe sometime you'll share what that point was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If you want to believe that 1.2 runs per 100 innings (2-3 runs per YEAR) makes Maddux hands down better than thats fine. All I am saying is that Im not convinced that Maddux is proven to be THAT much better than Ryan.
I can sit here and say that Maddux has his advantages, maybe something mundane such as he gets more calls on the corners because of his pitching style and umpires favor when he pitches. And just how do you come up with an adjusted ERA for the ballparks that Ryan pitched in? Can that be done? I dont see how it can accurately be done and even if someone tried, it would be argued til death.
Again, the fact is we can come up with tons of advantages for both pitchers. How deep can a debate such as this go? Certainly one I am not interested in putting an effort for. And Im not even saying that Ryan is better than Maddux. I am just saying its not so "hands down".
The debate can go on forever as I said earlier. Can compare career stirkeouts, complete games, shutouts, or whatever. Convince me that Maddux is THAT much better than Ryan. Maybe I will agree but I havent been convinced yet...and I may even be in agreement that Maddux might be slightly better overall.
Edited to ask....what specific ballparks are you saying he pitched a few hundred in? Anahiem? He pitched in 156 games when with the Angels...maybe 100 at most were at home?
<< <i>I'm very curious about this big debate about Ryan vs. Maddux in terms of who should be ranked higher on the list. I was born and raised in Chicago and have remained a Cub fan for over 35 years and Maddux was the perfect model of consistency with both the Cubs and especially with the Braves. However, even though this "hired gun" may not be the most popular guy now outside of the Big Apple, why isn't anyone lobbying for Clemens to be moved up the list. Clemens has more wins, less losses, the same strikeout to walk ratio of 3 - 1, more shutouts, and Cy Youngs than Maddux and essentially the same career ERA (facing 1 additional dangerous hitter each game).
I think the big feather in Maddux' cap is that he doesn't have the perceived ego of Clemens, he is perceived to be more of a student of the game and making more of his physical abililty than the bigger, stronger, Clemens. Maddux is also an excellent hitter and fielder.
However, in terms of pure pitching, it would be hard to argue that more pitchers were dominant over a longer period of time than Clemens. >>
Well, Clemens did jump from 55 to 15. I'd say that was a significant leap in the ratings. I would say that he (and Maddux for that matter) will be even higher on the list the next time it's evaluated.
<< <i>If you want to believe that 1.2 runs per 100 innings (2-3 runs per YEAR) makes Maddux hands down better than thats fine. All I am saying is that Im not convinced that Maddux is proven to be THAT much better than Ryan. >>
Again, if you are going to look at Maddux/Ryan without any context, then your statement about 1.2 runs per 100 innings makes sense. But it only makes sense if we reject the notion that context matters. But if we reject the notion that context matters, then why are we talking about Ryan and Maddux at all? By your logic, all of the best pitchers pitched before 1920. ALL of them.
But, and I'm sure you agree, that idea is ridiculous on its face. So we acknowledge that Lefty Grove with his 3.06 ERA was a better pitcher - a MUCH better pitcher - than Don Drysdale with his 2.95 ERA. Drysdale struck out a lot more people per inning and he had a better ERA - and he was not fit to hold Lefty Grove's jockstrap. We know this - to an absolute certainty - because we recognize the vast differences between the circumstances under which they pitched. And I will do you the honor of assuming that you do recognize the gaping chasm between Drysdale and Grove.
But, once we're to this point on Drysdale and Grove, we're at the end of the road on Ryan and Maddux as well. No, the difference in their circumstances wasn't as vast as Grove/Drysdale, but it was nonetheless dramatic. Since you have yet to post even a single word in acknowledgement of these differences, I have to continue to assume (or not) that you understand them. But I am quite certain that this understanding leads to the obvious and inescapable conclusion that Maddux and Ryan don't belong near each other on this list, or even on the same list.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
LOL thats one of the craziest analogies I have ever seen on this board! Cmon Dallas, Im sure you know better than that. I don't know, maybe you are just attempting to make me look like a dummy because you have a hard time with someone that you are unable to convince or has a different opinion than you.
We can come up with LOADS of differences between pitching eras of Grove and Drysdale. Not only that, Grove only had 368 career starts. And again, you are only taking one aspect of the pitchers game....ERA...just as you did when you jumped on me for mentioning Ryans W/L record.
Sorry, I didn't see the updated list from 2005 that had Clemens ranked as the 3rd pitcher behind only Johnson and Mathewson. That seems a little more realistic than #62 overall.
<< <i>LOL thats one of the craziest analogies I have ever seen on this board! Cmon Dallas, Im sure you know better than that. >>
You obviously haven't read very many of my posts; that was a tame analogy for me. But it is an anlaogy that differs only in degree from the Ryan/Maddux situation, not in kind. The point is that there are differences in the circumstances of all of these pitchers; they simply have to be acknowledged in every single comparison, not just when they reach Grove/Drysdale proportions.
<< <i>I don't know, maybe you are just attempting to make me look like a dummy because you have a hard time with someone that you are unable to convince or has a different opinion than you. >>
Not at all. But I have to admit this it is getting frustrating that you are willfully refusing to acknowledge that pitching in Anaheim/Astrodome vs. Wrigley/Fulton is an issue that any valid comparison needs to take into account. Maybe if you would explain exactly how you are accounting for that issue when you compare the two it would clear it up; you have been completely silent on that issue - the single most important issue to consider when comparing these two pitchers - up to now.
<< <i>We can come up with LOADS of differences between pitching eras of Grove and Drysdale. >>
That's my point. Unless we take the time to figure out what those differences are and how to adjust for them, we have absolutely no basis for compaing the two. Without adjustment, Drysdale appears to be a better pitcher than Grove; in EXACTLY the same way that Ryan appears to be almost as good as Maddux. Any comparison made without adjustment is misleasding and worthless, but you have yet to explain how you are taking these significant adjustments into account.
<< <i>Not only that, Grove only had 368 career starts. >>
I tried to figure out why this was relevant, but I failed. {BTW it was 457, almost exactly the same number as Drysdale, not 368}
<< <i>And again, you are only taking one aspect of the pitchers game....ERA...just as you did when you jumped on me for mentioning Ryans W/L record. >>
In the first place, that's wrong; I also took into account the length of their careers. In the second place, just how much higher am I supposed to rank someone because of style points? What a pitcher is asked to do - the single, only thing he is asked to do - is not allow earned runs to score. Consider two pitchers who have otherwise identical careers except that Pitcher 1 strikes out 5,000 more people while Pitcher 2 allows 50 fewer runs to score. Everything else - their teams, parks, innings, etc. - are identical. If you believe that Pitcher 1 was better than Pitcher 2 then you do not need me to make you look like a dummy. ERA (adjusted for context) and length of career represent at least 90% of the value of any pitcher; postseason play, hitting, fielding and miscellaneous make up the other 10%. All the rest of it is, in skinpinch's phrase, a novelty.
Maddux wins the fewer runs allowed over his career contest by a huge margin, AND he wins the other 10% with his fielding. Q.E.D.
On the bright side, the more I write about this the more obvious it becomes that there really isn't an argument to be had here, so I'll stop.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>If you want to believe that 1.2 runs per 100 innings (2-3 runs per YEAR) makes Maddux hands down better than thats fine. All I am saying is that Im not convinced that Maddux is proven to be THAT much better than Ryan.
>>
Against my better judgment, I'm going to dive in.
Nolan Ryan saved 223 runs more than the average pitcher would have during his career.
Greg Maddux has saved 462 runs more than the average pitcher would have during his career.
That means Maddux saved 239 runs more than Ryan did. More than twice as many.
Over a 20 year career, that means Maddux saved an extra 12 runs a season. Divide that by the number of starts (approximately 35 a year), and Maddux saved about one run every three games when compared to Ryan. I call that pretty significant.
But Nolan Ryan looked like a cowboy and Greg Maddux looked like a librarian, so that goes on Ryan's side of the ledger.
<< <i>How can you not recognize Gehrig as one of the best hitters and sluggers of all time >>
I do. For some reason, my comments seems to be bouncing off of people.
I think he's one of the greatest players of all time. I just don't think he's the #6 best player that ever played. I don't think he's even in the top 10.
Top 20, not top 10, and not number 6.
It doesn't mean I don't like Gehrig either because I do. I'm just making an opinion of where I think he falls as a player. Ty Cobb was a jerk but he's definately in the top 5 players of all time.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that Johnny Bench is the best player of the last 30 years. Great player? Sure. Best of the last 30 years? Ahead of Clemens, Maddux, Bonds, Griffey, Pujols, A-Rod, etc? Come on.
Because either you understand pitching in context or you don't. I assume you must or else you'd be arguing that the top 100 pitchers all pitched before 1920, and the top 100 hitters all played in the 1920's and 1930's (as TSN appears to). Even Maddux's spectacular 3.07 career ERA places him 183rd on the all-time list. But, of course, it's confusing to assume that you do understand that the pitcher's environment is an integral part of determining how good he really was when you dismiss it in the Ryan/Maddux comparison. Because if Ryan was better than Maddux, then Doc White was better than either of them - a LOT better than either of them.
But I'm glad I could help you prove a point. Maybe sometime you'll share what that point was. >>
Priceless. That last line was quite humorous as well.
Dallas, I don't think the poster understood this based on his next several posts. This pretty much wraps up what he was talking about when he was comparing career ERA's and not taking the context of the enivornment into account.
Yankeeno, for the record, Ryan had 306 career starts at Anaheim and the Astrodome...out of his total of 773 career starts. That is part of the reason why his home ERA is 2.77 and his road ERA is 3.73.
WOW! Unbelieveable. There is actually somone that lived through the Tony Gwynn era (Don't forget that powerful lineup he was around to help him get the massive amount of hits-NOT!) and seems to think he is overrated!
Even the man that people are now saying was THEE greatest pure hitter of ALL-TIME, Ted Williams, himself, said Tony Gwynn was one of the greatest pure hitters he had EVER seen! Now remember, this coming from a guy who was around in the late 30's all the way through the late 50's and saw his fair share of great players.
Now, to say these "OLD" guys just don't cut it and had advantages over the modern guys, is pure bulls***! Every era has its group of guys that were great, after all, pitchers from each era get used to the players they are pitching against, hence, they are good or great from their era. When they lowered the mound in the early 70's, what happened? Here come the home runs! Pitchers no longer had an advantage coming off that raised mound with extreme velocity. SOOOOOOOO, if you take into consideration this alone, the feats (Homeruns, etc) these guys did, seem even more remarkable than your "MODERN" players. Modern players have ALL the tools they need. Better conditioning, they take better care of themselves, trainers-physical as well as mental wise. Sleep in FIRST CLASS accomidations, FIRST CLASS airfares. When they sprain their ankle, they get a day off-Those "OLD" guys played through all kinds of physical pain! Big fat contracts. Oh, I almost forgot....you are saying they never had to play night games. Well, think about that for a minute. These guys play a night game. Let's say they are done by midnight, just to make it sound like a long night (most games are over by 10:30 or so), but, then they don't have to get on a TRAIN and travel hundreds of miles for hours like the "OLD" guys and the modern guys get plenty of rest, they get on a plane and sleep in first class and because they don't have to play until 7:05 pm the next day as well. So, please spare me on the "OLD" guys and the advantages of the "DEADBALL" era.
Ok, there is my 2 cents worth, now....let the bit**ing begin!
Nobody said the Old guys couldn't cut it, but merely that they are waaay over-represented on that list. You say yourself that every era has their group of good players, and you are correct, yet the list basically shines the light on the pre war era, and not on the more competitive era of the late 60's to late 80's.
Again, the best "pure hitter" is really phrase for the player with the highest average and most contact, and Gwynn fits that mold to a tee. But that doesn't make him the best hitter, as there are others who are responsible for more runs than Gwynnn, albeit through a little different way. See the value of a single in the sports talk forum for a comparison of a Gwynn hitter to a Schmidt hitter, and it is glaringly obvious.
Ted Williams has a bias for his best hitters....
Top 20 Hitters by Ted Williams (1994)
Rank Name 20. Ralph Kiner 19. Mike Schmidt 18. Frank Robinson 17. Harry Heilmann 16. Mel Ott 15. Johnny Mize 14. Al Simmons 13. Tris Speaker 12. Mickey Mantle 11. Hank Greenberg 10. Willie Mays 9. Hank Aaron 8. Joe Jackson 7. Stan Musial 6. Ty Cobb 5. Joe DiMaggio 4. Rogers Hornsby 3. Jimmie Foxx 2. Lou Gehrig 1. Babe Ruth Top 20 Hitters by Ted Williams
I find it very hard to believe that the 20's/30's has EIGHT guys ranked ahead of the BEST hitter of the 70's/80's. Without even considering all the population facts in favor of the 80's, the fact that there are EIGHT guys from that one era ahead of the BEST from the 80's era should SPEAK VOLUMES!
Oh, and that isn't even considering Cobb, Dimaggio, T. Williams, Speaker, and Mize as part of the 20's/30's group(as these players also played some in that era).
So are we to believe that the best EIGHT to TWELVE hitters from a less populated era, are better than the BEST hitter of the MOST POPULATED era? Give me a break. This fact should be blinding sports fans and hopefully waking them up a bit.
No AJW, that is the what people must be implying when they say Tony Gwynn is the best 'pure hitter' because it certainly isn't the guy who creates the most runs...as that is the BEST HITTER. Yes, my phrase is "The best hitter is the guy that creates the most runs at the plate."
So if Mike Schmidt creates more runs with his bat than Tony Gwynn, and Tony Gwynn is called the best pure hitter, then what else could best pure hitter mean...other than the guy who makes the most contact and hits for a high average? Does that make Mike Schmidt impure?
Schmidt isn't impure, and Tony Gwynn isn't a better hitter...so the "best pure hitter" phrase is meanignless.....unless somebody is under the impression that a guy who creates less runs is a better hitter.
I'll say it again, Tony Gwynn never once finished as the best hitter in any season in the major leagues, and his best was a third place finish in the NL only. Schmidt was the best in all of MLB a couple of times, and the best in the NL several times. Yet Tony Gwynn is classified as a better pure hitter? Classify him that all you want, but Schmidt was the BETTER HITTER, and that is what counts...impure or not
Is that elementary enough to grasp? Yeah, condescending, blah, blah blah. My quotes need no fixing, only the comprehension of those reading them.
<< <i>I find it very hard to believe that the 20's/30's has EIGHT guys ranked ahead of the BEST hitter of the 70's/80's. Without even considering all the population facts in favor of the 80's, the fact that there are EIGHT guys from that one era ahead of the BEST from the 80's era should SPEAK VOLUMES! >>
I find it very hard to believe that Rod Carew isn't on that list?
Just to get some clarification from skinpinch, when you say "creates runs" are you referring to RBI's or RBI's + runs scored or some other derivation of statistics?
"Best Pure Hitter" is a subjective term. I take it to mean one thing, someone else takes it to mean something else. Maybe it simply means someone that doesn't strike out. Maybe it means someone that combines contact, power and average. Someone else might think it means a high batting average.
That's all I mean. There's just no definition of the term.
There is no definition of the term, but when people use the term it is usually put to the Buckner, Gwynn types...and their type of hitting, low strikeouts and a higher averge(though this part applies more to Gwynn). But calling them pure, would make Schmidt and Reggie impure, would it not? And why would they be impure? Because people view striking out in terms of striking out in little league, and it isn't the same.
Tombo, you are new, and you probably don't realize that I wouldn't put all my stock into stats like RBI and RUNS because those are greatly affected by how good your teammates are or are not.
The creation of runs from a batter is created from the following, and in the order of how many runs they are worth/creating....
The double play, and other outs are on the negative spectrum of creating runs. The more you have of these the more you are costing your team runs. THe HR are on the highest spectrum of creating runs of course....the more of those the better, and so on down.
A batter basically has TWO main facets of creating runs....the ON BASE portion, and the EFFICIENCY OF MOVING RUNERS TO PLATE portion.
A player can be responsible for creating runs even if he doesn't score or drive himself in.
This stuff is all very logical, but history has never really known how often each of these actually lead to runs, or how often a guy does score or drive in a run with a single, or HOW BAD making an out is in scoring runs.
So people always guessed what the value was, UNTIL all the play by play data for every single game from 1959 to present was combed over to find out EXACTLY what each of those events lead to (in a neutral environement). It is no longer a mystery.
We also know exactly what they did in each situation and if a guy had more of his hits with men on than others...again no mystery.
All that stuff is great, and isolates a BATTERS worth to a very high degree. A stat like OPS+ doesn't do it to the same degree, but it gets close enough where you can use that and be prettty darn close to the high degree stuff...and it is quick to do.
There is no definition of the term, but when people use the term it is usually put to the Buckner, Gwynn types...and their type of hitting, low strikeouts and a higher averge(though this part applies more to Gwynn). But calling them pure, would make Schmidt and Reggie impure, would it not? And why would they be impure? Because people view striking out in terms of striking out in little league, and it isn't the same.
>>
Absolutely. That's why I refuse to call anyone a "pure" hitter. It's a meaningless term.
I much prefer the term "professional hitter" which my buddies and I use derogatorily, primarily for older players with no discernible skills, other than not being horrible with the bat.
Comments
Complete games Ryan 222 Maddux 108
Yes, more of a product of generational pitching
Shutouts Ryan 61 Maddux 35
Strikeouts Ryan 5714 Maddux 3195
Ryan K'd 300+ in a season 6 times
ERA Ryan 3.19 Maddux 3.07
That is virtually no difference
WHIP Ryan 1.247 Maddux 1.136
Yes, that is a GREAT WHIP by Maddux
Awards and Winning percentages are pretty subjective.
Both are dominant pitchers of their decades but Im not seeing where Maddux is hands down better than Ryan. I can see arguements both ways depending on what stance you want to take but by all means not hands down. I would agree that Maddux is by far a better fielder than what Ryan was.
I'm not here trying to say that Ryan is/was better than Maddux...just making a point where it could be argued that they are comparable pitchers and a persons opinion could easily sway either way.
As you said Dallas, you cant read minds but you did attempt to when you assumed that I meant that Ryan was "better" if he was on a team that could have won him more games. Im not trying to play words with you...just dont be so quick to jump on something someone made a quick comment on. And did anyone say that he was better than any of the pitchers you mentioned? Nope. But Im sure some would attempt the arguement and would make some good points.
And Ryan a "novelty"? First Ive heard that used to describe Ryan.
(At least when a bobblehead isnt involved!)
Second, the "best pure hitter" doesn't mean anything. Basically, all you are saying is a guy who makes contact and hits for a high average. The best hitter is the guy that is responsible for the most runs with his bat, period. Whether he does it with a combination of HR & BB, or if he does it with lots of singles and triples...it makes no difference the avenue he does it, but simply the WORTH OF WHAT HE HAS DONE!
Third, this is the best PLAYER and takes into account position, defense, and baserunning as well. This is the facet that puts Morgan and Henderson ahead of Gwynn.
To answer your question, IN TERMS OF PEAK (ten years)...the following players were better than Gwynn offensively for their best ten years....
Mantle
Aaron
Mays
McCovey
Brett
Schmidt
Stargell
Yaz
Frank Robinson
Barry Bonds
Dick Allen
Reggie Jackson
George Brett
Eddie Murray
Vladimir Guerrero
Manny Ramirez
Frank Thomas
Jeff Bagwell..........too name a few. And they all played a good chunk AFTER Ted Williams.
A quick way to measure how good they were in the meat of their career is their best OPS+ rankings. This will give you a pretty good idea of how they fared relative to their peers, and how much their offense actually contributed to scoring runs. Gwynn's best rankings were......3,4,6,7,7,10,10
Reggie Jackson, whom people somehow feel is overrated on this list(primarily because his avenue of offense was different than Gwynn's...HR & BB) had the following OPS+ rankings....
Reggie OPS+rankings 1,1,1,1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10.
Is this difference not painfully obvious? It should be very clear which of those two are better with the bat in the meat of their career.
In fact, I believe every one of those hitters finished in the top three at least FIVE TIMES, while Gwynn did it just ONCE! Many of them led a bunch of times, or finsihed second a bunch of times. Gwynn's best was third as you can see.
I stick with the ten years so we don't have to get into the old man years value above replacement level player, etc... Ten years is a long enough measuring stick, and they all played at least ten years. As you can see, Gwynn is beat handily in this regard. Oh, and it isn't as if those guys were sprinkling bad years among their peak years...their bad years were either the very beginning of their career, or near the very end.
GWYNN didn't have as many 23 yr old and younger at bats, or 40 and older at bats as many of those guys, so his career percentages get saved a bit. Another 850 at bats at age 21 &22 like his age 22 stats should give an idea how that would affect his stats...and another 600 at age 40&41 should as well. There is a way to look at all that, but lets keep it simple.
P.S. Gwynn isn't a 'product' of the live ball era, but he sure as heck benefitted to a great degree and was fortunate that he was just young enough to take full advantage of it. He most certainly saw a big offensive jump in the mid 90's...just like the rest of the league.
<< <i>ERA Ryan 3.19 Maddux 3.07
That is virtually no difference
>>
Oh, but that is an enormous difference. Ryan compiled his ERA with Anaheim Stadium and the Astrodome as his home parks. Only Oakland had an easier park for pitchers in the 70's and nobody had an easier pitcher's park than Houston in the 80's. Compare that to a career spent in Atlanta and Wrigley - Atlanta was relatively neutral over Maddux's years there, but Wrigley was, and always has been, a pitcher's nightmare. Maddux compiled his 3.07 ERA where average pitchers were throwing 4.17 - over a full run per game better; Ryan compiled his 3.19 where average pitchers were throwing 3.57 - a little over a third of a run per game.
As for the rest of the stats, obviously Ryan struck out a whole lot more people but it really makes very little difference HOW a pitcher gets a batter out; all that matters is whether or not any runs score and ERA already measures that. And I have no doubt at all that Maddux could have completed many more games than he did, with several more shutouts, if he had pitched when Ryan did. And if he'd pitched in the parks Ryan got to pitch in the only argument today would be whether or not he was better than Walter Johnson.
Again, I'm a huge fan of Nolan Ryan and I don't want to make this sound like he wasn't a great pitcher. But saying that he wasn't as good as Greg Maddux doesn't mean that; and Nolan Ryan clearly was not as good - not nearly as good - as Greg Maddux.
And thank you, skinpinch. Hearing Reggie Jackson referred to as "overrated" is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me; that gets repeated so often that he is by now probably among the most underrated players.
I think the big feather in Maddux' cap is that he doesn't have the perceived ego of Clemens, he is perceived to be more of a student of the game and making more of his physical abililty than the bigger, stronger, Clemens. Maddux is also an excellent hitter and fielder.
However, in terms of pure pitching, it would be hard to argue that more pitchers were dominant over a longer period of time than Clemens.
How can you not recognize Gehrig as one of the best hitters and sluggers of all time
Career .340 Avg
493 HR's - No doubt would have well over 500, maybe 600, if not for illness.
Career .632 Slugging Ave (3rd Alltime)
Slugged over .700 4 times
1995 Career RBI's - No doubt would be alltime RBI leader if not for illness.
150+ RBI's seven times!!
I'm sure there is more I left out.
This all done in basically 14 seasons. First two years he only had 26 and 12 AB's resepectively. And last year he had 28 AB's. That my friends is incredible!!
Actually his consecutive game streak actually masks how great of a hitter he was because that is what people focus on instead of his hitting.
<< <i>You prove my point Dallas...all kinds of ways anyone can argue, even 0.12 ERA difference because they had a few extra games in specific ball parks. >>
I'm sure it was an oversight, but you left out a word. What you meant to write was "...a few HUNDRED extra games in specific ball parks."
Because either you understand pitching in context or you don't. I assume you must or else you'd be arguing that the top 100 pitchers all pitched before 1920, and the top 100 hitters all played in the 1920's and 1930's (as TSN appears to). Even Maddux's spectacular 3.07 career ERA places him 183rd on the all-time list. But, of course, it's confusing to assume that you do understand that the pitcher's environment is an integral part of determining how good he really was when you dismiss it in the Ryan/Maddux comparison. Because if Ryan was better than Maddux, then Doc White was better than either of them - a LOT better than either of them.
But I'm glad I could help you prove a point. Maybe sometime you'll share what that point was.
I can sit here and say that Maddux has his advantages, maybe something mundane such as he gets more calls on the corners because of his pitching style and umpires favor when he pitches. And just how do you come up with an adjusted ERA for the ballparks that Ryan pitched in? Can that be done? I dont see how it can accurately be done and even if someone tried, it would be argued til death.
Again, the fact is we can come up with tons of advantages for both pitchers. How deep can a debate such as this go? Certainly one I am not interested in putting an effort for. And Im not even saying that Ryan is better than Maddux. I am just saying its not so "hands down".
The debate can go on forever as I said earlier. Can compare career stirkeouts, complete games, shutouts, or whatever. Convince me that Maddux is THAT much better than Ryan. Maybe I will agree but I havent been convinced yet...and I may even be in agreement that Maddux might be slightly better overall.
Edited to ask....what specific ballparks are you saying he pitched a few hundred in? Anahiem? He pitched in 156 games when with the Angels...maybe 100 at most were at home?
<< <i>I'm very curious about this big debate about Ryan vs. Maddux in terms of who should be ranked higher on the list. I was born and raised in Chicago and have remained a Cub fan for over 35 years and Maddux was the perfect model of consistency with both the Cubs and especially with the Braves. However, even though this "hired gun" may not be the most popular guy now outside of the Big Apple, why isn't anyone lobbying for Clemens to be moved up the list. Clemens has more wins, less losses, the same strikeout to walk ratio of 3 - 1, more shutouts, and Cy Youngs than Maddux and essentially the same career ERA (facing 1 additional dangerous hitter each game).
I think the big feather in Maddux' cap is that he doesn't have the perceived ego of Clemens, he is perceived to be more of a student of the game and making more of his physical abililty than the bigger, stronger, Clemens. Maddux is also an excellent hitter and fielder.
However, in terms of pure pitching, it would be hard to argue that more pitchers were dominant over a longer period of time than Clemens. >>
Well, Clemens did jump from 55 to 15. I'd say that was a significant leap in the ratings. I would say that he (and Maddux for that matter) will be even higher on the list the next time it's evaluated.
<< <i>If you want to believe that 1.2 runs per 100 innings (2-3 runs per YEAR) makes Maddux hands down better than thats fine. All I am saying is that Im not convinced that Maddux is proven to be THAT much better than Ryan. >>
Again, if you are going to look at Maddux/Ryan without any context, then your statement about 1.2 runs per 100 innings makes sense. But it only makes sense if we reject the notion that context matters. But if we reject the notion that context matters, then why are we talking about Ryan and Maddux at all? By your logic, all of the best pitchers pitched before 1920. ALL of them.
But, and I'm sure you agree, that idea is ridiculous on its face. So we acknowledge that Lefty Grove with his 3.06 ERA was a better pitcher - a MUCH better pitcher - than Don Drysdale with his 2.95 ERA. Drysdale struck out a lot more people per inning and he had a better ERA - and he was not fit to hold Lefty Grove's jockstrap. We know this - to an absolute certainty - because we recognize the vast differences between the circumstances under which they pitched. And I will do you the honor of assuming that you do recognize the gaping chasm between Drysdale and Grove.
But, once we're to this point on Drysdale and Grove, we're at the end of the road on Ryan and Maddux as well. No, the difference in their circumstances wasn't as vast as Grove/Drysdale, but it was nonetheless dramatic. Since you have yet to post even a single word in acknowledgement of these differences, I have to continue to assume (or not) that you understand them. But I am quite certain that this understanding leads to the obvious and inescapable conclusion that Maddux and Ryan don't belong near each other on this list, or even on the same list.
We can come up with LOADS of differences between pitching eras of Grove and Drysdale. Not only that, Grove only had 368 career starts. And again, you are only taking one aspect of the pitchers game....ERA...just as you did when you jumped on me for mentioning Ryans W/L record.
<< <i>LOL thats one of the craziest analogies I have ever seen on this board! Cmon Dallas, Im sure you know better than that. >>
You obviously haven't read very many of my posts; that was a tame analogy for me. But it is an anlaogy that differs only in degree from the Ryan/Maddux situation, not in kind. The point is that there are differences in the circumstances of all of these pitchers; they simply have to be acknowledged in every single comparison, not just when they reach Grove/Drysdale proportions.
<< <i>I don't know, maybe you are just attempting to make me look like a dummy because you have a hard time with someone that you are unable to convince or has a different opinion than you. >>
Not at all. But I have to admit this it is getting frustrating that you are willfully refusing to acknowledge that pitching in Anaheim/Astrodome vs. Wrigley/Fulton is an issue that any valid comparison needs to take into account. Maybe if you would explain exactly how you are accounting for that issue when you compare the two it would clear it up; you have been completely silent on that issue - the single most important issue to consider when comparing these two pitchers - up to now.
<< <i>We can come up with LOADS of differences between pitching eras of Grove and Drysdale. >>
That's my point. Unless we take the time to figure out what those differences are and how to adjust for them, we have absolutely no basis for compaing the two. Without adjustment, Drysdale appears to be a better pitcher than Grove; in EXACTLY the same way that Ryan appears to be almost as good as Maddux. Any comparison made without adjustment is misleasding and worthless, but you have yet to explain how you are taking these significant adjustments into account.
<< <i>Not only that, Grove only had 368 career starts. >>
I tried to figure out why this was relevant, but I failed. {BTW it was 457, almost exactly the same number as Drysdale, not 368}
<< <i>And again, you are only taking one aspect of the pitchers game....ERA...just as you did when you jumped on me for mentioning Ryans W/L record. >>
In the first place, that's wrong; I also took into account the length of their careers. In the second place, just how much higher am I supposed to rank someone because of style points? What a pitcher is asked to do - the single, only thing he is asked to do - is not allow earned runs to score. Consider two pitchers who have otherwise identical careers except that Pitcher 1 strikes out 5,000 more people while Pitcher 2 allows 50 fewer runs to score. Everything else - their teams, parks, innings, etc. - are identical. If you believe that Pitcher 1 was better than Pitcher 2 then you do not need me to make you look like a dummy. ERA (adjusted for context) and length of career represent at least 90% of the value of any pitcher; postseason play, hitting, fielding and miscellaneous make up the other 10%. All the rest of it is, in skinpinch's phrase, a novelty.
Maddux wins the fewer runs allowed over his career contest by a huge margin, AND he wins the other 10% with his fielding. Q.E.D.
On the bright side, the more I write about this the more obvious it becomes that there really isn't an argument to be had here, so I'll stop.
<< <i>If you want to believe that 1.2 runs per 100 innings (2-3 runs per YEAR) makes Maddux hands down better than thats fine. All I am saying is that Im not convinced that Maddux is proven to be THAT much better than Ryan.
>>
Against my better judgment, I'm going to dive in.
Nolan Ryan saved 223 runs more than the average pitcher would have during his career.
Greg Maddux has saved 462 runs more than the average pitcher would have during his career.
That means Maddux saved 239 runs more than Ryan did. More than twice as many.
Over a 20 year career, that means Maddux saved an extra 12 runs a season. Divide that by the number of starts (approximately 35 a year), and Maddux saved about one run every three games when compared to Ryan. I call that pretty significant.
But Nolan Ryan looked like a cowboy and Greg Maddux looked like a librarian, so that goes on Ryan's side of the ledger.
Let's call 'em even.
<< <i>How can you not recognize Gehrig as one of the best hitters and sluggers of all time >>
I do. For some reason, my comments seems to be bouncing off of people.
I think he's one of the greatest players of all time. I just don't think he's the #6 best player that ever played. I don't think he's even in the top 10.
Top 20, not top 10, and not number 6.
It doesn't mean I don't like Gehrig either because I do. I'm just making an opinion of where I think he falls as a player. Ty Cobb was a jerk but he's definately in the top 5 players of all time.
Ryan saved 223 runs in 773 games started. That's .228 runs per game. Pretty good.
Maddux saved 462 runs in 681 games started. That's .678 runs per game. Not too shabby.
Let's give each player 35 starts in a year. Maddux saves 23.74 runs in his starts. Ryan saves 10.09 runs in his.
So Maddux saved an extra 13 runs a season. That's gotta help his argument.
But Nolan Ryan beat the crap out of Robin Ventura, so we'll call 'em even.
Tabe
<< <i>
Because either you understand pitching in context or you don't. I assume you must or else you'd be arguing that the top 100 pitchers all pitched before 1920, and the top 100 hitters all played in the 1920's and 1930's (as TSN appears to). Even Maddux's spectacular 3.07 career ERA places him 183rd on the all-time list. But, of course, it's confusing to assume that you do understand that the pitcher's environment is an integral part of determining how good he really was when you dismiss it in the Ryan/Maddux comparison. Because if Ryan was better than Maddux, then Doc White was better than either of them - a LOT better than either of them.
But I'm glad I could help you prove a point. Maybe sometime you'll share what that point was. >>
Priceless. That last line was quite humorous as well.
Dallas, I don't think the poster understood this based on his next several posts. This pretty much wraps up what he was talking about when he was comparing career ERA's and not taking the context of the enivornment into account.
Yankeeno, for the record, Ryan had 306 career starts at Anaheim and the Astrodome...out of his total of 773 career starts. That is part of the reason why his home ERA is 2.77 and his road ERA is 3.73.
WOW! Unbelieveable. There is actually somone that lived through the Tony Gwynn era
(Don't forget that powerful lineup he was around to help him get the massive amount of hits-NOT!)
and seems to think he is overrated!
Even the man that people are now saying was THEE greatest pure hitter of ALL-TIME, Ted Williams,
himself, said Tony Gwynn was one of the greatest pure hitters he had EVER seen! Now remember,
this coming from a guy who was around in the late 30's all the way through the late 50's and saw
his fair share of great players.
Now, to say these "OLD" guys just don't cut it and had advantages over the modern guys, is pure
bulls***! Every era has its group of guys that were great, after all, pitchers from each era get used
to the players they are pitching against, hence, they are good or great from their era. When they
lowered the mound in the early 70's, what happened? Here come the home runs! Pitchers no
longer had an advantage coming off that raised mound with extreme velocity. SOOOOOOOO,
if you take into consideration this alone, the feats (Homeruns, etc) these guys did, seem even
more remarkable than your "MODERN" players. Modern players have ALL the tools they need.
Better conditioning, they take better care of themselves, trainers-physical as well as mental wise.
Sleep in FIRST CLASS accomidations, FIRST CLASS airfares. When they sprain their ankle, they
get a day off-Those "OLD" guys played through all kinds of physical pain! Big fat contracts.
Oh, I almost forgot....you are saying they never had to play night games. Well, think about that
for a minute. These guys play a night game. Let's say they are done by midnight, just to make
it sound like a long night (most games are over by 10:30 or so), but, then they don't have to
get on a TRAIN and travel hundreds of miles for hours like the "OLD" guys and the modern guys
get plenty of rest, they get on a plane and sleep in first class and because they don't have to play
until 7:05 pm the next day as well. So, please spare me on the "OLD" guys and the advantages
of the "DEADBALL" era.
Ok, there is my 2 cents worth, now....let the bit**ing begin!
Nobody said the Old guys couldn't cut it, but merely that they are waaay over-represented on that list. You say yourself that every era has their group of good players, and you are correct, yet the list basically shines the light on the pre war era, and not on the more competitive era of the late 60's to late 80's.
Again, the best "pure hitter" is really phrase for the player with the highest average and most contact, and Gwynn fits that mold to a tee. But that doesn't make him the best hitter, as there are others who are responsible for more runs than Gwynnn, albeit through a little different way. See the value of a single in the sports talk forum for a comparison of a Gwynn hitter to a Schmidt hitter, and it is glaringly obvious.
Ted Williams has a bias for his best hitters....
Top 20 Hitters
by Ted Williams (1994)
Rank Name
20. Ralph Kiner
19. Mike Schmidt
18. Frank Robinson
17. Harry Heilmann
16. Mel Ott
15. Johnny Mize
14. Al Simmons
13. Tris Speaker
12. Mickey Mantle
11. Hank Greenberg
10. Willie Mays
9. Hank Aaron
8. Joe Jackson
7. Stan Musial
6. Ty Cobb
5. Joe DiMaggio
4. Rogers Hornsby
3. Jimmie Foxx
2. Lou Gehrig
1. Babe Ruth
Top 20 Hitters by Ted Williams
I find it very hard to believe that the 20's/30's has EIGHT guys ranked ahead of the BEST hitter of the 70's/80's. Without even considering all the population facts in favor of the 80's, the fact that there are EIGHT guys from that one era ahead of the BEST from the 80's era should SPEAK VOLUMES!
Oh, and that isn't even considering Cobb, Dimaggio, T. Williams, Speaker, and Mize as part of the 20's/30's group(as these players also played some in that era).
So are we to believe that the best EIGHT to TWELVE hitters from a less populated era, are better than the BEST hitter of the MOST POPULATED era? Give me a break. This fact should be blinding sports fans and hopefully waking them up a bit.
<< <i>
Again, the best "pure hitter" is really phrase for the player with the highest average and most contact, and Gwynn fits that mold to a tee. >>
"Again, YOUR DEFINITION OF best "pure hitter" is really phrase for the player with the highest average and most contact..."
I fixed it for you.
So if Mike Schmidt creates more runs with his bat than Tony Gwynn, and Tony Gwynn is called the best pure hitter, then what else could best pure hitter mean...other than the guy who makes the most contact and hits for a high average? Does that make Mike Schmidt impure?
Schmidt isn't impure, and Tony Gwynn isn't a better hitter...so the "best pure hitter" phrase is meanignless.....unless somebody is under the impression that a guy who creates less runs is a better hitter.
I'll say it again, Tony Gwynn never once finished as the best hitter in any season in the major leagues, and his best was a third place finish in the NL only. Schmidt was the best in all of MLB a couple of times, and the best in the NL several times. Yet Tony Gwynn is classified as a better pure hitter? Classify him that all you want, but Schmidt was the BETTER HITTER, and that is what counts...impure or not
Is that elementary enough to grasp? Yeah, condescending, blah, blah blah. My quotes need no fixing, only the comprehension of those reading them.
<< <i>I find it very hard to believe that the 20's/30's has EIGHT guys ranked ahead of the BEST hitter of the 70's/80's. Without even considering all the population facts in favor of the 80's, the fact that there are EIGHT guys from that one era ahead of the BEST from the 80's era should SPEAK VOLUMES! >>
I find it very hard to believe that Rod Carew isn't on that list?
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
That's all I mean. There's just no definition of the term.
Yeah, I was a bit snarky about it. Sorry.
There is no definition of the term, but when people use the term it is usually put to the Buckner, Gwynn types...and their type of hitting, low strikeouts and a higher averge(though this part applies more to Gwynn). But calling them pure, would make Schmidt and Reggie impure, would it not? And why would they be impure? Because people view striking out in terms of striking out in little league, and it isn't the same.
Tombo, you are new, and you probably don't realize that I wouldn't put all my stock into stats like RBI and RUNS because those are greatly affected by how good your teammates are or are not.
The creation of runs from a batter is created from the following, and in the order of how many runs they are worth/creating....
double play, strikeout, batted out, BB/HBP, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR.
The double play, and other outs are on the negative spectrum of creating runs. The more you have of these the more you are costing your team runs. THe HR are on the highest spectrum of creating runs of course....the more of those the better, and so on down.
A batter basically has TWO main facets of creating runs....the ON BASE portion, and the EFFICIENCY OF MOVING RUNERS TO PLATE portion.
A player can be responsible for creating runs even if he doesn't score or drive himself in.
This stuff is all very logical, but history has never really known how often each of these actually lead to runs, or how often a guy does score or drive in a run with a single, or HOW BAD making an out is in scoring runs.
So people always guessed what the value was, UNTIL all the play by play data for every single game from 1959 to present was combed over to find out EXACTLY what each of those events lead to (in a neutral environement). It is no longer a mystery.
We also know exactly what they did in each situation and if a guy had more of his hits with men on than others...again no mystery.
All that stuff is great, and isolates a BATTERS worth to a very high degree. A stat like OPS+ doesn't do it to the same degree, but it gets close enough where you can use that and be prettty darn close to the high degree stuff...and it is quick to do.
<< <i>AJW, no apology necessary.
There is no definition of the term, but when people use the term it is usually put to the Buckner, Gwynn types...and their type of hitting, low strikeouts and a higher averge(though this part applies more to Gwynn). But calling them pure, would make Schmidt and Reggie impure, would it not? And why would they be impure? Because people view striking out in terms of striking out in little league, and it isn't the same.
>>
Absolutely. That's why I refuse to call anyone a "pure" hitter. It's a meaningless term.
I much prefer the term "professional hitter" which my buddies and I use derogatorily, primarily for older players with no discernible skills, other than not being horrible with the bat.