Greatest Living Pitcher

[nyjunc]

Interesting poll from RESPN from their baseball "experts". here are the results:

POLL RESULTS
• Here are the results of ESPN.com's poll, asking 32 of ESPN's baseball experts (named below) to list the top 10 greatest living pitchers. Points were awarded on a 1-10 scale (10 for a first-place vote down to a 1 for a 10th-place vote).
NO. PITCHER PTS.
1 Roger Clemens 278
2 Tom Seaver 196
3 Sandy Koufax 192
4 Bob Gibson 186
5 Greg Maddux 177
6 Bob Feller 126
7 Randy Johnson 123
8 Pedro Martinez 119
9 Steve Carlton 101
10 Juan Marichal 71
Others receiving votes: Nolan Ryan 67, Mariano Rivera 41, Whitey Ford 35, Jim Palmer 33, Fergie Jenkins 6, Dennis Eckersley 6, Robin Roberts 2, Goose Gossage 2 Dave Stewart 2.
THE VOTERS
Dave Barnett, Jim Callis, Jim Caple, Dave Campbell, Jerry Crasnick, Orestes Destrade, Peter Gammons, Gary Gillette, Pedro Gomez, Orel Hershiser, Eric Karabell, Eric Karros, Bob Klapisch, Tim Kurkjian, Michael Knisley, Buck Martinez, Sean McAdam, Sean McDonough, Jon Miller, Rob Neyer, Steve Phillips, Karl Ravech, Phil Rogers, Enrique Rojas, David Schoenfield, Alan Schwarz, Jon Sciambi, John Shea, Dan Shulman, Jayson Stark, Rick Sutcliffe, Gary Thorne


Link to full article(It's about Clemens):

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[statjeff22]

This is a very reasonable list. I would put Carlton higher and Gibson lower, but I think the top 3 is hard to argue with.

[Italian Seafood]

Lance Carter. His numbers are staggering.

[AMJets]

Not bad, although I think Pedro is too low.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Pedro is WAY too low. How can Kofax be 3 when Pedro is 8 and has better numbers across the board?

[Royal Tee]

Greatest Living Pitcher
Hands Down....





To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[duketogo]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily. (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)

[Royal Tee]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily. (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)
I'd agree, But yours isn't living!!!

Shit, It doesn't even last long! :lol:

[nyjunc]

Pedro is WAY too low. How can Kofax be 3 when Pedro is 8 and has better numbers across the board?

it may have something to do w/ Koufax was a big game pitcher- a .95 postseason ERA compared to 3.40 for Pedro.

[dclark26]

Roger Clemens hands down gets my nod. He is a some type of genetic freak of nature. I would put Nolan Ryan higher as well (just for beating the crap out of Robin Ventura when he charged the mound in Arlington-by far one of my fav sports memories.

[nyjunc]

Roger Clemens hands down gets my nod. He is a some type of genetic freak of nature. I would put Nolan Ryan higher as well (just for beating the crap out of Robin Ventura when he charged the mound in Arlington-by far one of my fav sports memories.

Nolan Ryan is one of the most overrated players of all time, he belongs nowhere any list of greatest pitchers.

[dclark26]

Nolan Ryan is one of the most overrated players of all time, he belongs nowhere any list of greatest pitchers.

I'd take Ryan over Randy "the mullet"

[nyjunc]

I'd take Ryan over Randy "the mullet"

You'd be crazy. They aren't even close.

[ShadeTree#55]

Roger Clemens hands down gets my nod. He is a some type of genetic freak of nature.


Its called steroids.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Wow, the first baseball thing I agree with junc on... Nolan Ryan is one of the most overrated players in history. Sure he had a lot of no hitters and strikeouts, but he also walked a ridiculous number of hitters.

As for Pedro/Koufax, Koufax was 4-3, .95 in 7 starts, hardly a good sample size. He also didn't have to pitch in the modern era, with a lowered mound, juiced balls, steroid laden hitters, and two extra playoff rounds against lineups like the 1999 Indians and Yankees, the 2003 Yankees, and the 2004 Yankees and Cardinals. The most runs scored by a team Koufax faced was 774, the LEAST scored by any of those lineups is 855. I'm looking for postseason ERA+ numbers but can't seem to find them.

[ShadeTree#55]

Pedro in his prime blows Clemens away.

How could the greates pitcher have sub .500 years in the middle of huis carrer?

Oh that's right he went to the Jays and met Jose Canseco. B12?

[ButtleMan]

Wow, the first baseball thing I agree with junc on... Nolan Ryan is one of the most overrated players in history. Sure he had a lot of no hitters and strikeouts, but he also walked a ridiculous number of hitters.

As for Pedro/Koufax, Koufax was 4-3, .95 in 7 starts, hardly a good sample size. He also didn't have to pitch in the modern era, with a lowered mound, juiced balls, steroid laden hitters, and two extra playoff rounds against lineups like the 1999 Indians and Yankees, the 2003 Yankees, and the 2004 Yankees and Cardinals. The most runs scored by a team Koufax faced was 774, the LEAST scored by any of those lineups is 855. I'm looking for postseason ERA+ numbers but can't seem to find them.


If you are going to count the extra playoff rounds against Koufax then you have to take into consideration that he pitched prior to expansion so it really was the best of the best that he faced every day. Those 7 starts were all in the World Series, most of which were against the Yankees who were in the middle of an incredible run and were the best team in baseball.
You also have to consider the differences in pitching philosophy. Starters finished games back then. Closers werent defined yet.
I do think Pedro is ranked too low but I also believe that Koufax gets discounted because he had to leave the game at an early age. His prime 5 years and Pedro's prime 5 years are very, very comparable with Koufax getting the edge in wins and strikeouts and Pedro in ERA.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Only one was against the Yankees. The others were Baltimore, Minnesota, and Chicago. None of those offenses come close to what Pedro faced. Look at ERA+, that tells a different story. Pedro is the all time leader at 166, Koufax only 131. Still good, but not even close to Pedro.

[nyjunc]

Wow, the first baseball thing I agree with junc on... Nolan Ryan is one of the most overrated players in history. Sure he had a lot of no hitters and strikeouts, but he also walked a ridiculous number of hitters.

As for Pedro/Koufax, Koufax was 4-3, .95 in 7 starts, hardly a good sample size. He also didn't have to pitch in the modern era, with a lowered mound, juiced balls, steroid laden hitters, and two extra playoff rounds against lineups like the 1999 Indians and Yankees, the 2003 Yankees, and the 2004 Yankees and Cardinals. The most runs scored by a team Koufax faced was 774, the LEAST scored by any of those lineups is 855. I'm looking for postseason ERA+ numbers but can't seem to find them.

Yeah but outside of Pedro vs. Cle in '99 and vs. NYY in '99 he was not a lights out pitcher in postseason.

koufax in the WS:

'59(against ChiSox)- game 1 pitched 2 scorless innings in relief.
Game 5 pitched 7 inning sgave up 1 earned run and took the loss.

'63(against NYY)- Game 1-complete game, 2 ER, 15 Ks
Game 4- complete game, 1 ER

'65(against Minny)- Game 2- 6 IP, 1 ER took the loss
Game 5- complete game, 4 hits, 0 runs, 10 K's
Game 7- complete game, 3 hits, 0 runs, 10 Ks

'66(vs. Bal)- game 2- 6 IP, 1 ER took the loss

He has 3 postseason losses and in each game he gave up 1 eraned run. Pitching complete game shutouts in games 5 & 7 in the WS is remarkeable. i think it's a little clearer to see why he's rated higher.

[ButtleMan]

Only one was against the Yankees. The others were Baltimore, Minnesota, and Chicago.

Right about that.

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1959 WS LAD CHW W 2 1 1.00 0-1 0 0 0 9.0 5 1 1 7
1963 WS LAD NYY W 2 2 1.50 2-0 0 2 0 18.0 12 3 3 23
1965 WS LAD MIN W 3 3 0.38 2-1 0 2 2 24.0 13 1 5 29
1966 WS LAD BAL L 1 1 1.50 0-1 0 0 0 6.0 6 1 2 2
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
4 World Series 3-1 8 7 0.95 4-3 0 4 2 57.0 36 6 11 61
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+


That is just sick. He loses 3 WS games but still has a .95 ERA.
2-1 record against the Twins with a .38 ERA. Talk about no offensive help.

[nyjunc]

Only one was against the Yankees. The others were Baltimore, Minnesota, and Chicago. None of those offenses come close to what Pedro faced. Look at ERA+, that tells a different story. Pedro is the all time leader at 166, Koufax only 131. Still good, but not even close to Pedro.

It's not like Pedro's #s were close to Koufax, he had an era 3 points higher.

Pedro in his prime blows Clemens away.


pedro '97-'00 was as good as any pitcher that's ever played the game but roger has done it better for a longer period of time.

[ShadeTree#55]

Steroids.....wake up.

[nyjunc]

Right about that.

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1959 WS LAD CHW W 2 1 1.00 0-1 0 0 0 9.0 5 1 1 7
1963 WS LAD NYY W 2 2 1.50 2-0 0 2 0 18.0 12 3 3 23
1965 WS LAD MIN W 3 3 0.38 2-1 0 2 2 24.0 13 1 5 29
1966 WS LAD BAL L 1 1 1.50 0-1 0 0 0 6.0 6 1 2 2
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
4 World Series 3-1 8 7 0.95 4-3 0 4 2 57.0 36 6 11 61
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+


That is just sick. He loses 3 WS games but still has a .95 ERA.
2-1 record against the Twins with a .38 ERA. Talk about no offensive help.

More impressive is pitching shutouts in Games 5 and 7 to win the WS for LA. In 3 games pitched he pitched 24 innings and gave up 1 run w/ 29 K's. It doesn't get better than that.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

Yes, it's ridiculous trying to compare pitchers of different eras based on their ERA. Koufax had some nice years but he was nowhere near as dominant as Pedro was.

Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium and posted a 3 seasons with an ERA under 2, yet the league average those years was just over 3. While Pedro posted an amazing ERA of 1.74 in Boston, while the league average was 5.

In addition to just ERA Pedro averages 2.3 walks and 10.3 strikeouts per 9 innings with a WHIP just a hair over 1, while Koufax averaged 3.2 walks and 9.3 strikeouts per 9, with a WHIP of 1.1

The one advantage Koufax has over Pedro is the fact that pitchers threw such an obscene amount of innings a year back then, and Koufax's numbers at 300+ innings a year top the contributions of Pedro's at 200+ innings a year. Of course the game has changed so much it's hard to fault Pedro for this.

[Italian Seafood]

Steroids.....wake up.

You raise a good point. Everyone focuses on hitters using steroids and their records, etc, nobody talks about the pitchers. Clemens is one guy I'd look at. As much as I hate to say it, I've always been suspicious of my boy Eric Gagne too. He bulked up, had a couple of superhuman seasons and now he keeps hurting his arm.

[nyjunc]

You raise a good point. Everyone focuses on hitters using steroids and their records, etc, nobody talks about the pitchers. Clemens is one guy I'd look at. As much as I hate to say it, I've always been suspicious of my boy Eric Gagne too. He bulked up, had a couple of superhuman seasons and now he keeps hurting his arm.

Steroids are Shade's excuse for every successful non-Met player and he acts as if no Met has ever taken steroids thouigh it appears alot of their minor leaguers have.

[ShadeTree#55]

As opposed to known major league cheaters Balco twins Sheff and Giambalco.

[Italian Seafood]

Steroids are Shade's excuse for every successful non-Met player and he acts as if no Met has ever taken steroids thouigh it appears alot of their minor leaguers have.

Perhaps, but he does raise a good point.

[ShadeTree#55]

Canseco's book seems to have been pretty spot on. He is the one who named Rocket.

[nyjunc]

Perhaps, but he does raise a good point.

Maybe but there's no evidence Clemens usee although I think it'sossible. it's not like looking at Bonds from the mid-late 90s to the '00s and seeing a man grow by twice the size and his #s go up dramatically. Clemens has always beeen consistent and if he had been using since the 80s then he'd probably be dead by now.

[ShadeTree#55]

What about his last 3 years in Boston? He consistently sucked.

[nyjunc]

What about his last 3 years in Boston? He consistently sucked.

He sucked w/ the Yanks the 1st 2 years until the '00 postseason. Did he stop using then start agin in the '00 postseason?

[Cakes]

Interesting poll from RESPN from their baseball "experts". here are the results:

POLL RESULTS
• Here are the results of ESPN.com's poll, asking 32 of ESPN's baseball experts (named below) to list the top 10 greatest living pitchers. Points were awarded on a 1-10 scale (10 for a first-place vote down to a 1 for a 10th-place vote).
NO. PITCHER PTS.
1 Roger Clemens 278
2 Tom Seaver 196
3 Sandy Koufax 192
4 Bob Gibson 186
5 Greg Maddux 177
6 Bob Feller 126
7 Randy Johnson 123
8 Pedro Martinez 119
9 Steve Carlton 101
10 Juan Marichal 71
Others receiving votes: Nolan Ryan 67, Mariano Rivera 41, Whitey Ford 35, Jim Palmer 33, Fergie Jenkins 6, Dennis Eckersley 6, Robin Roberts 2, Goose Gossage 2 Dave Stewart 2.
THE VOTERS
Dave Barnett, Jim Callis, Jim Caple, Dave Campbell, Jerry Crasnick, Orestes Destrade, Peter Gammons, Gary Gillette, Pedro Gomez, Orel Hershiser, Eric Karabell, Eric Karros, Bob Klapisch, Tim Kurkjian, Michael Knisley, Buck Martinez, Sean McAdam, Sean McDonough, Jon Miller, Rob Neyer, Steve Phillips, Karl Ravech, Phil Rogers, Enrique Rojas, David Schoenfield, Alan Schwarz, Jon Sciambi, John Shea, Dan Shulman, Jayson Stark, Rick Sutcliffe, Gary Thorne


Link to full article(It's about Clemens):

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

I think they voted the top ten correctly, but maybe have the order wrong a bit. Ryan definitely doesn't belong in the top ten. I guess Gaylord Perry and Jim Bunning dropped dead? How were they overlooked and Stewart got two votes?

My top five are
Seaver, Clemens, Gibson, Martinez, and Koufax.

[Italian Seafood]

He sucked w/ the Yanks the 1st 2 years until the '00 postseason. Did he stop using then start agin in the '00 postseason?

We call this the Mad Dog Defense. :lol: I don't think taking steroids guarantees you'll never have a bad run, but it does enhance your overall performance. Maybe he did get back on the juice for the '00 post-season and that's why he snapped and threw a broken bat at Piazza, since he could never get him out any other way.

He could have started taking them as he got up in years and his career was declining. I don't think Bonds started in the 80s either, both were good players before and magically got better at an age when most human beings wear down. That leads to legitimate suspicion, is all I'm saying. Same as Gagne, who is one of my all-time favorites. Just trying to be fair.

[nyjunc]

We call this the Mad Dog Defense. I don't think taking steroids guarantees you'll never have a bad run, but it does enhance your overall performance. Maybe he did get back on the juice for the '00 post-season and that's why he snapped and threw a broken bat at Piazza, since he could never get him out any other way.


I'm not saying he didn't take them but according to Sahde he stunk his last 3 years in Bsoton and then he was great 2 years in Toronto then stunk his 1st 2 reg seasons w/ the Yanks. So he stopped after he was traded to the Yanks until the postseason of '00? it doesn't make sense.

That leads to legitimate suspicion, is all I'm saying. Same as Gagne, who is one of my all-time favorites. Just trying to be fair

gagne was great then gone in a flash, Clemens has been great for decades.

[ShadeTree#55]

Wow so the "greatest" pitcher had 5 crappy seasons?
Pedro has never ever had a crappy season.

[GreenHornet]

Here's a pitcher that brings back memories

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[ButtleMan]

Hands Down....





To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.


RT beat you to it Hornet. :smile:

[Royal Tee]

:beer: :lol: ...................RT beat you to it Hornet. :smile:

[nyjunc]

Wow so the "greatest" pitcher had 5 crappy seasons?
Pedro has never ever had a crappy season.

and Pedro has never had the amount of succesful seasons Clemens has had and Roger has 7 CY's while Pedro has only 3.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Clemens has also pitched a lot longer. Pedro has 3 Cy Youngs at 33. At 33 Clemens had... 3 Cy Youngs.

[ShadeTree#55]

And Pedro has a much, much better W/L% on much worse teams to start his career.

[nyjunc]

Clemens has also pitched a lot longer. Pedro has 3 Cy Youngs at 33. At 33 Clemens had... 3 Cy Youngs.

So you think Pedro's girlish little body will help him win 4 more CYs?

[Cakes]

3 Cy Youngs is a big deal.
Would you say John Elway was a bum because he only won 2 SBs compared to Terry Bradshaw winning 4 SBs?

[nyjunc]

3 Cy Youngs is a big deal.
Would you say John Elway was a bum because he only won 2 SBs compared to Terry Bradshaw winning 4 SBs?

Of course it's a big deal to win 3 CY's but he doesn't have half the CY's that Clemens has- don't you think 7 is a MUCH bigger deal?

Comparing SBs to CY's is a bit silly. CY's are individual awards, There's little doubt to me Elway was a better vQB than Bradshaw but Bradshaw had a much better team around him which is why it took until his 4th trip to win a SB.

Where did i say pedro was a bum b/c he "only" has 3 CYs? i just noted Clemens has had the better career and more tha doubling his Cy's tends to support that.

[ShadeTree#55]

Juan Gonzalez won more MVP's than Babe Ruth. He must be better.

[ButtleMan]

Juan Gonzalez won more MVP's than Babe Ruth. He must be better.

Brett Favre won more MVP's than Joe Montana too.

[ShadeTree#55]

That passes the junc test.

[nyjunc]

Juan Gonzalez won more MVP's than Babe Ruth. He must be better.

Theyd didn't hand out AL MVP Awards from '15-'21 and '29, in '20 and '21 he easily would have won the MVP and most liekly in '29 as well.

[ShadeTree#55]

Woulda coulda.

[nyjunc]

Woulda coulda.

What years didn't they hand out CY's that pedro was eligible for?

[3rdAnd15Draw]

What years didn't they hand out CY's that pedro was eligible for?

We can argue Cy Young awards, and who has had the better career, but the dominance we saw from Pedro from 97-03(he didn't pitch enough innings in 01 to qualify but he was having another excellent year) is damn near unparalelled.

Pedro led the league in ERA, WHIP, H/9, K/9 in 97, 99, 00, 02, 03, and finished 2nd in 98. Now Clemens deserved the Cy in 98 but Pedro should have 5 awards by now, not 3. Of course in 02 the idiotic voters were dazzled by Zitos 23 wins, despite the fact that Pedro was clearly better then him in every category. In 03 he again was the victim of a low win total and robbed of the award.

[nyjunc]

We can argue Cy Young awards, and who has had the better career, but the dominance we saw from Pedro from 97-03(he didn't pitch enough innings in 01 to qualify but he was having another excellent year) is damn near unparalelled.

Pedro led the league in ERA, WHIP, H/9, K/9 in 97, 99, 00, 02, 03, and finished 2nd in 98. Now Clemens deserved the Cy in 98 but Pedro should have 5 awards by now, not 3. Of course in 02 the idiotic voters were dazzled by Zitos 23 wins, despite the fact that Pedro was clearly better then him in every category. In 03 he again was the victim of a low win total and robbed of the award.

I said '97-'01 he was as great as anyone who has ever pitched.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

I said '97-'01 he was as great as anyone who has ever pitched.

What about 02 and 03? He was as dominant as ever from 01 through 03 but after the injury Boston seemed to be quicker with the hook and he pitched a few less innings.

[nyjunc]

What about 02 and 03? He was as dominant as ever from 01 through 03 but after the injury Boston seemed to be quicker with the hook and he pitched a few less innings.


'97-'02 taking out '01 b/c of injuries. In '03 he began to wear down and struggled against the yanks in the postseason. he wasn't lights out anymore.

[ShadeTree#55]

junc is arguing Pedro should be #2?

[nyjunc]

junc is arguing Pedro should be #2?

#2 in what? of this list pedro should be behind:

(in no particular orer)

Clemens
Johnson
Seaver
Gibson
Koufax
Carlton
Rivera

[ShadeTree#55]

How many Cy Youngs has Mo won?


Your all over the place junc.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

'97-'02 taking out '01 b/c of injuries. In '03 he began to wear down and struggled against the yanks in the postseason. he wasn't lights out anymore.

He was still easily the best pitcher in the league. A couple mediocre postseason outings don't change that.

[nyjunc]

How many Cy Youngs has Mo won?


Your all over the place junc.

He's a reliever, closers rarely win CY's. Mariano is quite possibly the best postseason pitcher of all time and is the best closer in the history of the game. CY's factor in to this discussion but aren't the sole judge.

[nyjunc]

He was still easily the best pitcher in the league. A couple mediocre postseason outings don't change that.

Postseason factors in, he was beaten up by the Yanks then threw at Garcis's head b/c of it then he blew a 3 run lead in game 7.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

He's a reliever, closers rarely win CY's. Mariano is quite possibly the best postseason pitcher of all time and is the best closer in the history of the game. CY's factor in to this discussion but aren't the sole judge.

You can't compare the greatest starters all time to the greatest relievers all time. Yes, Rivera is the best closer ever, but to call him the best postseason pitcher of all time is ridiculous too.

There's no denying he's been great but you can't compare someone going out there knowing he only has to get a couple outs and a guy starting the game.

[Cakes]

Rivera was on the mound when the Yankees lost a Game 7.

He's the best reliever in postseason history for sure.

I just wouldn't list him over a great starter, however.

Gibson and Koufax would probably be the best choices.

Edit: I was thinking about another starter, but I just looked up the stats and he wasn't as good as I thought.

[nyjunc]

Rivera was on the mound when the Yankees lost a Game 7.

He's the best reliever in postseason history for sure.

I just wouldn't list him over a great starter, however.

Gibson and Koufax would probably be the best choices.

Edit: I was thinking about another starter, but I just looked up the stats and he wasn't as good as I thought.

I didn't say he was the best just possibly the best.

There's no denying he's been great but you can't compare someone going out there knowing he only has to get a couple outs and a guy starting the game.

Of course they are different but while he only has to get 3-6 outs he is usually coming in under enormous pressure. The yankee dynasty years we won w/ the bullpen. Rivera was handed close games and they were over when he came in. We scored alot of runs late in games after hanging around early and pulled out W's. I think he has to be on the lost of greatest living pitchers even though he is a closer.

[ButtleMan]

Just remember that in 96, the first of the dynasty years, Wetteland was the closer and Rivera was the setup man.
4 Saves in 96 to win the WS MVP.

[nyjunc]

Just remember that in 96, the first of the dynasty years, Wetteland was the closer and Rivera was the setup man.
4 Saves in 96 to win the WS MVP.

and we lived on the edge w/ Wetteland. Mariano pitched the critical 7th and 8th innings to get to Wetteland in most of those games.

[statjeff22]

and we lived on the edge w/ Wetteland. Mariano pitched the critical 7th and 8th innings to get to Wetteland in most of those games.

Rivera is the best closer ever, but your memories of the '96 Series are a bit incomplete. Rivera pitched in game 2 (1 scoreless inning), but the Yanks were losing 4-0 at the time (Wetteland pitched a scoreless inning in the game 1 blowout loss). Rivera pitched poorly in game 3, coming into a 2-0 game in the 7th and pitching 1 1/3 innings, giving up 2 hits, 1 walk, and 1 earned run. Lloyd came in to bail him out, and Wetteland pitched the 9th 1-2-3 with 2 Ks. Rivera danced through raindrops in game 4, coming into a 6-6 game in the 8th and pitching 1 1/3 innings, giving up 2 hits and a walk; Wetteland pitched the last 2/3 of an inning and also gave up a hit, so neither was that great. Rivera didn't even pitch in game 5, a 1-0 Pettitte/Smoltz classic that Wetteland saved with 2/3 of an inning in the 9th. It was only in game 6 that the "Hammer of God" Rivera came out to play, coming into the game with a 3-1 lead in the 7th and pitching two scoreless innings (1 walk). Wetteland came into the game in the 9th and got the save, but he gave up three hits and a run. Before game 6 Rivera's WHIP was an awful 1.64 (Wetteland's was 0.60), and even including that game Rivera's was an undistinguished 1.24 (Wetteland's was 1.15). The postseason legend of Rivera started in game 6 of the 1996 Series, not before then.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

I eagerly await juncs response to the above post, he is at his most entertaining when someone has him dead to rights and he tries to backtrack or change the subject.

I just don't think it's fair to compare a reliever and a starter. I mean if you took Pedro in his prime and told him to go out every other day or so and get 3-4 outs it's not hard to imagine him being even more dominant then Rivera.

If a guy is a great pitcher you want him starting games for you, not being the closer. Rivera obviously could not handle being a SP so that's why he gets ranked below the great starters.

[statjeff22]

I eagerly await juncs response to the above post, he is at his most entertaining when someone has him dead to rights and he tries to backtrack or change the subject.

I just don't think it's fair to compare a reliever and a starter. I mean if you took Pedro in his prime and told him to go out every other day or so and get 3-4 outs it's not hard to imagine him being even more dominant then Rivera.

If a guy is a great pitcher you want him starting games for you, not being the closer. Rivera obviously could not handle being a SP so that's why he gets ranked below the great starters.

I won't comment on your first paragraph for obvious reasons.

I certainly agree that it's pretty much impossible to compare starters and relievers. I find it hard to decide which are most important, but that's because of they way managers use pitchers nowadays. It's obviously possible to have a great rotation without a starter who pitches more than 6 innings with great relievers, but the way the game is played today, you just can't win without a closer. There was no question even 10 years ago that the best pitchers (regular season, postseason, anything) had to be starters, but it's a little harder now.

[typeOnegative13NY]

Wow. Nolan Ryan not in the top 10? Clemens,Ryan and Koufax were the names that came to mind when i saw the title of the thread. Also did Mariano.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

I won't comment on your first paragraph for obvious reasons.

I certainly agree that it's pretty much impossible to compare starters and relievers. I find it hard to decide which are most important, but that's because of they way managers use pitchers nowadays. It's obviously possible to have a great rotation without a starter who pitches more than 6 innings with great relievers, but the way the game is played today, you just can't win without a closer. There was no question even 10 years ago that the best pitchers (regular season, postseason, anything) had to be starters, but it's a little harder now.

I guess my point is that you really don't see many pitchers come up through the minors as relievers. Most start out at starters and either fail and are given a shot in the pen, or someone figures they might do much better out of the pen. Smoltz after his injury is about the only example I can think of a very successful SP being converted into a closer, and that was only due to health concerns. Of course they have since put him back in the rotation.

[statjeff22]

I guess my point is that you really don't see many pitchers come up through the minors as relievers. Most start out at starters and either fail and are given a shot in the pen, or someone figures they might do much better out of the pen. Smoltz after his injury is about the only example I can think of a very successful SP being converted into a closer, and that was only due to health concerns. Of course they have since put him back in the rotation.

My only question is whether that has changed. Was Rivera ever a starter? Wagner? I would think that nowadays players with two (but only two) great pitches would get groomed as relievers rather than starters, since the way the game is played, closers and setup men are important in ways they never were before.

[Cakes]

My only question is whether that has changed. Was Rivera ever a starter? Wagner? I would think that nowadays players with two (but only two) great pitches would get groomed as relievers rather than starters, since the way the game is played, closers and setup men are important in ways they never were before.

Rivera pitched in 19 games for the Yankees in 1995 and 10 of them were starts.
In the minors from 1990-95 Rivera pitched in 102 games and started 67 of them. He was a full-time starter from 1992-95 in the minors.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

My only question is whether that has changed. Was Rivera ever a starter? Wagner? I would think that nowadays players with two (but only two) great pitches would get groomed as relievers rather than starters, since the way the game is played, closers and setup men are important in ways they never were before.

Rivera was a starter throughout his minor league career(68 starts out of 103 appearances) and posted an impressive 2.35 ERA. He started 10 games in 95 for the Yanks with poor results and next year they moved him into the bullpen.

Wagner was exclusively a starter coming up through the minors and posted a 3.16 ERA through 73 starts. He never started for the Astros though, he always came out of the pen.

Doing a quick spot check of closers off the top of my head almost all of them have extensive minor league experience as a SP. Benitez is one exception I found, he never started at all, neither did BJ Ryan.

[3rdAnd15Draw]

To get a more complete picture I'll go through all the current closers and see which ones started out in the minors as SP

Starters(22)-Chris Ray, Chris Reitsma, Jon Papelbon, Bobby Jenks, Ryan Dempster, David Weathers, Bob Wickman, Brian Fuentes, Todd Jones, Brad Lidge, Ambiorix Burgos, Francisco Rodriguez, Danys Baez, Derrick Turnbow, Joe Nathan, Marino Rivera, Billy Wagner, Tom Gordon, Mike Gonzalez, Tim Worrell, Eddie Guardado, Jason Isringhausen,

Relievers(10)-Jose Valverde, Joe Borowski, Huston Street, Trevor Hoffman, Dan Miceli, Francisco Cordero, BJ Ryan, Chad Cordero

Borowski and Francisco Cordero did start out as SP's but since the overwhelming majority of their minor league careers were spent as relievers I put them in that category.

[statjeff22]

Thanks, Cakes and 3rd, for answering my question (searching the deep recesses of my mind [a scary place, to be sure], I did recall Rivera starting out as a starter, but obviously that thought was no where to be found when I posted).

Which leads me to the first point, again - isn't kind of strange that someone like Wagner, who seems ideally suited to be a reliever, comes up as a starter? On the one hand, major league managers can't live without setup men and closers; on the other, they leave the job to people who were trained as starters for year. It's interesting to me.

[28rogerblaze51]

Roger clemens... Greatest living pitcher.

Now for the best pitcher to pitch in one great season, i would have to go with ron guidry (louisiana lightning)

25-3, 248 strikeouts, and in one game had 18 strikeouts. Im sure junc will read this and add to it.

And obvioulsy help the yanks win the world series.

[winstonbiggs]

I grew up a huge Met fan in the Mid 60's. Tom Seaver was and is my favorite player of all time. That said Seaver couldn't hold a candle to Sandy Koufax who was the greatest pitcher and had the consistently best stuff and was the single most dominating pitcher I ever saw.

I rate Gibson behind Koufax and Seaver next. The two best and most dominating years by NY pitchers that I witnessed were by Guidry and Gooden. Guidry was somewhat over shadowed by Gooden because Gooden came on the scene out of nowhere and was a legend almost imediatly before his problems got the best of him. Ron Guidry is a very overlooked pitcher but he was tremendous and one of the class atheletes in NYC history. Hats off to Roger for pointing that out.

Clemens will always be suspect in my mind because of Steriods but if you over look that he has to rate as one of the greatest of all time however unlike Koufax and Gibson Clemens late in his career really wasn't asked to be a complete game pitcher and neither is Pedro and many other greats of the 90's and beyond.

At the end of the day if it was the 7th game of the WS and I could put any pitcher on the mound in their prime, I would want Koufax on the mound followed by Gibson and I don't care who you put up against them I like my odds. They were both better than Clemens and Pedro in their primes.

[ButtleMan]

I grew up a huge Met fan in the Mid 60's. Tom Seaver was and is my favorite player of all time. That said Seaver couldn't hold a candle to Sandy Koufax who was the greatest pitcher and had the consistently best stuff and was the single most dominating pitcher I ever saw.

I rate Gibson behind Koufax and Seaver next. The two best and most dominating years by NY pitchers that I witnessed were by Guidry and Gooden. Guidry was somewhat over shadowed by Gooden because Gooden came on the scene out of nowhere and was a legend almost imediatly before his problems got the best of him. Ron Guidry is a very overlooked pitcher but he was tremendous and one of the class atheletes in NYC history. Hats off to Roger for pointing that out.

Clemens will always be suspect in my mind because of Steriods but if you over look that he has to rate as one of the greatest of all time however unlike Koufax and Gibson Clemens late in his career really wasn't asked to be a complete game pitcher and neither is Pedro and many other greats of the 90's and beyond.

At the end of the day if it was the 7th game of the WS and I could put any pitcher on the mound in their prime, I would want Koufax on the mound followed by Gibson and I don't care who you put up against them I like my odds. They were both better than Clemens and Pedro in their primes.

Guidry already had his legend before Gooden came along especially with '78 but are right that once Gooden came along it was all about him.
Darling and Sid were both very good pitchers but Gooden far overshadowed then. (I know, hard to overshadow Sid)
Gator gets knocked down on pitcher lists because of his injuries and the distance between 20 win seasons.

[ganooch]

list looks good but i would place pedro above randy johnson. I hate Roger Clemens but he is definately the #1

[winstonbiggs]

Guidry already had his legend before Gooden came along especially with '78 but are right that once Gooden came along it was all about him.
Darling and Sid were both very good pitchers but Gooden far overshadowed then. (I know, hard to overshadow Sid)
Gator gets knocked down on pitcher lists because of his injuries and the distance between 20 win seasons.

I'm a much bigger Met fan although I do like the Yankees. Guidry was a great pitcher. I would take him over almost any NY pitcher I saw except Seaver and that includes Clemens and Pedro. Guidry was a lights out pitcher for a few years.

[nyjunc]

Rivera is the best closer ever, but your memories of the '96 Series are a bit incomplete. Rivera pitched in game 2 (1 scoreless inning), but the Yanks were losing 4-0 at the time (Wetteland pitched a scoreless inning in the game 1 blowout loss). Rivera pitched poorly in game 3, coming into a 2-0 game in the 7th and pitching 1 1/3 innings, giving up 2 hits, 1 walk, and 1 earned run. Lloyd came in to bail him out, and Wetteland pitched the 9th 1-2-3 with 2 Ks. Rivera danced through raindrops in game 4, coming into a 6-6 game in the 8th and pitching 1 1/3 innings, giving up 2 hits and a walk; Wetteland pitched the last 2/3 of an inning and also gave up a hit, so neither was that great. Rivera didn't even pitch in game 5, a 1-0 Pettitte/Smoltz classic that Wetteland saved with 2/3 of an inning in the 9th. It was only in game 6 that the "Hammer of God" Rivera came out to play, coming into the game with a 3-1 lead in the 7th and pitching two scoreless innings (1 walk). Wetteland came into the game in the 9th and got the save, but he gave up three hits and a run. Before game 6 Rivera's WHIP was an awful 1.64 (Wetteland's was 0.60), and even including that game Rivera's was an undistinguished 1.24 (Wetteland's was 1.15). The postseason legend of Rivera started in game 6 of the 1996 Series, not before then.

I wasn't just talking WS, I was talking postseason.

ALDS: Game 2(the pivotal game where we were down 1-0 in the series and down 4-2 when Mo came in). 2 2/3 innings w/ no hits and no runs allowed.

Gane 4: came in Yanks up 1 in the 7th, pitched 2 innings, 1 walk, no runs,

ALDS totals: 4 2/3 innings, no hits, no runs

ALCS: Game 1: pitched 10th, came in during a tie ballgame, gave up 3 hits and 0 runs in 2 innings.

Game 4: came in w/ Yanks up 5-4, pitched 2 inning s, 3 hits, 0 runs(I think this was the game he allowed the first 3 batters on so he had loaded bases w/ 0 out and got out of it w/ no runs allowed)

ALCS Totals: 4 IP, 0 runs
Postseason totals so far: 4 appearances, 8 2/3 IP, 0 Runs

WS: Game 2: came in w/ Yanks down 4-0 and the game was basically over but did pitch 1 hitless, scoreless inning.

Game 3: Came in w/ Yanks up 2-1 in 7th. Pitched 1 1/3, gave up 1 run(this was after yanks had made it 5-2 in the 8th) and 2 hits.

Game 4: Pitched 1 1/3 after yanks had just tied it up at 6. Gave up 2 hits and 0 runs.

Game 6: Pitched 7th and 8th, 0 runs, 0 hits.

WS totals: 5 2/3, 1 run allowed

Postseason totals: 8 appearances, 14 1/3 innings pitched(almost an average of 2 per appearance), 1 run

Please tell me how the possteason legend started in game 6 of the '96 WS? Did you see him in the '95 ALDS? That's where the postseason legend began and it continued in '96 when he was amazing.

[nyjunc]

I'm a much bigger Met fan although I do like the Yankees. Guidry was a great pitcher. I would take him over almost any NY pitcher I saw except Seaver and that includes Clemens and Pedro. Guidry was a lights out pitcher for a few years.

Guidry's career was too quick though, if he could have sustained success a little longer he'd be a HOFer.

[winstonbiggs]

Guidry's career was too quick though, if he could have sustained success a little longer he'd be a HOFer.

There are more than a couple of pitchers in the HOF that don't belong in front of Guidry. The guy had a great winning %.

[nyjunc]

There are more than a couple of pitchers in the HOF that don't belong in front of Guidry. The guy had a great winning %.

yeah but I don;'t think he'll make it. Guidry was one of my favorites as a kid even though I only caught the tail end of his career.

[statjeff22]

I wasn't just talking WS, I was talking postseason.

ALDS: Game 2(the pivotal game where we were down 1-0 in the series and down 4-2 when Mo came in). 2 2/3 innings w/ no hits and no runs allowed.

Gane 4: came in Yanks up 1 in the 7th, pitched 2 innings, 1 walk, no runs,

ALDS totals: 4 2/3 innings, no hits, no runs

ALCS: Game 1: pitched 10th, came in during a tie ballgame, gave up 3 hits and 0 runs in 2 innings.

Game 4: came in w/ Yanks up 5-4, pitched 2 inning s, 3 hits, 0 runs(I think this was the game he allowed the first 3 batters on so he had loaded bases w/ 0 out and got out of it w/ no runs allowed)

ALCS Totals: 4 IP, 0 runs
Postseason totals so far: 4 appearances, 8 2/3 IP, 0 Runs

WS: Game 2: came in w/ Yanks down 4-0 and the game was basically over but did pitch 1 hitless, scoreless inning.

Game 3: Came in w/ Yanks up 2-1 in 7th. Pitched 1 1/3, gave up 1 run(this was after yanks had made it 5-2 in the 8th) and 2 hits.

Game 4: Pitched 1 1/3 after yanks had just tied it up at 6. Gave up 2 hits and 0 runs.

Game 6: Pitched 7th and 8th, 0 runs, 0 hits.

WS totals: 5 2/3, 1 run allowed

Postseason totals: 8 appearances, 14 1/3 innings pitched(almost an average of 2 per appearance), 1 run

Please tell me how the possteason legend started in game 6 of the '96 WS? Did you see him in the '95 ALDS? That's where the postseason legend began and it continued in '96 when he was amazing.

Well, I hope 3rd found this entertaining, since it's a lovely example of prevarication. Let's remember what the point was, shall we? ButtleMan pointed out the Wetteland was the MVP of the 1996 WS. You jumped in and dismissed that, saying "we lived on the edge w/Wetteland." This was demonstrably false in the 1996 WS, which I showed in my earlier post. This response is supposed to somehow show that it was true earlier in the 1996 postseason. That is also demonstrably false.

In the 9 postseason games before the World Series, Rivera pitched three times; Wetteland pitched seven. In those three games, Rivera's WHIP was 1.33; Wetteland's was 1.00. Through game 5 of the World Series, the Yankees had played 14 games in the 1996 postseason. Rivera had appeared in only 6 of those games, and his WHIP for the entire 1996 postseason was an awful 1.45. Wetteland had appeared in 11 of those games, and his WHIP was an excellent 0.88. There is no rational argument that Rivera was the best reliever on the Yankees at that time, let alone a legend in the making.

And yes, Rivera pitched well in the 1995 ALDS (far better than Wetteland did, as a matter of fact), but no one becomes a postseason legend by their performance in a losing division series! And apparently Torre agreed, since even though Rivera had a much better 1995 ALDS than Wetteland did, it was Wetteland who was clearly the #1 reliever in the 1996 postseason - until the 6th game of the World Series, just like I said.

[nyjunc]

Well, I hope 3rd found this entertaining, since it's a lovely example of prevarication. Let's remember what the point was, shall we? ButtleMan pointed out the Wetteland was the MVP of the 1996 WS. You jumped in and dismissed that, saying "we lived on the edge w/Wetteland." This was demonstrably false in the 1996 WS

He had baserunners on just about every game w/ a chance for the opponent to tie or win but he got out of it. I felt comfortable w/ Wetteland(I din't sya he sucked just that he lived on the edge) but more comfortable w/ Rivera.

In the 9 postseason games before the World Series, Rivera pitched three times; Wetteland pitched seven. In those three games, Rivera's WHIP was 1.33; Wetteland's was 1.00. Through game 5 of the World Series, the Yankees had played 14 games in the 1996 postseason. Rivera had appeared in only 6 of those games, and his WHIP for the entire 1996 postseason was an awful 1.45. Wetteland had appeared in 11 of those games, and his WHIP was an excellent 0.88. There is no rational argument that Rivera was the best reliever on the Yankees at that time, let alone a legend in the making.


How many runs did they give up? Wettleand gave up 3 runs, Mariano gave up 1 and mariano pitched more innings.

My argument was never that Mo should have been the closer over Wettleland just that Rivera was great that postseason and was our best pitcher in postseason. He probably would have been able to handle it but I don't think Wetteland could have handled the setup rols so i think the situation was perfect.

but no one becomes a postseason legend by their performance in a losing division series! And apparently Torre agreed, since even though Rivera had a much better 1995 ALDS than Wetteland did, it was Wetteland who was clearly the #1 reliever in the 1996 postseason - until the 6th game of the World Series, just like I said.


Mariano had a half a year(not even), wettelnad was a proven closer. It was
a no brainer to bring back wetteland as the closer. There is a reason that after he was WS MVP the Yanks decided not to re-sign him.

[statjeff22]

^ And we all know that ERA is the way to evaluate relievers. :rolleyes: Anyway, through the 5th game of the World Series, Wetteland had made 11 appearances, and given up no runs in 10 of them - it was only in game 5 of the ALCS, when he came into the game in the bottom of the 9th with a 6-2 lead, that he gave up any runs (2 of them).

Wetteland DID NOT have baserunners on in every inning - what is it about a 0.60 WHIP in the World Series that you don't understand? Even with his poor performance in game 5 of the ALCS he gave up a total of 10 baserunners in 11 1/3 postseason innings through game 5 of the WS. It was Rivera who had baserunners against him all the time - that's what a 1.65 WS WHIP means. Up through game 5 of the World Series, Rivera had had 14 baserunners against him in 9 2/3 innings - about 3 every two innings. Yes, they didn't score, but you claimed that the Yankees were on the edge with Wetteland, when in fact it was Rivera who had them on the edge. Oh, and note also, Wetteland pitched more innings than Rivera, not vice versa. That's 14% more innings for Wetteland, and 29% fewer baserunners.

Enough already. I will stand by everything I have said. Please do us all a favor and just let it drop.

[nyjunc]

And we all know that ERA is the way to evaluate relievers

The man allowed ONE run! I'll take a guy who gives up a hit or walk now and then as long as he can get them out. In Game 4(the Leyritz HR game) w/ the yanks up 8-6 he came in and allowed the tying run to get on base, In Game 5 he inherited a runner and we had a 1 run lead then intentionally walked a batter so we had 2 on w/ 2 out w/ the tying run 90 feet away and light hitting Luis polonia up and he fouled off about 12 pitches before sending a shot to the gap which luckily a hobbled Paul O'Neill was playing in the right position and barely made the play. In Game 6 up 3-1 he came in and gave up a run then had the tying and go ahead runners on base to make us sweat even more.

ONCE AGAIN I am not saying wettlead sucked, I am not saying wetteland didn't do a good job all I am aying is he lived on the edge and nothing was easy w/ him. I had full confidence in Rivera but I was very nervous w/ Wetteland. I don't understand why this is such a big deal for you.

[statjeff22]

ONCE AGAIN I am not saying wettlead sucked, I am not saying wetteland didn't do a good job all I am aying is he lived on the edge and nothing was easy w/ him. I had full confidence in Rivera but I was very nervous w/ Wetteland. I don't understand why this is such a big deal for you.

Funny, I'm not the one who refuses to look at the numbers, but rather keeps coming up with stories about why Rivera was actually lights out, even though he gave up many more baserunners in fewer innings. I don't know or care what you were nervous about; the facts are that Wetteland pitched better than Rivera did in that postseason through the 5th game of the WS. When you're giving up fewer than one baserunner per inning, you're not living on the edge; when you're giving up 3 every 2 innings, you are. It's really very simple.

I truly couldn't care less about Wetteland versus Rivera, but it gets annoying when people make pronouncements that are demonstrably false, and then refuse to acknowledge that they could possibly have been mistaken. I think I've made my point as clearly as I need to - I'll leave it to others to decide (assuming anybody cares, which is doubtful). Prevaricate away - you'll get nothing more from me about it.

[nyjunc]

the facts are that Wetteland pitched better than Rivera did in that postseason through the 5th game of the WS.

Which would you rather have a pitcher do:

a) give up 1 run in 14 1/3 innings

or

b) give up 3 runs in 12 1/3 innings.

I truly couldn't care less about Wetteland versus Rivera, but it gets annoying when people make pronouncements that are demonstrably false, and then refuse to acknowledge that they could possibly have been mistaken.

I'm not mistaken- 1 earned run in 12 1/3 innings in crucial relief spots is pretty damn impressive.

[Cakes]

Now for the best pitcher to pitch in one great season, i would have to go with ron guidry (louisiana lightning)

25-3, 248 strikeouts, and in one game had 18 strikeouts. Im sure junc will read this and add to it.

And obvioulsy help the yanks win the world series.


You are entitled to your opinion, because it was certainly a great season.
When I thought of best seasons by pitchers who are still alive these were what I came up with: Martinez in '99 and '00, Gibson '68, Gooden '85, Clemens '97, and Carlton '72.

Then I broke out two of my reference books- The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition; you can buy the 2006 edition for $25 at Barnes & Noble) and STATS All-Time Major League Handbook (published in 2000, it contains complete batting, pitching, and fielding stats for every major league player from 1876-1999; it also contains exclusive stats such as component ERA and park factors and complete hitting stats for all major league pitchers; it had a $79.95 pricetag and I bought the only copy I ever saw in a bookstore).
Anyway, towards the back of the former there are all sorts of career and single season leaders. One of the categories is pitching wins and adjusted pitching wins. Fancy math is involved. Square roots and shit. It basically calculates how many wins the pitcher added to or subtracted from his team compared to what the average pitcher would have done and it allows you to compare pitchers of different eras. The end number (after all the fancy math) essentially tells you how good or bad the pitcher was in the given season.

The book doesn't really explain what is more important- pitching wins or adjusted pitching wins, so I will list both numbers.

These are all the living pitchers who had a better season than Guidry's 1978 effort, according to adjusted pitching wins (pitcher wins in parentheses):

Pedro Martinez, 2000- 8.3 (8.4)
Pedro Martinez, 1999- 7.9 (8.0)
Roger Clemens, 1997- 7.7 (7.9)
Bob Gibson, 1968- 7.3 (7.6)
Sandy Koufax, 1966- 7.0 (6.1)
Steve Carlton, 1972- 6.9 (7.3)
Bob Feller, 1940- 6.8 (6.8)
Dwight Gooden, 1985- 6.7 (7.5)
Kevin Brown, 1996- 6.6 (6.9)
Gaylord Perry, 1972- 6.5 (6.7)
Dean Chance, 1964- 6.4 (5.6)
Greg Maddux, 1994- 6.3 (6.8)
Robin Roberts, 1953- 6.3 (6.4)
Wilbur Wood, 1971- 6.3 (5.8)
Ron Guidry, 1978- 6.2 (6.4)

I used the other book to look at park factor.

100 was the baseline. Anything above that indicates the pitcher pitched his home games in a hitter's park. Anything below 100 indicates the pitcher pitched his home games in a pitcher's park.

I don't have the 2000 Martinez number because my book only goes up to the 1999 season.

Martinez, 1999- 103
Clemens, 1997- 99
Gibson, 1968- 96
Koufax, 1966- 92
Carlton, 1972- 101
Feller, 1940- 91
Gooden, 1985- 96
Brown, 1996- 96
Perry, 1972- 106
Chance, 1964- 90
Maddux, 1994- 100
Roberts, 1953- 97
Wood, 1971- 99
Guidry, 1978- 97

Take a look at these seasons at To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
Any way you cut it the top eight on this list are clearly better seasons than Guidry's 1978 campaign. Brown on down you can argue. I would take Guidry '78 over the Chance, Roberts, and Wood seasons, but only those three.

Before anybody possibly throws W-L records at me-
Perry was 24-16 in 1972. That looks bad compared to Guidry's 25-3, but there is a severe run support issue here (along with a park factor issue). Guidry had a run support number of 117. Perry's mark was 80. 100 is average. In other words, Guidry had great support from his teammates. Perry had putrid support from his Indians teammates.
Martinez had an 83 number in 2000. Bad run support. His teammates helped him more in 1999 when his number was 103.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

it gets annoying when people make pronouncements that are demonstrably false, and then refuse to acknowledge that they could possibly have been mistaken.

Welcome to the world that is arguing with nyjunc.

[ganooch]

I do not want to waste an entire thread on this so I will ask here.

Does anyone know of any sites like this one for Mets fans?

I would appreciate a little info if possible.

[nyjunc]

Welcome to the world that is arguing with nyjunc.

Stop w/ the nonsense. Have we ever argued? You don't even have opinions to argue as you shy away from arguing. I back up everything but some folks will twist the #s to suite thei argument. I don't care about anything other than the man let up ONE(2 less than Wetteland in MORE innings). Oh my God he walked 2 more batters and had 2 mroe batters on base even though he faced more hitters- certainly wette was more dominat b/c of that:rolleyes:

[3rdAnd15Draw]

Stop w/ the nonsense. Have we ever argued? You don't even have opinions to argue as you shy away from arguing. I back up everything but some folks will twist the #s to suite thei argument. I don't care about anything other than the man let up ONE(2 less than Wetteland in MORE innings). Oh my God he walked 2 more batters and had 2 mroe batters on base even though he faced more hitters- certainly wette was more dominat b/c of that:rolleyes:

Except the burden of proof is on you, junc. You're the one that made the statement that Wetteland was "walking through raindrops" while Rivera dominant. If anything, the numbers show that Rivera was the one that was in trouble most often, and that at worst Wetteland was as effective as Rivera. Why not just admit that and be done with it?

[statjeff22]

Stop w/ the nonsense. Have we ever argued? You don't even have opinions to argue as you shy away from arguing. I back up everything but some folks will twist the #s to suite thei argument. I don't care about anything other than the man let up ONE(2 less than Wetteland in MORE innings). Oh my God he walked 2 more batters and had 2 mroe batters on base even though he faced more hitters- certainly wette was more dominat b/c of that:rolleyes:

I said that I made my case, and I'll stick to it, but it would be nice if you didn't misstate my position. Everything I said referred to games through the 5th game of the World Series. At that point Wetteland had given up 2 runs, not 3, and it was in one outing. And of course Rivera faced more batters - he gave up more baserunners. Through the 5th game of WS Wetteland's WHIP was much lower than Rivera's, and (as 3rd pointed out) that is certainly the most reasonable way to define if a pitcher is "pitching on the edge".

You accusing me of twisting the numbers is a pathetic joke, as that is what you continue to do. To recap: someone points out the Wetteland won the WS MVP. You state that he was pitching on the edge. I point out that through game 5 Wetteland had had a better WS, based on the measure that quantifies "pitching on the edge." You then claim that you were referring to the entire postseason. I point out that Wetteland was still better for the entire postseason up through game 5. You then claim that it is only ERA that matters. This constant redefinition of the question was entirely predictable, of course, and 3rd did predict it beforehand, as a matter of fact.

Oh, and nice use of your "who are you again" defense (against devil), by the way.

[nyjunc]

Except the burden of proof is on you, junc. You're the one that made the statement that Wetteland was "walking through raindrops" while Rivera dominant. If anything, the numbers show that Rivera was the one that was in trouble most often, and that at worst Wetteland was as effective as Rivera. Why not just admit that and be done with it?

I never ahd any doubts when mariano was on the mound but i was always afraid when Wette was on the mound. I already showed you the 3 games in the WS where he was clsoe to blowing it but escaped. mariano even w/ runners on you knew he'd get out of it. In baltimore he had loaded bases and 0 out and didn't allow a run.

You accusing me of twisting the numbers is a pathetic joke, as that is what you continue to do. To recap: someone points out the Wetteland won the WS MVP. You state that he was pitching on the edge. I point out that through game 5 Wetteland had had a better WS, based on the measure that quantifies "pitching on the edge."

You can use all the stats you want, I used my eyes. mariao was picthing mroe and therefore had more opprtunites to give up runs yet gave up 1 run compared to 3 for Wette in less innings.

you keep saying through Game 5 but games 4-6 he was shaky allowing the tying runners to get close to scoring. Go watch the games then get back to me.

Oh, and nice use of your "who are you again" defense (against devil), by the way.


you can't read now? Where did I say that? I said do we ever argue? he tends to stay out of arguments.

You never answered my question of:

Which would you rather have a pitcher do:

a) give up 1 run in 14 1/3 innings

or

b) give up 3 runs in 12 1/3 innings.


You guys are so attached to these new stats but you don't step back and take a look at what is truly most important.

[statjeff22]

You never answered my question of:

Which would you rather have a pitcher do:

a) give up 1 run in 14 1/3 innings

or

b) give up 3 runs in 12 1/3 innings.


You guys are so attached to these new stats but you don't step back and take a look at what is truly most important.

THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. You keep saying that Wetteland was the one pitching on the edge, and the statistics show that wasn't true. It has nothing to do with "these new stats" - earned run average CANNOT measure how "on the edge" a pitcher is, since it only measures runs that actually score; WHIP directly measures "on the edge," since it counts up baserunners. It was Rivera who gave up a baserunner or two per inning in his outings, repeatedly, especially in the World Series. The fact that you were more nervous with Wetteland is the point - your perception was just that, a perception, and not the actual situation. This reply to 3rd by you proves the point:

I never ahd any doubts when mariano was on the mound but i was always afraid when Wette was on the mound. I already showed you the 3 games in the WS where he was clsoe to blowing it but escaped. mariano even w/ runners on you knew he'd get out of it. In baltimore he had loaded bases and 0 out and didn't allow a run.

Are you seriously claiming that loading the bases with no one out and getting out of it is being dominant? Why is it that if Wetteland gets out of a situation he's "close to blowing it," but if Rivera does he was somehow just toying with the opposition? What you're doing here is making my point for me - Rivera was NOT dominant, and was the one "living on the edge."

You also simply can't help yourself from misstating my position. In EVERY post I've made I said through game 5 of the World Series; that was, in fact, my original point - that Rivera as a postseason dominant pitcher did not start until game 6 of the World Series. As the 1996 postseason went on, Wetteland was getting better, and Rivera was getting worse. In the ALCS, Rivera pitched 4 innings, and gave up 6 hits and 1 walk. No one in their right mind would call that dominant. Wetteland pitched 4 innings and gave up 2 hits and 1 walk. In the first 5 games of the WS, Rivera pitched 3 2/3 innings, gave up up 4 hits and 2 walks (and a run). Again, no one in their right mind would call that dominanant. Wetteland pitched 3 1/3 innings, and gave up 1 hit and 1 walk. That's pretty damn good. The ONLY outing Wetteland had in the ALCS and WS that was remotely difficult was in game 5 of the ALCS, when he gave up the only 2 runs he gave up before game 6 of the WS, and it really was only one bad pitch - a two out HR by Bobby Bonilla with a man on first and a 6-2 lead. Meanwhile, Rivera was giving up multiple baserunners per inning repeatedly.

How about this summary: in the ALCS and WS through game 5, Rivera made 5 appearances, and gave up at least 3 baserunners in 4 of them, giving up an average of 1.7 baserunners per inning. Wetteland made 8 appearances, and gave up no baserunners in 4 of them, giving up an average of 0.7 baserunners per inning. It is blindingly obvious who was pitching "on the edge," and who was pitching more dominantly. Your nervousness is irrelevant - the FACTS are that Wetteland was the one pitching easily, and Rivera was the one giving up baserunners all the time.

This thread has, of course, deteriorated into all of the standard ways that you react whenever anyone dares to challenge your supposed omniscience. You dismiss one person's comment as being unworthy of thought, since they supposedly never have opinions (a ludicrous point, since just because someone doesn't share them with you doesn't mean someone doesn't have opinions). You repeatedly redefine the question when faced with facts that refute your position, throw out statistics that don't actually refer to the question at hand (and are often wrong), and then ultimately just say "I know I'm right, and whatever statistics you have to refute it just don't matter, because I say so." And you try to wear people down by always trying to have the last word, in the misguided notion that that somehow means that you've "won." You have failed miserably at disputing a single thing that I have actually said in this thread, but here is your last chance to actually prove me wrong about something - don't reply to this post. For once, let the thread die without you being the last one to say something.

[MSUJet85]

I do not want to waste an entire thread on this so I will ask here.

Does anyone know of any sites like this one for Mets fans?

I would appreciate a little info if possible.
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[KurtTheJetsFan]

I'm not a big baseball historian as baseball for me is pretty much just a pass time till football season, but in my opinion Bob Gibson is the best ever. Afterall he is the reason they lowered the mound in the early 70's...that singlehandedly changed the game of baseball...how many pitchers can claim that?

[Ouda147]

the jolly rodger!