Who was the greatest Post-War pitcher?

[RiceLynnEvans75]

Anthony Young 1992-1993

 

[jay1065]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Actually, what is stupid is attempting to give a guy credit for stats he did not accumulate.

I was not saying Pedro is the best for something he didn't do. As I said in my response to your initial post:

I was actually trying to point out the fact that total wins should not be weighted too heavily. I apologize if I didn't come across as such.

 

[James52411]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Actually, what is stupid is attempting to give a guy credit for stats he did not accumulate.

I was not saying Pedro is the best for something he didn't do. As I said in my response to your initial post:

I was actually trying to point out the fact that total wins should not be weighted too heavily. I apologize if I didn't come across as such.

I understand. The argument for Pedro is essentially the "Koufax" argument that he deserves the nod because of his excellence during his prime.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

[quote="jay1065":1a8bhubr]

- He career ERA is only .02 higher than Gibson (.17 higher than Koufax.)

What about career wins? If you look at ENTIRE career, WINS needs to weight heavily....

I don't have time to analyze or debate any more today, but will research deeper later...but IMHO, if you dont want to look at prime years, but instead look at Career numbers, I don't know how you can compare him to clemens, or even Nolan for that fact. If you want to look at pure talent or prime years, then I think you have a valid debate...either way, i am out of here until at least this evening...

If total wins are to be weighted heavily, what about games started?

Pedro: 409

Seaver: 647
Maddux: 740
Gibson: 482
Johnson: 603
Clemens: 707
Ryan: 773

Gibson aside, the next closest GS to Pedro is Johnson with 603. By my calculations, give Pedro 603 starts, and his career win total jumps to over 352 games (based on his career W%). That is more wins than Seaver, Gibson, Johnson, and Ryan. He's behind Maddux by 3 and Clemens by 2.

And if Brady Anderson hit 50 homers per year and played 23 years like Hank Aaron he would have 1,150 career home runs. Therefore Brady is the greatest player of his era.

Stupid post. ::facepalm::

Jay is just trying to show that had Pedro pitched in as many games as they did he would have won more games because he won 69% of his decisions. So therefore pointing out total wins is irrelevant.



BTW - Brady still ended up 4th in AB/HR in 96'.

Actually, what is stupid is attempting to give a guy credit for stats he did not accumulate. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that I am wrong in selecting Tom Seaver, who is the best combination of dominance and longevity on this list.[/quote:1a8bhubr]

I agree with Seaver as potentially better than pedro along with clemens and gibson. His prime was par with Pedro, but his longevity far exceeded Pedro's, and I would probably give him the nod as well over Pedro...i just haven't looked closer yet. It is exactly what I was saying in my response to OP:


example 2 players, one with 5 year career, one with 10 year career.
Player A 5 years averaging .220 ERA and 13 so/9ip 100 wins
Player B 10 years averaging .225 ERA and 12.9 so/9ip 180 wins

You say A is better i say B is better

 

[hofautos]

^^^ If entire career is to be judged and not just the prime years, Seaver would get the NOD over Pedro for me also.
His overall career effectiveness and accomplishments beats Pedro.

 

[scotty21690]

Anthony Young 1992-1993

"Over this period he lost 27 straight decisions."

Wow. lol


1-16 with an ERA+ over 100.....crazy.

Mets WL in 93? 59-103
Mets pythagorian WL in 93? 73-89

ha

 

[jay1065]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Actually, what is stupid is attempting to give a guy credit for stats he did not accumulate.

I was not saying Pedro is the best for something he didn't do. As I said in my response to your initial post:

I was actually trying to point out the fact that total wins should not be weighted too heavily. I apologize if I didn't come across as such.

I understand. The argument for Pedro is essentially the "Koufax" argument that he deserves the nod because of his excellence during his prime.

No. All of my comparisons have been done using Pedro's complete career stats, not prime years.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Actually, what is stupid is attempting to give a guy credit for stats he did not accumulate.

I was not saying Pedro is the best for something he didn't do. As I said in my response to your initial post:

I was actually trying to point out the fact that total wins should not be weighted too heavily. I apologize if I didn't come across as such.

I understand. The argument for Pedro is essentially the "Koufax" argument that he deserves the nod because of his excellence during his prime.

No. All of my comparisons have been done using Pedro's complete career stats, not prime years.

you aren't taking his totals...only his averages...you are adjusting for his short career...e.g. total wins, total strikeouts....you aren't giving any credit for longevity. If Pedro pitched 10 more declinining years, his name wouldn't even be in the discussion. He is being awarded for his short career.

Take your numbers, and then take his worse year and give him 5 more of those, and then calculate his ERA and AVG....because that is what he would likely do...give you his worst 5 years if he continued to pitch full seasons today.

 

[scotty21690]

^^^ If entire career is to be judged and not just the prime years, Seaver would get the NOD over Pedro for me also.
His overall career effectiveness and accomplishments beats Pedro.

When you look at stats that don't favor pitchers who pitched in more games then Pedro trumps Seaver in all stats.

Pedro was a more effective pitcher over less seasons.


It's ridiculous to discredit Pedros accomplishments just because he did not pitch as long as other pitchers did. Is 18 seasons not considered a full career as it is??

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

Anthony Young 1992-1993

"Over this period he lost 27 straight decisions."

Wow. lol


1-16 with an ERA+ over 100.....crazy.

Mets WL in 93? 59-103
Mets pythagorian WL in 93? 73-89

ha

I remember watching a few of his games during that stretch and at times, nothing could go right for him, even when he pitched a decent game. It was painful to watch his games sometimes.

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Actually, what is stupid is attempting to give a guy credit for stats he did not accumulate.

I was not saying Pedro is the best for something he didn't do. As I said in my response to your initial post:

I was actually trying to point out the fact that total wins should not be weighted too heavily. I apologize if I didn't come across as such.

I understand. The argument for Pedro is essentially the "Koufax" argument that he deserves the nod because of his excellence during his prime.

No. All of my comparisons have been done using Pedro's complete career stats, not prime years.

you aren't taking his totals...only his averages...you are adjusting for his short career...e.g. total wins, total strikeouts....you aren't giving any credit for longevity. If Pedro pitched 10 more declinining years, his name wouldn't even be in the discussion. He is being awarded for his short career.

Take your numbers, and then take his worse year and give him 5 more of those, and then calculate his ERA and AVG....because that is what he would likely do...give you his worst 5 years if he continued to pitch full seasons today.

Short career? The guys debut was in '92 at age 20 and he didn't really start going downhill until he was 34.

 

[jay1065]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

you aren't giving any credit for longevity.

Pedro pitched 18 seasons.

Seaver: 20
Johnson: 22
Clemens: 24
Gibson: 17
Koufax: 12
Maddux: 23

Pedro is not that far off in terms of longevity.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

you aren't giving any credit for longevity.

Pedro pitched 18 seasons.

Seaver: 20
Johnson: 22
Clemens: 24
Gibson: 17
Koufax: 12
Maddux: 23

Pedro is not that far off in terms of longevity.

Seasons are meaningless. Innings are what matter.

 

[jay1065]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Take your numbers, and then take his worse year and give him 5 more of those, and then calculate his ERA and AVG....because that is what he would likely do...give you his worst 5 years if he continued to pitch full seasons today.

That's quite the assumption.

 

[James52411]

^^^ If entire career is to be judged and not just the prime years, Seaver would get the NOD over Pedro for me also.
His overall career effectiveness and accomplishments beats Pedro.

When you look at stats that don't favor pitchers who pitched in more games then Pedro trumps Seaver in all stats.

Pedro was a more effective pitcher over less seasons.


It's ridiculous to discredit Pedros accomplishments just because he did not pitch as long as other pitchers did. Is 18 seasons not considered a full career as it is??

Really?

Career ERA: Seaver 2.86, Pedro 2.93

 

[jay1065]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Seasons are meaningless. Innings are what matter.

Seasons aren't meaningless. Innings totals are skewed by those very seasons.

 

[jay1065]

Ok, this has been a great debate with everyone. I have to do some work around the house before the wife pretends she is Randy Johnson and I am a pigeon. I'll come around later tonight.

 

[scotty21690]

^^^ If entire career is to be judged and not just the prime years, Seaver would get the NOD over Pedro for me also.
His overall career effectiveness and accomplishments beats Pedro.

When you look at stats that don't favor pitchers who pitched in more games then Pedro trumps Seaver in all stats.

Pedro was a more effective pitcher over less seasons.


It's ridiculous to discredit Pedros accomplishments just because he did not pitch as long as other pitchers did. Is 18 seasons not considered a full career as it is??

Really?

Career ERA: Seaver 2.86, Pedro 2.93

REALLY?

Career ERA+: Seaver 128, Pedro 154

 

[James52411]

^^^ If entire career is to be judged and not just the prime years, Seaver would get the NOD over Pedro for me also.
His overall career effectiveness and accomplishments beats Pedro.

When you look at stats that don't favor pitchers who pitched in more games then Pedro trumps Seaver in all stats.

Pedro was a more effective pitcher over less seasons.


It's ridiculous to discredit Pedros accomplishments just because he did not pitch as long as other pitchers did. Is 18 seasons not considered a full career as it is??

Really?

Career ERA: Seaver 2.86, Pedro 2.93

REALLY?

Career ERA+: Seaver 128, Pedro 154

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ERA+ and ERA are different stats.

Also Seaver threw nearly 2000 more innings than Pedro. That is approximately 8-9 seasons worth of innings. If you were going to have a guy with your franchise for his whole career, would you want those 2000 innings? That is why Seaver is better than Pedro.

 

[beefycheddar]

One thing about Pedro, Maddux or Randy Johnson that stats completely discount is the fact that they was this good in an era that was as explosive offensively as any other time in history and there have been zero allegations that they used anything to even the field what so ever other than talent. We take away a lot from hitters from that period who broke records, but the pitchers who dominated while this was going on around them have to be given some credit.