Who was the greatest Post-War pitcher?

[scotty21690]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Some guy with 5714 K's.

and 7 NO HITTERS

Which mean practically nothing to the team minus 7 wins. The next starts he probably lost.

Nolan Ryan had to do it all on his own. NO defense behind him and very little at the plate to help him out. Sometimes we need to look beyond the numbers and the intangibles and what the pitchers had to work with. but here are some numbers: In one season in teh 70s (i think 76) he led the league in Ks and ERA yet lost 2x as mouch as he won. thats crappy defense and crappy offense right there.

The only thing his TEAM influences is his W/L. Many pitchers are way ahead of him in catagories like ERA+, WHIP, etc....



blitz - I will say that Maddux is the only pitcher IMO that rivals Pedros 7 consecutive season stretch.

George - CGs over eras is irrelevant, completely different game in terms of pitching.

EDIT: unique beat me to it

 

[hofautos]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Some guy with 5714 K's.

and 7 NO HITTERS

Which mean practically nothing to the team minus 7 wins. The next starts he probably lost.

Nolan Ryan had to do it all on his own. NO defense behind him and very little at the plate to help him out. Sometimes we need to look beyond the numbers and the intangibles and what the pitchers had to work with. but here are some numbers: In one season in teh 70s (i think 76) he led the league in Ks and ERA yet lost 2x as mouch as he won. thats crappy defense and crappy offense right there.

The only thing his TEAM influences is his W/L. Many pitchers are way ahead of him in catagories like ERA+, WHIP, etc....



blitz - I will say that Maddux is the only pitcher IMO that rivals Pedros 7 consecutive season stretch.

George - CGs over eras is irrelevant, completely different game in terms of pitching.

EDIT: unique beat me to it

I am not sure how you can say CG is irrelevant?? It makes sense that the deeper you pitch, and your pitch count goes up, so will your ERA...that makes perfect logic to me at least??? Otherwise, why even have a middle relief system???

 

[George_Calfas]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Some guy with 5714 K's.

and 7 NO HITTERS

Which mean practically nothing to the team minus 7 wins. The next starts he probably lost.

Nolan Ryan had to do it all on his own. NO defense behind him and very little at the plate to help him out. Sometimes we need to look beyond the numbers and the intangibles and what the pitchers had to work with. but here are some numbers: In one season in teh 70s (i think 76) he led the league in Ks and ERA yet lost 2x as mouch as he won. thats crappy defense and crappy offense right there.

The only thing his TEAM influences is his W/L. Many pitchers are way ahead of him in catagories like ERA+, WHIP, etc....



blitz - I will say that Maddux is the only pitcher IMO that rivals Pedros 7 consecutive season stretch.

George - CGs over eras is irrelevant, completely different game in terms of pitching.

EDIT: unique beat me to it

Thus comparing those decades is irrelevant, the position is different from say 1950 and 1990, that's all.

 

[fonda1119]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/url]

Just find it interesting that his highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

Edit: Here's Pedro's. Same thing, highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng

 

[blitzerlover]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/url]

Just find it interesting that his highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

Edit: Here's Pedro's. Same thing, highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/quote:1wvoaqjh]

I'd bet a lot of great pitchers ERA is the highest in the first inning. Getting used to the mound, finding out what stuff was working etc. I know Glavine always struggled with the first inning for no real reason. Maybe others were like that as well.

 

[fonda1119]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/url]

Just find it interesting that his highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

Edit: Here's Pedro's. Same thing, highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/quote:3vbo8fkr]

I'd bet a lot of great pitchers ERA is the highest in the first inning. Getting used to the mound, finding out what stuff was working etc. I know Glavine always struggled with the first inning for no real reason. Maybe others were like that as well.[/quote:3vbo8fkr]

Makes sense to me. It's the same with Maddux as well:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng

The later a pitcher goes into games doesn't necessarily mean that his stuff is worse or his numbers go down. Pedro's best ERA and best K/BB by inning came in the 9th inning. Gibson's ERA in the 8th and 9th was better than in the 1st, 6th, or 7th. And Maddux' 7th, 8th, and 9ths were better than his 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6ths.

 

[blitzerlover]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/url]

Just find it interesting that his highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

Edit: Here's Pedro's. Same thing, highest ERA is in the 1st inning.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng[/quote:26rl3b4h]

I'd bet a lot of great pitchers ERA is the highest in the first inning. Getting used to the mound, finding out what stuff was working etc. I know Glavine always struggled with the first inning for no real reason. Maybe others were like that as well.[/quote:26rl3b4h]

Makes sense to me. It's the same with Maddux as well:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=p#innng

The later a pitcher goes into games doesn't necessarily mean that his stuff is worse or his numbers go down. Pedro's best ERA and best K/BB by inning came in the 9th inning. Gibson's ERA in the 8th and 9th was better than in the 1st, 6th, or 7th. And Maddux' 7th, 8th, and 9ths were better than his 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6ths.[/quote:26rl3b4h]

Well, I think part of the reason the numbers get better as the game goes on is because by the time the 7/8/9th inning rolls around you're still in the game only if you have your best stuff. So naturally the numbers would be better in those innings.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

The later a pitcher goes into games doesn't necessarily mean that his stuff is worse or his numbers go down. Pedro's best ERA and best K/BB by inning came in the 9th inning. Gibson's ERA in the 8th and 9th was better than in the 1st, 6th, or 7th. And Maddux' 7th, 8th, and 9ths were better than his 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6ths.

I understand and mostly agree, but I'd add there's a limit to how much damage a pitcher can do - a pitcher isn't going to be removed from a game if he's doing well, he'll be removed only if he's doing badly. If he was pitching poorly early in the game he won't have any 8th inning stats to look at, LOL.

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

Pedro Martinez

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Man with all the other threads, I would have figured someone would have asked "greatest on what basis"?
You guys just don't learn

The problem in the other threads wasn't the word "greatest" (or even "greatist," for that matter). It was trying to define "hitting" through something other than hits (like WAR, for example).

 

[fonda1119]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

The later a pitcher goes into games doesn't necessarily mean that his stuff is worse or his numbers go down. Pedro's best ERA and best K/BB by inning came in the 9th inning. Gibson's ERA in the 8th and 9th was better than in the 1st, 6th, or 7th. And Maddux' 7th, 8th, and 9ths were better than his 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6ths.

I understand and mostly agree, but I'd add there's a limit to how much damage a pitcher can do - a pitcher isn't going to be removed from a game if he's doing well, he'll be removed only if he's doing badly. If he was pitching poorly early in the game he won't have any 8th inning stats to look at, LOL.

So you think Steve Carlton had his best stuff in 254 of his 709 games that he started? I highly doubt that. Yet his 9th inning ERA is better than any other inning except his 2nd inning. I think it comes down to the mentality of the game at this point. Pitchers can "smell" the victory so they go for the kill. It's the same killer instinct closers have.

Plus I would venture a guess that hitters are taking strikes, putting themselves in 0-1, 1-2 holes which make it easier for pitchers to finish them off. Hitters get defensive in these situations so their contact isn't as loud.

 

[hofautos]

I am not sure why you selected the years you did for gibson? Please use 1964-1970 instead and share just gibson vs pedro.

As far as WAR goes, here is how Pedro's best seasons stacks up against others.

Even though none of the pitchers besides Pedro's best years are all consecutive, Gibson's best consecutive years 1964-1970 still bests Pedro's, and I would still give more credence to longevity dominance.

PS - also taking a quick glance at seaver's numbers, his "consecutive" numbers may match up favorably as well.

 

[James52411]

Tom Seaver is not getting near the credit he should, which tells me people are simply unfamiliar with how great "Tom Terrific" really was. First, look at the impressive career stats:

W-L: 311-205
ERA: 2.86
CG: 231
Shutouts: 61
Ks: 3640
WHIP: 1.121
K/BB: 2.62
Career WAR: 105 in 20 seasons, 11 seasons with 5.0 or greater.

Seaver was good from the very outset of his career in 1967 and remained dominant through the 1981 season. I don't think anyone in the post-war era was as good as Seaver for such a long period of time. Even in his twilight, he put up 15 and 16 wins from 1984-1985 at age 39 and 40. If you look at Seaver's numbers, you see that Seaver's career numbers are superior or Seaver was great for a longer period of time than any of the other pitchers on this list.

If you are a WAR fan, you have to notice that Seaver is second to Clemens amongst those on the list. Let's be honest, Roger Clemens was losing his edge in his early 30's until he started popping PEDs in Canada. If it weren't for that, Seaver would be #1.

 

[scotty21690]

I am not sure why you selected the years you did for gibson? Please use 1964-1970 instead and share just gibson vs pedro.

As far as WAR goes, here is how Pedro's best seasons stacks up against others.

Even though none of the pitchers besides Pedro's best years are all consecutive, Gibson's best consecutive years 1964-1970 still bests Pedro's, and I would still give more credence to longevity dominance.

PS - also taking a quick glance at seaver's numbers, his "consecutive" numbers may match up favorably as well.

He's right there on your list, Maddux.


BTW quit kidding yourself...no matter how hard you slice it, Pedros best years were better than Gibsons:

 

[hofautos]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Man with all the other threads, I would have figured someone would have asked "greatest on what basis"?

The problem in the other threads wasn't the word "greatest" (or even "greatist," for that matter). It was trying to define "hitting" through something other than hits (like WAR, for example).

It's still relative.
To some (including you), the greatest hitter simply means greatest avg...
To me, if AVG is only a marginal difference, and slugging is far superior, I would EASILY say the person with the greatest slugging is the greatest hitter.

If the question was who had the highest career avg, it would be easy, Cobb.
BUt when you use relative and subjective words like "best" and "greatest" hitter, the debate comes into play on what one considers "greatest".


To me, if you take 2 fictitious players that only played one season with these numbers:

Player A AVG= .303 SLG=600 HR 35
Player B AVG= .297 SLG=700 HR 50

You may say player A is the better hitter and be right, and I would say Player B is the better hitter and be right, depending on how much weight they put on which criteria.

 

[jay1065]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Pedro=best at throwing managers to the ground (seriously, who picked him..he is up there for pWAR and so/9ip, but he doesn't really own any stats, so not sure why he was picked as greatest by one person here)?

That would be me. I had a whole response planned out as I was reading the posts after yours. However, Scott and other members pretty much said what I was going to. A few things I don't believe in when figuring out who is the greatest [insert category here]:

1. WAR
2. Chosing 'x' amount of prime years over an entire career.

What I do believe in:

1. W/L, W%, K, ERA, WHIP, etc. (all your "basics," if you will.)
2. Looking at complete career stats (including awards, AS selections, post-season, and championships.)

 

[hofautos]

BTW quit kidding yourself...no matter how hard you slice it, Pedros best years were better than Gibsons:

Wrong...not no matter how you slice it. Not if you slice it with WAR. I really haven't had the time to analyze further, but I will, and I may end up agreeing you, and if I do, i will lose some respect for WAR...but for now, it's not no matter how you slice it, because WAR definetly shows both CLemens and Gibson superior to Pedro.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?

Pedro=best at throwing managers to the ground (seriously, who picked him..he is up there for pWAR and so/9ip, but he doesn't really own any stats, so not sure why he was picked as greatest by one person here)?

That would be me. I had a whole response planned out as I was reading the posts after yours. However, Scott and other members pretty much said what I was going to. A few things I don't believe in when figuring out who is the greatest [insert category here]:

1. WAR
2. Chosing 'x' amount of prime years over an entire career.

What I do believe in:

1. W/L, W%, K, ERA, WHIP, etc. (all your "basics," if you will.)
2. Looking at complete career stats (including awards, AS selections, post-season, and championships.)

Well if you look at complete stats, i don't know how you would even consider PEDRO...if you look at his post-injury stats, he has been nothing. Even Scott isn't using his career numbers in defining his decision...he is only using his best 7 years. If you want to look at pedro's full career, he would pushed WAY DOWN.

 

[sportscardtheory]

BTW quit kidding yourself...no matter how hard you slice it, Pedros best years were better than Gibsons:

Wrong...not no matter how you slice it. Not if you slice it with WAR. I really haven't had the time to analyze further, but I will, and I may end up agreeing you, and if I do, i will lose some respect for WAR...but for now, it's not no matter how you slice it, because WAR definetly shows both CLemens and Gibson superior to Pedro.

Not really. It just shows that they pitched more games.

 

[JoshHamilton]

Cy Young