- Thread starter
- #81
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Who was the greatest Post-War pitcher?
- Thread starter hofautos
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
- Thread starter
- #82
JoshHamilton
Well-known member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 12,205
- 320
hofautos said:
Napoleonic.
You didn't specify what war, so I just assumed the most logical choice
scotty21690
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 16,150
- 0
I'm with Jay....WHIP, K/9, WL%, and ERA+ are the go to stats when comparing pitchers because a pitchers job is to:
-Prevent hitters from getting on base (WHIP)
-Prevent opponents from scoring runs (ERA+)
-Win games for their team, duh (WL%)
-Striking batters out, because it is the best thing a pitcher can do (K/9)
When you look at it like that, Pedro tops post-war starting pitchers in 2 of those catagories and is in the top 3 in two of them.
Therefore it is really hard to argue against Pedro in this thread.
I said I would probably vote Gibson as an overall career standpoint, but I would take Pedro in his prime over any of them.
-Prevent hitters from getting on base (WHIP)
-Prevent opponents from scoring runs (ERA+)
-Win games for their team, duh (WL%)
-Striking batters out, because it is the best thing a pitcher can do (K/9)
When you look at it like that, Pedro tops post-war starting pitchers in 2 of those catagories and is in the top 3 in two of them.
Therefore it is really hard to argue against Pedro in this thread.
I said I would probably vote Gibson as an overall career standpoint, but I would take Pedro in his prime over any of them.
jay1065
New member
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
You're joking, right?
- He has a better career ERA than Johnson and Clemens, and is only .02 higher than Gibson (.17 higher than Koufax.)
- He has a better career W% than Johnson, Clemens, Gibson, and Koufax
- He has more K than Gibson and Koufax
- He has the lowest career WHIP among the above mentioned players
- He has the lowest career BB/9 among the above mentioned players
- He has a higher career ERA+ among the above mentioned players.
- He is second to Johnson in K/9 (only by .6)
- Three CY awards, a dominating AS appearance, 8 AS selections, WS championship....
- Won AL Triple crown (1999)
- Led AL in wins (1999)
- Led NL in ERA (1997)
- Led AL in ERA (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003)
- Led AL in strikeouts (1999, 2000, 2002)
- Finished his Red Sox career with a 117–37 record, the highest winning percentage any pitcher has had with any team in baseball history.
EDIT:
Maddux and Seaver have more K's, but Pedro's W%, ERA+, WHIP, and K/9 are better.
hofautos said:jay1065 said:hofautos said:
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.
You're joking, right?
- He has a better career ERA than Johnson and Clemens, and is only .02 higher than Gibson (.17 higher than Koufax.)
- He has a better career W% than Johnson, Clemens, Gibson, and Koufax
- He has more K than Gibson and Koufax
- He has the lowest career WHIP among the above mentioned players
- He has the lowest career BB/9 among the above mentioned players
- He has a higher career ERA+ among the above mentioned players.
- He is second to Johnson in K/9 (only by .6)
- Three CY awards, a dominating AS appearance, 8 AS selections, WS championship....
- Won AL Triple crown (1999)
- Led AL in wins (1999)
- Led NL in ERA (1997)
- Led AL in ERA (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003)
- Led AL in strikeouts (1999, 2000, 2002)
- Finished his Red Sox career with a 117–37 record, the highest winning percentage any pitcher has had with any team in baseball history.
EDIT:
Maddux and Seaver have more K's, but Pedro's W%, ERA+, WHIP, and K/9 are better.
- Thread starter
- #86
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
Gibson is the main person we are comparing him to.
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...
jay1065 said:
Gibson is the main person we are comparing him to.
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...
scotty21690
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 16,150
- 0
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
Wins are related to IP/GS, that is why you have to use W%...in which case Pedro>anyone else but Ford.hofautos said:
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
I can compare Clemens and Pedro due to the fact that I watched probably 90% of the games both pitched, and it wasn't even close for dominance. There is zero chance that I could ever argue for Clemens with or without PEDs over Pedro. Clemens was around longer so he got a lot better stats, but if you wanted someone to go out and win you a game. I'd take Pedro from 1997 through 2002 over Clemens over any time table.
Again these are my two favorite pitchers of all time, and watching them talent wise, not even close.
hofautos said:
I can compare Clemens and Pedro due to the fact that I watched probably 90% of the games both pitched, and it wasn't even close for dominance. There is zero chance that I could ever argue for Clemens with or without PEDs over Pedro. Clemens was around longer so he got a lot better stats, but if you wanted someone to go out and win you a game. I'd take Pedro from 1997 through 2002 over Clemens over any time table.
Again these are my two favorite pitchers of all time, and watching them talent wise, not even close.
- Thread starter
- #89
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
If you are trying to define who is "greatest" using their entire career numbers, longevity matters, so does total wins.
I personally like using prime years, but op was stating he doesn't like looking at prime numbers but instead the entire career.
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
scotty21690 said:
If you are trying to define who is "greatest" using their entire career numbers, longevity matters, so does total wins.
I personally like using prime years, but op was stating he doesn't like looking at prime numbers but instead the entire career.
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
beefycheddar
Super Moderator
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,055
- 0
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
But sometimes players are greater than stats. Would you rank Michael Jordan as the best NBA player ever? But there are players with better stats. By any definition of the way you argue it, Kareem was a better player than Michael Jordan. More points, better FG %, More Rebounds, More Blocks, same number of championships and almost assists.
But to say Kareem is a better player is just silly.
hofautos said:
But sometimes players are greater than stats. Would you rank Michael Jordan as the best NBA player ever? But there are players with better stats. By any definition of the way you argue it, Kareem was a better player than Michael Jordan. More points, better FG %, More Rebounds, More Blocks, same number of championships and almost assists.
But to say Kareem is a better player is just silly.
SeattleSports
New member
- Jun 11, 2010
- 2,091
- 0
Win/loss is 100% irrelevant IMO and I hoped Felix winning the Cy Young this year showed that.
ThoseBackPages
New member
Dwight Gooden 1985
jay1065
New member
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
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.
hofautos said:
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.
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
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.
jay1065 said:
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.
- Thread starter
- #95
jay1065
New member
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
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 said:
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.
- Thread starter
- #97
scotty21690
New member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 16,150
- 0
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
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'.
Stupid post. ::facepalm::James52411 said:
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'.
jay1065
New member
Re: Who was the greatest POST-WAR pitcher?
By declining you mean sub-prime years? Again, I look at the entire career.
Gibson aside because he was the closest in GS. Even then he had 73 more GS (32 more wins) than Pedro.
hofautos said:
By declining you mean sub-prime years? Again, I look at the entire career.
hofautos said:
Gibson aside because he was the closest in GS. Even then he had 73 more GS (32 more wins) than Pedro.
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 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.
scotty21690 said:
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.
