What Makes a Great Pitcher?

Off Topic
41

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]bluefingas wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Even as a life-long yankee fan, the only reason I really care about babe ruth is because of how butthurt sox fans get when you talk about him.

Old school players could not hang in the modern day. The Pirates’ 2010 single A ball team could beat any all-star team from the 20’s, end of story.

also, barry bonds is the best of all time to all you fags who didn’t put him in left. [/quote]

It’s official, you have no idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Which part don’t you agree with?

If only we had a time machine…[/quote]

Lanky, stfu. It is different in so many ways. There used to be 9 called balls per at bat, mound was virtually a hill, spit ball and scuffed ball were allowed, minimum home run distance was set at 250 feet in the 20’s, strike zone was a hallway, and until the 1890’s hitters could request a low or high pitch, a runner could steal a preceding base, batter could declare himself out on a ground ball to prevent force double play, and the list goes on.

Some of the garbage ty cobb and babe ruth were hitting wouldn’t fly in the NCAA softball world series. That stuff was soft toss. I’d love to see ty cobb running alongside Carlos Gomez or Michael Bourne. Also, Walter Johnson wouldn’t even be a mop-up pitcher on any staff today other than maybe the Orioles, forget about Cy Young.
[/quote]

Please be quiet. Youre an annoying 4chan troll. Stick to posting quasi funny pictures.

42

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]bluefingas wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Even as a life-long yankee fan, the only reason I really care about babe ruth is because of how butthurt sox fans get when you talk about him.

Old school players could not hang in the modern day. The Pirates’ 2010 single A ball team could beat any all-star team from the 20’s, end of story.

also, barry bonds is the best of all time to all you fags who didn’t put him in left. [/quote]

It’s official, you have no idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Which part don’t you agree with?

If only we had a time machine…[/quote]

Lanky, stfu. It is different in so many ways. There used to be 9 called balls per at bat, mound was virtually a hill, spit ball and scuffed ball were allowed, minimum home run distance was set at 250 feet in the 20’s, strike zone was a hallway, and until the 1890’s hitters could request a low or high pitch, a runner could steal a preceding base, batter could declare himself out on a ground ball to prevent force double play, and the list goes on.

Some of the garbage ty cobb and babe ruth were hitting wouldn’t fly in the NCAA softball world series. That stuff was soft toss. I’d love to see ty cobb running alongside Carlos Gomez or Michael Bourne. Also, Walter Johnson wouldn’t even be a mop-up pitcher on any staff today other than maybe the Orioles, forget about Cy Young.
[/quote]

You don’t know baseball… Not to mention the advantages players today have over players of the past.

43

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]bluefingas wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Even as a life-long yankee fan, the only reason I really care about babe ruth is because of how butthurt sox fans get when you talk about him.

Old school players could not hang in the modern day. The Pirates’ 2010 single A ball team could beat any all-star team from the 20’s, end of story.

also, barry bonds is the best of all time to all you fags who didn’t put him in left. [/quote]

It’s official, you have no idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Which part don’t you agree with?

If only we had a time machine…[/quote]

Lanky, stfu. It is different in so many ways. There used to be 9 called balls per at bat, mound was virtually a hill, spit ball and scuffed ball were allowed, minimum home run distance was set at 250 feet in the 20’s, strike zone was a hallway, and until the 1890’s hitters could request a low or high pitch, a runner could steal a preceding base, batter could declare himself out on a ground ball to prevent force double play, and the list goes on.

Some of the garbage ty cobb and babe ruth were hitting wouldn’t fly in the NCAA softball world series. That stuff was soft toss. I’d love to see ty cobb running alongside Carlos Gomez or Michael Bourne. Also, Walter Johnson wouldn’t even be a mop-up pitcher on any staff today other than maybe the Orioles, forget about Cy Young.
[/quote]

You don’t know baseball… Not to mention the advantages players today have over players of the past.[/quote]

You can say that because it is easy to say anything.

44

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
absolutely hard to get better up the middle with… Jeter
[/quote]

I was with you on almost everything (except leaving Roger Clemens out) until this. Jeter is one of the best hitting shortstops of all time. But defensively? Average at best.

45

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
absolutely hard to get better up the middle with… Jeter
[/quote]

I was with you on almost everything (except leaving Roger Clemens out) until this. Jeter is one of the best hitting shortstops of all time. But defensively? Average at best.
[/quote]

Lol he’s much beter than average but his range to his glove side is nothing to marvel at, although it’s gotten better recently. So much better than average though. Commenting on defense has to come from watching the person play, stats arent enough when it comes to defense. I’ve watched him play in well over 1500 games.

46

C: Johnny Bench
1B: Mark McGwire
2B: Rogers Hornsby
3B: Mike Schmidt
SS: Ozzie Smith
LF: Ted Williams
CF: Ty Cobb
RF: Babe Ruth

Ace: Nolan Ryan
Setup: Mariano Rivera
Closer: Dennis Eckersley

47

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]bluefingas wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Even as a life-long yankee fan, the only reason I really care about babe ruth is because of how butthurt sox fans get when you talk about him.

Old school players could not hang in the modern day. The Pirates’ 2010 single A ball team could beat any all-star team from the 20’s, end of story.

also, barry bonds is the best of all time to all you fags who didn’t put him in left. [/quote]

It’s official, you have no idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Which part don’t you agree with?

If only we had a time machine…[/quote]

Lanky, stfu. It is different in so many ways. There used to be 9 called balls per at bat, mound was virtually a hill, spit ball and scuffed ball were allowed, minimum home run distance was set at 250 feet in the 20’s, strike zone was a hallway, and until the 1890’s hitters could request a low or high pitch, a runner could steal a preceding base, batter could declare himself out on a ground ball to prevent force double play, and the list goes on.

Some of the garbage ty cobb and babe ruth were hitting wouldn’t fly in the NCAA softball world series. That stuff was soft toss. I’d love to see ty cobb running alongside Carlos Gomez or Michael Bourne. Also, Walter Johnson wouldn’t even be a mop-up pitcher on any staff today other than maybe the Orioles, forget about Cy Young.
[/quote]

You don’t know baseball… Not to mention the advantages players today have over players of the past.[/quote]

You can say that because it is easy to say anything. [/quote]

Damn…You got me man, Babe Ruth and every Hall of Famer from 70 years ago simply sucked!

I guess when you hit 60+ home runs in a season and pitch a shut out in the world series during your career, it still sucks by today’s standards!

EDIT: What you don’t understand is you have to compare these stats to what people at that same time were doing… And really no one was doing anything close to what Babe Ruth was able to accomplish (for the most part). Comparing him to today’s players is illogical, it’s a completely different era of baseball.

48

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JackDanials wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

I can’t believe how many people have Nolan Ryan on their all-time team. I don’t even think he’s a top-20 pitcher. I guess that’s what’s so great about baseball: it’s the best sport to argue about.[/quote]

Baseball’s all-time strikeout leader and owns a major-league record seven no-hitters. At 42 years old he was still throwing a 95 mile a hour fast ball. That’s not so bad. [/quote]

I think Nolan Ryan is overrated as a pitcher, although he is still one of the greats. But if you look at his win/loss record, if memory serves me right, he’s only about 20-30 games over .500. In a career as long as his, that’s not a big difference between wins and losses. And his ERA (around 3.5 I think) is higher than a lot of the great pitchers he’s compared to. He didn’t pitch much in the pitcher-friendly 60’s, but the 70’s and 80’s weren’t overly hitter-friendly by any means. The strikeout totals and no-hitters are amazing feats, no doubt. But a better measure of a pitcher’s success is his ERA and his winning percentage, both of which are not outstanding in Ryan’s case.[/quote]

I believe his career era is 3.19 but we are talking a 27 year span. '66-'93 and below the league average… That’s Lyndon B. Johnson to Bill Clinton. It is too bad about his win loss record. He never recieved very much run support.

My team could over come 3 runs :slight_smile:

49

[quote]JackDanials wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JackDanials wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

I can’t believe how many people have Nolan Ryan on their all-time team. I don’t even think he’s a top-20 pitcher. I guess that’s what’s so great about baseball: it’s the best sport to argue about.[/quote]

Baseball’s all-time strikeout leader and owns a major-league record seven no-hitters. At 42 years old he was still throwing a 95 mile a hour fast ball. That’s not so bad. [/quote]

I think Nolan Ryan is overrated as a pitcher, although he is still one of the greats. But if you look at his win/loss record, if memory serves me right, he’s only about 20-30 games over .500. In a career as long as his, that’s not a big difference between wins and losses. And his ERA (around 3.5 I think) is higher than a lot of the great pitchers he’s compared to. He didn’t pitch much in the pitcher-friendly 60’s, but the 70’s and 80’s weren’t overly hitter-friendly by any means. The strikeout totals and no-hitters are amazing feats, no doubt. But a better measure of a pitcher’s success is his ERA and his winning percentage, both of which are not outstanding in Ryan’s case.[/quote]

I believe his career era is 3.19 but we are talking a 27 year span. '66-'93 and below the league average… That’s Lyndon B. Johnson to Bill Clinton. It is too bad about his win loss record. He never recieved very much run support.

My team could over come 3 runs :)[/quote]

Agreed. Ryan is notorious for not having a lot of run support, hence the heavy loss column. I wouldn’t put him in my top 5, but he’s a no brainer for top 20, IMO.

50

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Agreed. Ryan is notorious for not having a lot of run support, hence the heavy loss column. I wouldn’t put him in my top 5, but he’s a no brainer for top 20, IMO.[/quote]

Ryan’s a weird pitcher. He had an insanely long career and he struck out an insane amount of guys. He also walked an insane amount of guys and benefited from playing a huge portion of his career in the 80s NL and in Houston. He never gave up a ton of hits, because he was always striking out and walking guys. He also had some great seasons spread out over time ('77, '81, '87, '91), but some clunkers ('76, '78, '80, '85, '88) in there too.

It’s tough to compare because he pitched for so long. I think that these 17:

Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn, Pedro Martinez, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Cy Young, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Bert Byleven, Whitey Ford, and Jim Palmer… are no-question better than him, and I would put guys like Marichal, Drysdale, Schilling, Smoltz, Mussina, Kevin Brown, who either had much shorter careers and/or pitched in a much more difficult era ahead of him. With a couple more strong seasons, I think Halladay will pass him and give Johan 4-5 more strong years and he will too.

I can see how some would give it to Ryan for the length of his career and his freakish strikeout ability though.

51

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Agreed. Ryan is notorious for not having a lot of run support, hence the heavy loss column. I wouldn’t put him in my top 5, but he’s a no brainer for top 20, IMO.[/quote]

Ryan’s a weird pitcher. He had an insanely long career and he struck out an insane amount of guys. He also walked an insane amount of guys and benefited from playing a huge portion of his career in the 80s NL and in Houston. He never gave up a ton of hits, because he was always striking out and walking guys. He also had some great seasons spread out over time ('77, '81, '87, '91), but some clunkers ('76, '78, '80, '85, '88) in there too.

It’s tough to compare because he pitched for so long. I think that these 17:

Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn, Pedro Martinez, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Cy Young, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Bert Byleven, Whitey Ford, and Jim Palmer… are no-question better than him, and I would put guys like Marichal, Drysdale, Schilling, Smoltz, Mussina, Kevin Brown, who either had much shorter careers and/or pitched in a much more difficult era ahead of him. With a couple more strong seasons, I think Halladay will pass him and give Johan 4-5 more strong years and he will too.

I can see how some would give it to Ryan for the length of his career and his freakish strikeout ability though.[/quote]

Some of those guys you mentioned had some ups and downs as well. For instance, Randy Johnson probably had about 10 really good years spread over his career but he’s also pitched for 20 years and has had some clunkers as well. Perry is another guy that kinda fits into that category.

I agree, it’s tough when someone pitches for so long because he’s bound to have some shitty seasons. But longevity has to count for something. For someone to pitch (successfully) for that long is ridiculous. Also, some pitchers go their entire career without pitching a no hitter and Ryan had 7 of them. That counts for something, too.

He’s in my top 20, although I can see the argument against him.

Edit - and the biggest sore thumb of your post was Kevin Brown, IMO. And for NR - you missed 72, 73 and 74! (Admittedly, I had to look up his stats for that one)

52

[quote]JackDanials wrote:
In batting order:

SS. Derek Jeter
2B. Joe Morgan
CF. Ken Griffey Jr.
RF. Hank Aaron
LF. Stan Musial
3B. Mike Schmidt
1B. Lou Gehrig
C. Johnny Bench

In Rotation:

SP. Tom Seaver
SP. Sandy Koufax
SP. Greg Maddux
SP. Bob Gibbson
SP. Nolan Ryan

CP. Mariano Rivera[/quote]

This man is a baseball fan. I’d put Mays or Mantle over Musial, and maybe Sandburg or Robinison over morgan but its a solid line up. That rotation is gold.

53

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Edit - and the biggest sore thumb of your post was Kevin Brown, IMO. [/quote]

Kevin Brown at his peak was dirrrrty.

Check out 1995-2003. Throw out the year he was injured and that’s an 8-year run that stacks up with all but the GOATs. You can’t pick an 8-year run from Ryan’s career that can beat that. I would put Ryan ahead of Brown, purely for the longevity and because he was so unique, but it’s closer than people think. Ryan was nasty in '72-'74, but I think those seasons are a bit overrated, because that was one of the most depressed times for offense in league history.

Ryan had a 2.28 ERA in '72 when the average AL team scored just 3.47 runs per game. Ryan’s own California Angels only scored 2.93 (!) runs per game. Kevin Brown had an 2.58 ERA in 2000 when the average NL team scored 5 runs per game.

Going back to the stats makes you realize just how much different the league was then. Hal Macrae led the AL in '76 with an .868 OPS. The Mariners offensive juggernaut of '96 had an .850 OPS as a TEAM! It also hammers home just how incredible Pedro, RJ and Maddux were.

I would still put Ryan over Brown, because a great 8-year run (with some good years before that) probably doesn’t stack up to 7 or 8 great years + 10-15 very solid years. But it’s a lot closer than people think.

54

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
maybe Sandburg… over morgan[/quote]

That’s a bold claim sir.

55

Wanted to say to you guys who put Roberto Alomar in your all time list:

How ridiculous was it this guy didn’t get into the Hall of Fame on 1st ballot?

That home run he hit in the 1992 ALCS off Dennis Eckersley is still ingrained in my head.

EDITED

56

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Agreed. Ryan is notorious for not having a lot of run support, hence the heavy loss column. I wouldn’t put him in my top 5, but he’s a no brainer for top 20, IMO.[/quote]

Ryan’s a weird pitcher. He had an insanely long career and he struck out an insane amount of guys. He also walked an insane amount of guys and benefited from playing a huge portion of his career in the 80s NL and in Houston. He never gave up a ton of hits, because he was always striking out and walking guys. He also had some great seasons spread out over time ('77, '81, '87, '91), but some clunkers ('76, '78, '80, '85, '88) in there too.

It’s tough to compare because he pitched for so long. I think that these 17:

Walter Johnson, Roger Clemens, Christy Mathewson, Lefty Grove, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn, Pedro Martinez, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Cy Young, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Bert Byleven, Whitey Ford, and Jim Palmer… are no-question better than him, and I would put guys like Marichal, Drysdale, Schilling, Smoltz, Mussina, Kevin Brown, who either had much shorter careers and/or pitched in a much more difficult era ahead of him. With a couple more strong seasons, I think Halladay will pass him and give Johan 4-5 more strong years and he will too.

I can see how some would give it to Ryan for the length of his career and his freakish strikeout ability though.[/quote]

Some of those guys you mentioned had some ups and downs as well. For instance, Randy Johnson probably had about 10 really good years spread over his career but he’s also pitched for 20 years and has had some clunkers as well. Perry is another guy that kinda fits into that category.

I agree, it’s tough when someone pitches for so long because he’s bound to have some shitty seasons. But longevity has to count for something. For someone to pitch (successfully) for that long is ridiculous. Also, some pitchers go their entire career without pitching a no hitter and Ryan had 7 of them. That counts for something, too.

He’s in my top 20, although I can see the argument against him.

Edit - and the biggest sore thumb of your post was Kevin Brown, IMO. And for NR - you missed 72, 73 and 74! (Admittedly, I had to look up his stats for that one)[/quote]

If you want to see a pitcher with an extended period of dominance (6+ years or so) check out Randy Johnson’s stats between 98-04, Maddux between 90-95 or 96 and Koufax’s last 6 years. Especially Maddux and Koufax. Those two stretches were as dominant as any pitcher has ever been. Maddux had a two-year span where his era was below 1.81, which was last done by Walter Johnson, and he did it in a hitter-friendly park (the original Fulton County Stadium) in a hitter-friendly era, as did Johnson. Ryan’s 7 no-hitters in 20+ years, or Koufax’s 4 (including a perfect game) in six years? Nolan Ryan can’t take his best 6 years period and stack them up against these guys. Clemens can almost lay claim to the same extended dominance, as can a few others, but Brown, Smoltz, Mussina, Schilling, even Blyleven don’t deserve comparison to Johnson, Maddux or Koufax.

57

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Wanted to say to you guys who put Roberto Alomar in your all time list:

How ridiculous was it this guy didn’t get into the Hall of Fame on 1st ballot?

That home run he hit in the 1992 World Series off Dennis Eckersley is still ingrained in my head.

[/quote]

Ingrained so deeply that you forgot that happened in the ALCS?

58

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:
maybe Sandburg… over morgan[/quote]

That’s a bold claim sir.[/quote]

I’d take Alomar, Kent, Morgan, hell even Billy Martin before I took Sandburg. He was good, but he’s several rungs below Joe Morgan on the 2ndbaseman ladder.

59

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Edit - and the biggest sore thumb of your post was Kevin Brown, IMO. [/quote]

Kevin Brown at his peak was dirrrrty.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/brownke01.shtml

Check out 1995-2003. Throw out the year he was injured and that’s an 8-year run that stacks up with all but the GOATs. You can’t pick an 8-year run from Ryan’s career that can beat that. I would put Ryan ahead of Brown, purely for the longevity and because he was so unique, but it’s closer than people think. Ryan was nasty in '72-'74, but I think those seasons are a bit overrated, because that was one of the most depressed times for offense in league history.

Ryan had a 2.28 ERA in '72 when the average AL team scored just 3.47 runs per game. Ryan’s own California Angels only scored 2.93 (!) runs per game. Kevin Brown had an 2.58 ERA in 2000 when the average NL team scored 5 runs per game.

Going back to the stats makes you realize just how much different the league was then. Hal Macrae led the AL in '76 with an .868 OPS. The Mariners offensive juggernaut of '96 had an .850 OPS as a TEAM! It also hammers home just how incredible Pedro, RJ and Maddux were.

I would still put Ryan over Brown, because a great 8-year run (with some good years before that) probably doesn’t stack up to 7 or 8 great years + 10-15 very solid years. But it’s a lot closer than people think.[/quote]

All very, very solid points. Your last paragraph sums up my opinion pretty well also.

Maddux is one of those guys that usually doesn’t get the respect he deserves. 15 years of 15+ wins all with a weak fastball. That’s impressive.

60

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Edit - and the biggest sore thumb of your post was Kevin Brown, IMO. [/quote]

Kevin Brown at his peak was dirrrrty.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/brownke01.shtml

Check out 1995-2003. Throw out the year he was injured and that’s an 8-year run that stacks up with all but the GOATs. You can’t pick an 8-year run from Ryan’s career that can beat that. I would put Ryan ahead of Brown, purely for the longevity and because he was so unique, but it’s closer than people think. Ryan was nasty in '72-'74, but I think those seasons are a bit overrated, because that was one of the most depressed times for offense in league history.

Ryan had a 2.28 ERA in '72 when the average AL team scored just 3.47 runs per game. Ryan’s own California Angels only scored 2.93 (!) runs per game. Kevin Brown had an 2.58 ERA in 2000 when the average NL team scored 5 runs per game.

Going back to the stats makes you realize just how much different the league was then. Hal Macrae led the AL in '76 with an .868 OPS. The Mariners offensive juggernaut of '96 had an .850 OPS as a TEAM! It also hammers home just how incredible Pedro, RJ and Maddux were.

I would still put Ryan over Brown, because a great 8-year run (with some good years before that) probably doesn’t stack up to 7 or 8 great years + 10-15 very solid years. But it’s a lot closer than people think.[/quote]

All very, very solid points. Your last paragraph sums up my opinion pretty well also.

Maddux is one of those guys that usually doesn’t get the respect he deserves. 15 years of 15+ wins all with a weak fastball. That’s impressive.[/quote]

Re Maddox: Location and knowing the batters he’s facing I suspect. Location is what makes a great picher first and formost does it not?