NO FAVORITE, lest any pitchers for me.
If somehow absolutely neccessary I wanna at least be the pitcher…
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[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?[/quote]
Haha, yeah you’re right that was a typo. That’s what I meant 
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
[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.
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?
[/quote]
I think the only measure of a pitcher’s greatness is his success against other teams and hitters. The type of stuff a pitcher had/has doesn’t matter; it’s how he used whatever it was he had. ERA is a great indicator because it directly represents his ability to keep people from scoring. Over the course of an entire career, things tend to even out regarding great/poor defenses behind him. ERA’s have typically fluctuated over the years as the league changes from pitcher to hitter friendly and back, so ERA should really be held against the league’s average to see how dominant that pitcher was. All the great pitchers had low ERAs compared to the league average, regardless of whether or not their ERAs were low compared to other eras.
Win/loss percentage is another huge factor. Win totals fluctuate as relief pitchers have become more prevalent and so forth, so the winning percentage rather than the win total is a better indicator of success. It also removes part of the effect poor run support can have on win totals.
The bottom line as a pitcher is to win ball games and to do so by keeping the other team from scoring as little as possible. Therefore, the two most important statistics when comparing pitchers across eras are w/l % and ERA. After that, things like hitter average against, strikeouts, runners allowed per inning and win totals.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Win/loss percentage is another huge factor.[/quote]
Gotta disagree there. Somebody did a breakdown of Bert Blyleven vs. Jack Morris one time, and Bert Blyleven has lost some insane amount of 1-0 and 2-1 games and Jack Morris won some insane amount of games where he allowed over 5 runs. Blyleven is 3rd all-time in 1-0 victories (ahead of even Cy Young), but his winning percentage isn’t great because he played on some awful teams.
Same thing for Greinke. He went 13-10 in 2008 with a 3.47 ERA while Jamie Moyer went 16-7 with a 3.71 ERA. Greinke pitched more innings too with one less start, so he was going deeper into games and allowing less runs, but losing more games because Moyer happened to have Utley/Howard/Werth/Burrell hitting and Lidge’s miracle year in the bullpen.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Win/loss percentage is another huge factor.[/quote]
Gotta disagree there. Somebody did a breakdown of Bert Blyleven vs. Jack Morris one time, and Bert Blyleven has lost some insane amount of 1-0 and 2-1 games and Jack Morris won some insane amount of games where he allowed over 5 runs. Blyleven is 3rd all-time in 1-0 victories (ahead of even Cy Young), but his winning percentage isn’t great because he played on some awful teams.
Same thing for Greinke. He went 13-10 in 2008 with a 3.47 ERA while Jamie Moyer went 16-7 with a 3.71 ERA. Greinke pitched more innings too with one less start, so he was going deeper into games and allowing less runs, but losing more games because Moyer happened to have Utley/Howard/Werth/Burrell hitting and Lidge’s miracle year in the bullpen.[/quote]
Playing on awful teams doesn’t seem to effect the true greats, of which Blyleven is not. Nor is Morris for that matter. Walter Johnson played on some horrendous teams, as did Randy Johnson sporadically throughout his career. Roger Clemens’ two Cy Young seasons in Toronto were for horrible teams and Halladay pitched for some horrendous teams there as well.
When I look at Morris’ 254-186 record and his 3.9 ERA alongside Bert’s 287-250 record and his 3.3 ERA, what jumps out at me is Bert’s 250 losses versus Morris’ 186. With 3700 Ks compared to 2400 for Morris, Bert clearly had better stuff but Morris managed to have more success regarding w/l%. Sure, Blyleven played on bad teams, but when taking this into account, his and Morris’ numbers are still pretty comparable, which is why neither is in the Hall of Fame. Which brings me to another point. Since we’re talking about great pitchers and not pretty good pitchers, why are Morris and Blyleven even being used as examples? They aren’t great pitchers in the same mold as Maddux, Walter Johnson, Randy Johnson, Koufax or Matthewson. Those are the true greats, the ones whose stats aren’t pre-qualified by mention of the offenses that supported them; those pitchers in their heyday needed just one or two runs to win. There’s no excuse for a lack of numbers in some area such as win total due to a poor offense because the true greats have the numbers to back them up, period.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Win/loss percentage is another huge factor.[/quote]
Gotta disagree there. Somebody did a breakdown of Bert Blyleven vs. Jack Morris one time, and Bert Blyleven has lost some insane amount of 1-0 and 2-1 games and Jack Morris won some insane amount of games where he allowed over 5 runs. Blyleven is 3rd all-time in 1-0 victories (ahead of even Cy Young), but his winning percentage isn’t great because he played on some awful teams.
Same thing for Greinke. He went 13-10 in 2008 with a 3.47 ERA while Jamie Moyer went 16-7 with a 3.71 ERA. Greinke pitched more innings too with one less start, so he was going deeper into games and allowing less runs, but losing more games because Moyer happened to have Utley/Howard/Werth/Burrell hitting and Lidge’s miracle year in the bullpen.[/quote]
Playing on awful teams doesn’t seem to effect the true greats, of which Blyleven is not. Nor is Morris for that matter. Walter Johnson played on some horrendous teams, as did Randy Johnson sporadically throughout his career. Roger Clemens’ two Cy Young seasons in Toronto were for horrible teams and Halladay pitched for some horrendous teams there as well.
[/quote]
But is the effect a cause or an effect? If “good” guy plays his whole career ona terrible team he’d never have teh chance to be “great”. But what if that guy happened to be on the world series winning team every year? My point is that the team a person plays on has a big influence on personal success. It’s the same for every team sport