View Full Version : Clemens - Best Pitcher Since WW2? How?
Yesterday I went to Panera Bread with my buddy, and because we didn't want to appear, you know, odd, we thought it manly to discuss sports. So my friend tells me out of the blue that Roger Clemens is the best pitcher since World War II. I know my friend, and I know that he alone wouldn't arbitrarily select World War II as a landmark date, so upon further inquiry I learned that he was really just plagiarizing Bill James. Problem is that he doesn't remember James's argument, just that he had read it in one of his Abstracts.
Assuming that James did indeed make the argument that Clemens is the best pitcher since WW 2, or, at the very least, the best pitcher of his generation, then James seems off-base, IMO. He must have developed a very clever, very 'different' argument using obscure formulas to make such a case, considering that most metrics rank other pitchers over Clemens - Pedro, Maddux, and RJ come to mind most readily.
IMO ranking Clemens over Pedro's just preposterous.
Anyway, anyone here who is familiar with James's argument want to enlighten me? Thanks.
Assuming that James did indeed make the argument that Clemens is the best pitcher since WW 2, or, at the very least, the best pitcher of his generation, then James seems off-base, IMO. He must have developed a very clever, very 'different' argument using obscure formulas to make such a case, considering that most metrics rank other pitchers over Clemens - Pedro, Maddux, and RJ come to mind most readily.
IMO ranking Clemens over Pedro's just preposterous.
Anyway, anyone here who is familiar with James's argument want to enlighten me? Thanks.
I'm not familiar with James' argument, but I've heard others make it. As much as I despite Clemens, it's not hard to see how he is the best pitcher, at least of this generation. Clemens may not be able to compete with Pedro's peak years (1997-2003), but Pedro has a long, long way to go to equal Clemens' career, or RJ or Maddux.
Active leaders wins:
1. Clemens 328
2. Maddux 305
4. Johnson 246
10. Martinez 182
Active leaders strikeouts:
1. Clemens 4317
2. Johnson 4161
3. Maddux 2916
5. Martinez 2653
Pedro needs another decade of good performance to equal Clemen's career marks. If he could duplicate his 1997-2003 stretch with something similar from 2005-2011, then he would be the best pitcher of this generation, as he is destroying the active leaders in a number of categories:
Active leaders era:
1. Martinez 2.709
3. Maddux 2.949
4. Johnson 3.068
5. Clemens 3.181
Active leaders era+:
1. Martinez 167
2. Johnson 144
3. Clemens/Maddux 141
Active winning %:
1. Martinez .7054
3. Clemens .6667
5. Johnson .6577
9. Maddux .6367
Active whip:
1. Martinez 1.028
3. Maddux 1.127
4. Johnson 1.162
7. Clemens 1.180
Active k/9:
1. Johnson 11.119
3. Martinez 10.399
6. Clemens 8.647
Clemens has had a longer career than Pedro...longevity is an important factor to measure when debating who is better. None of the above pitchers could touch Pedro in his prime, but they've all been good for longer...Pedro is only 33. RJ, Maddux, Clemens, are all in the twilight of their careers ( :P ). Pedro could be...or he could pitch for another decade. This will determine where he stands among the all time greats.
Thanks for the response...that all sounds pretty standard. I remain unconvinced, however, because of two personal views on baseball.
1) I give record zero credibility when evaluating pitchers (so RJ gets the nod over Clemens, having the higher ERA+, WHIP, K/9 - of all time).
2) I attribute 'longevity' to a pitcher who's at least eligible for the HoF. Pedro's in his 13th year, eligible for the hall, so I put him on equal footing with Clemens and the other geriatrics. Because Pedro had, statistically, the best years in baseball, as well as having a great 10+ year career, it's not hard for *me* to put him ahead of the pack. Obviously he hasn't been around as long as Clemens, but IMO longevity's overrated.
As I said from the onset, though - *I* remain unconvinced. From what you've said, I can see why others wouldn't be.
Sixty one
06-18-05, 10:02 AM
I wonder where Spahn and Seaver rank with that group?
patrick.o
06-18-05, 11:27 AM
(so RJ gets the nod over Clemens, having the higher ERA+, WHIP, K/9 - of all time).
Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. 213 of Johnson's 489 starts coming into this season were made in the National League. That doesn't quite close the K/9 gap, but it blows out the ERA+ and WHIP numbers.
pedromartinezfan
06-18-05, 11:36 AM
Roger Clemens is not only the greatest pitcher of our era, he is also the greatest pitcher of all-time. He was never better than Pedro at his best. Honestly, who has been better than Pedro at his best, though? Roger Clemens' best year in 1997 demolishes Randy's best year. Nobody realizes how good of a prime Roger Clemens really had. Some people say he was a good for a long time, but he was GREAT for a long time. 4,587 innings. Compare that to 3,468 for Randy Johnson, and 2,391 for Pedro Martinez.
By the end of the year, he will have a higher ERA+ than Randy Johnson as well, I'm sure.
Stealthspy
06-18-05, 12:31 PM
Honestly, who has been better than Pedro at his best, though? Koufax, quite possibly. But that's not really in his generation. :)
Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. 213 of Johnson's 489 starts coming into this season were made in the National League. That doesn't quite close the K/9 gap, but it blows out the ERA+ and WHIP numbers.
True, that's a good point. I'm not sure about blowing out some of the numbers, though :)
Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. 213 of Johnson's 489 starts coming into this season were made in the National League. That doesn't quite close the K/9 gap, but it blows out the ERA+ and WHIP numbers.
For most of the numbers yes, but I don't see how playing more in the NL blows out one's era+ (which accounts for the difference in leagues).
Koufax, quite possibly. But that's not really in his generation
That may be a question for another thread, but lets see:
Koufax in his prime, era+
1960 102
1961 124
1962 143
1963 161
1964 187
1965 160
1966 190
Pedro in his prime, era+
1997 221
1998 160
1999 245
2000 285
2001 189
2002 196
2003 212
era+ isn't perfect (Koufax threw a lot more innings over those 7 years than Pedro did, which must be taken into account), but imo, Pedro was better than Koufax in his prime. Pedro had 5 years that were better than Koufax's best...yikes.
pedromartinezfan
06-18-05, 02:49 PM
For most of the numbers yes, but I don't see how playing more in the NL blows out one's era+ (which accounts for the difference in leagues).
It is a lot more difficult to get away from the mean in the AL than the NL. Same thing for why Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher of all-time. It was a lot more easier for Walter Johnson to dominate than it was for Roger Clemens. Walter Johnson's skillset for that era was unmatched. All he had to do was throw 97 MPH fastballs and they couldn't hit it. It was his only pitch. Much easier to get away from the mean back then.
It is a lot more difficult to get away from the mean in the AL than the NL. Same thing for why Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher of all-time. It was a lot more easier for Walter Johnson to dominate than it was for Roger Clemens. Walter Johnson's skillset for that era was unmatched. All he had to do was throw 97 MPH fastballs and they couldn't hit it. It was his only pitch. Much easier to get away from the mean back then.
That sort of makes sense, but I'm not sure if it is true. I'm not sure how it could be proven, either. Btw, Walter Johnson also threw a curveball, and he threw sidearm. Didn't seem to need it, though; according to Bill James, he had the best fastball of all time.
cubswin
06-18-05, 05:26 PM
7 Cy Youngs (on his way to a possible 8th?) says a lot
Re. your argument re. longevity, when it's mediocre longevity, I agree with you. However, when a player is as good as Clemens has been for as long as he has been, that's impressive. Perhaps Clemens doesn't match Pedro or Koufax at his peak, but his sustained excellence sets him apart from both. For ex, w/Clemens, so far his first and latest Cys came 18 years apart ('86 and '04) and over 3 decades.
Re. record, I agree that W-L is overrated for a pitcher, but I think you're now faling in with some people who are going to far the other way (kind of like w/RBIs). Yes, W-L is heavily team-dependent, but great pitchers overcome that. Look at Carlton's 27 win season. Bottom line is, the guy has 330+ wins. Ignoring that is ignoring the primary task of the starting pitcher, which is to win, not to prevent hits and walks, or even to prevent runs.
So, depending on what you mean by "greatest," maybe he was, maybe he wasn't; but I think it's indisputable that he's had the best career of any pitcher since WWII, blowing guys like Maddux, Pedro and johnson out of the water.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-19-05, 02:25 AM
I agree that Clemens is the greatest since WW2. Durability is a hugely important skill for pitchers.
When Clemens pitches 60 more innings than Pedro, that's 60 innings that some average or worse reliever is not pitching.
Re. record, I agree that W-L is overrated for a pitcher, but I think you're now faling in with some people who are going to far the other way (kind of like w/RBIs). Yes, W-L is heavily team-dependent, but great pitchers overcome that. Look at Carlton's 27 win season. Bottom line is, the guy has 330+ wins. Ignoring that is ignoring the primary task of the starting pitcher, which is to win, not to prevent hits and walks, or even to prevent runs.
.
Not to sidetrack this thread onto a discussion of record, but the reason why I discount record is because I don't believe that it has any place being applied to individual players. Someone decided many years ago that, since the SP is 'the most important position,' the SP should bear the burden of record. It's a decision with which I cannot agree, because ball-games are won by teams, not individuals. Record does not measure, in short, what it's supposed to measure - a pitcher's 'ability to win' - because that ability cannot be realistically measured. What it measures is a rough approximation of a pitcher's ability (which is better measured by other statistics), a team's ability / production, and luck.
Yes, a SP's primary task is to win, but only in the context of his team. His job is to do what he's out there to do - which is to prevent hits, walks, runs, in short, to contribute to the team effort.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-19-05, 10:07 AM
Runs Saved Above Average, which I think is one of the best measures of pitching, since it factors in innings and quality.
Clemens: #1 all time.
cubswin
06-19-05, 01:00 PM
Not to sidetrack this thread onto a discussion of record, but the reason why I discount record is because I don't believe that it has any place being applied to individual players. Someone decided many years ago that, since the SP is 'the most important position,' the SP should bear the burden of record. It's a decision with which I cannot agree, because ball-games are won by teams, not individuals. Record does not measure, in short, what it's supposed to measure - a pitcher's 'ability to win' - because that ability cannot be realistically measured. What it measures is a rough approximation of a pitcher's ability (which is better measured by other statistics), a team's ability / production, and luck.
Yes, a SP's primary task is to win, but only in the context of his team. His job is to do what he's out there to do - which is to prevent hits, walks, runs, in short, to contribute to the team effort.
Well, I agree with a lot of that, but there's a big difference b/t merely discounting W-L and giving it zero credibility. Wins and losses aren't a perfect stat -- no stat is -- but to ignore a pitcher's record entirely is to ignore another piuece of information that should be used in evaluating a player.
Since1995
06-19-05, 06:11 PM
Clemens IMHO, is alot better than most pitchers ever. Except for a select few. I think Durability is the best statistic amongst Good Pitchers. Cy Young is the best example pitching once every 3 days but in this day and age where managers have a fetish over relievers its hard to come by a great complete game, most guys squeak out of one.
But look at Clemens he is 42 (right?) and he has a 1.some ERA. He could come back next year and might put up great numbers. He could definately win Cy Young this year.
Snatch Catch
06-19-05, 07:03 PM
Runs Saved Above Average, which I think is one of the best measures of pitching, since it factors in innings and quality.
Clemens: #1 all time.
Thats a cumulative number, though, no?
patrick.o
06-19-05, 10:57 PM
Not to sidetrack this thread onto a discussion of record, but the reason why I discount record is because I don't believe that it has any place being applied to individual players. Someone decided many years ago that, since the SP is 'the most important position,' the SP should bear the burden of record. It's a decision with which I cannot agree, because ball-games are won by teams, not individuals. Record does not measure, in short, what it's supposed to measure - a pitcher's 'ability to win' - because that ability cannot be realistically measured. What it measures is a rough approximation of a pitcher's ability (which is better measured by other statistics), a team's ability / production, and luck.
Yes, a SP's primary task is to win, but only in the context of his team. His job is to do what he's out there to do - which is to prevent hits, walks, runs, in short, to contribute to the team effort.
I agree entirely. I've always considered wins and losses the single most over-rated stats in baseball. It is true that a good pitcher will usually win more games than a bad pitcher over the long haul, but that doesn't make it a stat worth placing a whole lot of weight on. For example:
player A- 2.76 ERA, 142 ERA+, 1.14 WHIP, 11.48 K/9, 154 H in 211.7 IP
player B- 4.02 ERA, 109 ERA+, 1.33 WHIP, 7.77 K/9, 227 H in 208.3 IP
The first guy is Nolan Ryan in 1987. He went 8-16. The second guy is Andy Pettitte in 2003. He went 21-8.
If you think that's bad, I had a guy on my fantasy team last year that got a win without ever throwing a pitch. He came in with his team losing, two outs, and a man on first. He immediately picked off the guy on first. His team took the lead in the next half inning and a different reliever finished the game. My guy gets the win.
Wins and losses are team stats, unfairly awarded to pitchers. If Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens had been traded for each other last year and put forth their same exact performances there would have been zero debate - Johnson would have won the Cy Young going away. Johnson was better than Clemens in almost every measurable way, except W/L. And Clemens wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team when he won in 2001, but he had the sexy 20-3 record and the reputation.
patrick.o
06-19-05, 10:58 PM
For most of the numbers yes, but I don't see how playing more in the NL blows out one's era+
My bad, brain fart. I was jumbling thoughts and obviously not considering the +.
jimmyclark
06-20-05, 10:40 AM
Clemens is a great pitcher but the greatest since WWII?? I don't know about that. If it is a "win-or-go home" game do you want him on the mound? He can get emotional, blow up and do something stupid. See 1990 ALCS vs Oakland, getting tossed for arguing balls and strikes. He probably should have been tossed for throwing the bat at Piazza in 2000. I realize I am nitpicking but we are asking "greatest in last 60 years" so a nit-pick is allowed.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-20-05, 11:17 AM
Can we put together a list of other names, so we can make some comparisons?
List of HoF pitchers after WW2:
Sandy Koufax, Early Wynn, Warren Spahn, Whitey Ford, Bob Lemon, Robin Roberts, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Don Drysdale, Hoyt Wilhelm, Catfish Hunter, Jim Palmer, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, Rollie Fingers, Hal Newhouser, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Jim Bunning, Phil Niekro, Don Sutton, Nolan Ryan, Dennis Eckersley.
Throw in RJ, Pedro, and Maddux.
There really isn't a name on that list that I would take, for a career, over Roger.
To answer the question, who would you have in one game, if I could say, Pedro 1999, specifying pitcher season, I probably wouldn't pick Roger, but if I couldn't, and had to take the entirety of a pitcher's career, I'd take Roger.
i'd take 1995 maddux and be done with you if it's just the same...(o;
btw, one of the 10 or so greatest stretches in pitching history was johan santana's second half of the 2004 season.
just thought i'd add that. why i have no idea.
AMoreira81
06-22-05, 01:07 PM
The 1986 Gooden was the best pitcher ever since the mound was raised, thanks to Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968, the best ever since World War 2!
(Maddux doesn't count, his season was shortened by the strike.)
pedromartinezfan
06-22-05, 01:45 PM
Pedro Martinez 2000 says hi.
cubswin
06-22-05, 02:00 PM
The 1986 Gooden was the best pitcher ever since the mound was raised, thanks to Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968, the best ever since World War 2!
(Maddux doesn't count, his season was shortened by the strike.)
Do you mean '85?
I'd take Pedro '99 or '00 if we're just looking at single seasons.
pedromartinezfan
06-22-05, 02:16 PM
It's really no contest.
Pedro 2000: 116.5 VORP, 285 ERA+, 5.31 H/9, .737 WHIP, 11.78 K/9, 1.33 BB/9, 8.88 K/B in the American League
Gooden 1985: 100.0 VORP, 226 ERA+, 6.44 H/9, .965 WHIP, 8.72 K/9, 2.24 BB/9, 3.88 K/BB
Pedro 1999 and Clemens 1997 were also better. You can make a case for Pedro 1997, and of course Greg Maddux 1994-1995.
yankeefaneternally
06-22-05, 07:04 PM
you see...longevity is a major factor when you look at who is the best pitchers of all time. Clemens might not have produced a string of dominating years like pedro, but his consistency has helped his legacy. Koufax and Pedro are similar in that they were dominating in their primes, but unless you continue to dominate throughout your entire career, then only can you be considered to be in the class of greats. That is why Clemens is more likely to have more people consider him the greatest pitcher since WWII
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 12:38 AM
Can we talk about peak vs. career value? This is the critical issue in this debate.
I like Jay Jaffe's JAWS score, which is (Career WARP3+ 5 year peak WARP3)/2, so it counts peak and career equally, which is debatable, but let's look at it:
The pitchers I listed who I think have any chance, and therefore I look at them, are Roger, Pedro, Maddux, RJ, Seaver, Koufax, Gibson and Ryan.
Step 1: Straight up JAWS calculations. This ignores the fact that Pedro probably has more years left than Roger, Greg and RJ:
Roger: 120
Pedro: 79
Koufax: 58
Maddux: 108
Randy: 89
Seaver: 100
Gibson: 87
Ryan: 82
By this calculation, Roger is world's ahead of Pedro. Roger's highest 5 year peak WARP3 was even 54 (1986-1990) while Pedro's was 52.6 (1997-2001, though obviously including Pedro's injury plagued 2001, with more on that in a little bit.) I guess if we did 2 year peaks, Pedro would come out ahead, but seriously, 5 year peaks are better.
Step 2 is to look at what the active pitchers need to move up this list. Even if Pedro registered a 14 WARP3 season this year (tremendous, even better than his 2000 season) his peak of 52.6 cannot go up, because of 2001. But let's say he finishes out his Mets contract with 4 straight 9.25 WARP3 seasons, very, very good, right near his very good 2002 and 2003 seasons, he'll still have "just" a 94.8 JAWS score.
The only way for Pedro to reach Roger in JAWS in the next 7 years is to register 7 straight seasons of 11.7 WARP3. 7 straight years of his 1997 season in Montreal.
And oh yeah, that's without factoring in the additional WARP3 Roger will accrue in the next 7 years (at least a couple)
It's almost impossible for Maddux as well.
Step 3: This is the really hard part. How much should Pedro's 2001 hurt him? If we pretend like Pedro actually threw 30 starts that season, his JAWS score jumps to 80. Not close to Clemens.
Step 3 also includes some methodology issues. Why do we choose a 5 year peak? Why not a 2 or 3 year peak? Let's look at that:
Best 2 year peak:
Roger: 26
Pedro: 26.4
Koufax: 22.8
Maddux: 26
RJ: 21.5
Seaver: 22.4
Gibson: 25.4
Ryan: 18.3
In other words, Pedro's 2 year prime (1999-2000) was great, great, great, but it wasn't that much better than Roger's 1997-1998 or Maddux's 1994-1995. Given the huge advantage those pitchers hold over Pedro in career value, they seem clearly superior.
3 year peak:
Roger: 36.1
Pedro: 36.2
Koufax: 31.7
Maddux: 33.2
RJ: 31
Seaver: 32.9
Gibson: 36.2
Ryan: 25.7
Same thing. Pedro has an advantage, but it's tiny.
Finally, 4 year:
Roger: 43
Pedro: 47.1
Koufax: 42.4
Maddux: 46.7
RJ: 40.6
Seaver: 42.3
Gibson: 42.7
Ryan: 30
Let's assume that Pedro racks up 150 career WARP3, which I think is likely. 6 more seasons of 8 WARP3 (8 WARP3 is about Pedro's season last year) gets him there. Let's even say he'll have 6 more seasons of 9 WARP3, which is Pedro's 2002. While Roger ends up with 195 (about 4 more this year, and 5 total next year, and then he retires: very conservative numbers.) You'd still have to think that 4 year value is worth 10 times more than career value (which seems completely illogical to me) to find that Pedro is more valuable than Roger.
I think the issue is, people look at Pedro's 1999 and 2000, and say, wow, what great seasons, ignoring the greatness of a lot of other seasons.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 12:39 AM
you see...longevity is a major factor when you look at who is the best pitchers of all time. Clemens might not have produced a string of dominating years like pedro, but his consistency has helped his legacy. Koufax and Pedro are similar in that they were dominating in their primes, but unless you continue to dominate throughout your entire career, then only can you be considered to be in the class of greats. That is why Clemens is more likely to have more people consider him the greatest pitcher since WWII
My point is that Roger 1997-1998 is very close to Pedro 99-00.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 12:43 AM
I will get the one caveat from my analysis out of the way. These numbers are from BP, and do not include basic Voros McCrackean analysis. These numbers do not correct for the fact that much of pitching is luck and defense, and change WARP or any other numbers as a result. This will seriously affect the calculations (for instance, Pedro's 1999 FIP was the lowest all time, 1.23 or something.) Still, I don't think that admittedly major concern can overcome the vastness of Roger's career value bettering of Pedro, or the fact that Roger had a few seasons on par with Pedro's best.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 05:16 AM
Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. 213 of Johnson's 489 starts coming into this season were made in the National League. That doesn't quite close the K/9 gap, but it blows out the ERA+ and WHIP numbers.
ERA+ is league adjusted. EDIT : corrected already
The Pedro vs the world argument is quite simple.
- Pedro leads in every intrinsic metric (ERA, ERA+, WHIP, K/9, K/BB ...)
- The worlds leads Pedro in pretty much every cumulative stat (W's, total K's, etc ...)
The answer to "Is Pedro better than Clemens et al." depend on what you value the most.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 05:41 AM
My point is that Roger 1997-1998 is very close to Pedro 99-00.
Oh the horror !!! :eek: :D
Not even close in my mind.
Clemens 97-98 :
2.33 ERA;
1.06 WHIP;
3.61 K/BB;
1.13 K/9;
ERA+ of 226 and 176
Pedro 99-00 :
1.90 ERA;
0.83 WHIP;
8.65 K/BB - probably the most impressive pitching stat of all time;
1.38 K/9;
ERA+ of 245 and 285
I'll take Pedro 99-00, before I'll take Maddux 94-95, and I'll take Maddux 94-95 over Clemens 97-98
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 05:49 AM
Another thing. As far as # of Cy Youngs go,
- Clemens got his 2001 and 2004 awards based on reputation, not facts.
- Pedro got robbed in the Zito vote. And I still believe that 80 more IP don't overcome a full run in ERA (the Halladay vote).
If you want to be fair, # of times X was the best pitcher in his league is probably tied at 5 (86, 87, 91, 97, 98 for Clemens; 97, 99, 00, 02, 03 for Pedro). Clemens is getting closer to a sixth one though.
I don't like to use awards to compare people because you don't take into account the mistakes that were made back in the day.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 08:59 AM
Oh the horror !!! :eek: :D
Not even close in my mind.
Clemens 97-98 :
2.33 ERA;
1.06 WHIP;
3.61 K/BB;
1.13 K/9;
ERA+ of 226 and 176
Pedro 99-00 :
1.90 ERA;
0.83 WHIP;
8.65 K/BB - probably the most impressive pitching stat of all time;
1.38 K/9;
ERA+ of 245 and 285
I'll take Pedro 99-00, before I'll take Maddux 94-95, and I'll take Maddux 94-95 over Clemens 97-98
Both of your posts are very valid. To respond to the second one first, I agree, Cy Young awards are a terrible metric to judge two pitchers.
To respond to the first, I shouldn't have said very close. Pedro's 99-00 are certainly better. But by WARP3, they are pretty close. Of course, these numbers are defense-dependent.
But I disagree, LBS, when you said that it simply depends on which you like more, peak or career value. I think it should be a function of both. We can therefore think of some linear weighting scheme to combine the two. If we agree on that, we can make some good statistical argumentation. My above post shows that unless you think peak value is worth 10 times as much as career value, Pedro will have a very tough time in getting this linear weighting scheme over Roger's.
And man, Nolan Ryan sucks by the above calculations.
patrick.o
06-23-05, 09:08 AM
Not even close in my mind.
I totally agree. Besides the numbers Sheff posted there is also
Clemens
BA - .213, .197
OBP - .273, .277
SLG - .290, .296
Pedro
BA - .205, .167!!!
OBP - .248, .213!!!
SLG - .288, .259!!!
Clemens '97-'98 was very close to Pedro '99. But when you throw Pedro's '00 into the mix it's just not close anymore. I mean, Pedro's '00 OBP was equal to Roger's '97 BA!!!!
cubswin
06-23-05, 10:03 AM
Another thing. As far as # of Cy Youngs go,
- Clemens got his 2001 and 2004 awards based on reputation, not facts.
- Pedro got robbed in the Zito vote. And I still believe that 80 more IP don't overcome a full run in ERA (the Halladay vote).
If you want to be fair, # of times X was the best pitcher in his league is probably tied at 5 (86, 87, 91, 97, 98 for Clemens; 97, 99, 00, 02, 03 for Pedro). Clemens is getting closer to a sixth one though.
I don't like to use awards to compare people because you don't take into account the mistakes that were made back in the day.
Agreed re. Pedro / Zito.
Disagree re. Clemens '04. There was no obvious choice, so you're right that reputation played a part, as did a gaudy W-L record. But Clemens, imo, was as good a choice as anybody. Realistically, it was probably him, Johnson, Zambrano and Oswalt, right?
Clemens '01, similar situation -- a bunch of guys with good qualifications, nobody great, Clemens was one of those, and he again had a gaudy record. Who do you believe should have won instead?
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 10:21 AM
We'll never see another Pedro 2000
That's not possible.
Pedro 2000 = Mariano Rivera over 200+ innings.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 10:25 AM
Agreed re. Pedro / Zito.
Disagree re. Clemens '04. There was no obvious choice, so you're right that reputation played a part, as did a gaudy W-L record. But Clemens, imo, was as good a choice as anybody. Realistically, it was probably him, Johnson, Zambrano and Oswalt, right?
Clemens '01, similar situation -- a bunch of guys with good qualifications, nobody great, Clemens was one of those, and he again had a gaudy record. Who do you believe should have won instead?
Unit 2004 vs. Clemens 2004 :
+ 30 more IP
- 0.40 ERA
+ 0.20 WHIP
+ 72 K
Not even close.
People got fooled by the 14 L's
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 10:32 AM
Clemens 2001 vs respectively Moose 2001, Moyer 2001, Garcia 2001 and Mulder 2001
4th in IP : -9, +10, -19, -9
5th in ERA : -0.36, -0.08, -0.46, -0.06
5th in WHIP : -0.19, -0.16, -0.14, -0.10
2nd in K's : -1, +94, +50, +60
You could say that Clemens was not even the best pitcher on his own team.
This one should have gone to Garcia, or Moose.
cubswin
06-23-05, 10:34 AM
Unit 2004 vs. Clemens 2004 :
+ 30 more IP
- 0.40 ERA
+ 0.20 WHIP
+ 72 K
Not even close.
People got fooled by the 14 L's
It's not fooled -- it's what you view as important. 18-4 versus 16-14 isn't even close, either.
(To clarify, I agree that W-L is overrated, but I also think people go too far in discounting it. At some point, whether a pitcher actually wins, even though it clearly is team-dependent, matters more than men on base or Ks.)
By your argument, Sheets is clearly the choice over Clemens, too -- yet I didn't hear many people clamoring that Sheets deserved it. (In fairness, though, you may have felt he was overlooked.)
Also, perhaps Peavy over Johnson, given the ERA differential.
cubswin
06-23-05, 10:43 AM
Clemens 2001 vs respectively Moose 2001, Moyer 2001, Garcia 2001 and Mulder 2001
4th in IP : -9, +10, -19, -9
5th in ERA : -0.36, -0.08, -0.46, -0.06
5th in WHIP : -0.19, -0.16, -0.14, -0.10
2nd in K's : -1, +94, +50, +60
You could say that Clemens was not even the best pitcher on his own team.
This one should have gone to Garcia, or Moose.
Garcia is probably who I would have chosen then, too. I just don't think he was head and shoulders above Clemens or anybody else. There's an argument for Joe Mays, too, and when there are so many guys lumped together statistically, it's natural for 20-3 record and a name (which goes to your point) to set you apart in the balloting.
(I think Garcia '01 has a better argument than Johnson '04, btw)
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 01:08 PM
It's not fooled -- it's what you view as important. 18-4 versus 16-14 isn't even close, either.
(To clarify, I agree that W-L is overrated, but I also think people go too far in discounting it. At some point, whether a pitcher actually wins, even though it clearly is team-dependent, matters more than men on base or Ks.)
By your argument, Sheets is clearly the choice over Clemens, too -- yet I didn't hear many people clamoring that Sheets deserved it. (In fairness, though, you may have felt he was overlooked.)
Also, perhaps Peavy over Johnson, given the ERA differential.
I can't agree with that. Cy Young is 'best pitcher of the year'. Every metrics points out Johnson as a better pitcher than Roger Clemens in 2004. The team you pitch for has nothing to do with that.
I'm not discounting W-L, because if two guys post similar intrinsic numbers, player A getting 22 W's and player B only 14's, it means A did a better job with the same stuff than B. Here, Unit had, under every possible measure of team-independent pitching performance, better stuff than Clemens. Simply put, had Unit pitched for the Astros, he would have posted a record at least as good as Clemens.
And yes, I would have picked Sheets over Clemens without even thinking about it. When a pitcher is better than another in every possible aspect of the pitching game but Wins, make no mistake, the team got these extra wins, not the pitcher.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 01:14 PM
Garcia is probably who I would have chosen then, too. I just don't think he was head and shoulders above Clemens or anybody else. There's an argument for Joe Mays, too, and when there are so many guys lumped together statistically, it's natural for 20-3 record and a name (which goes to your point) to set you apart in the balloting.
(I think Garcia '01 has a better argument than Johnson '04, btw)
A half run in ERA, and 15 hundredth points in WHIP with nearly 10% more innings pitched is a very solid margin, and at these heights, I'd say it's as close as 'head and shoulders' as you could find (the difference between a 3.05 and a 3.51 pitcher being much bigger IMO than between a 4.05 and a 4.51 pitcher)
cubswin
06-23-05, 01:15 PM
I can't agree with that. Cy Young is 'best pitcher of the year'. Every metrics points out Johnson as a better pitcher than Roger Clemens in 2004. The team you pitch for has nothing to do with that.
I'm not discounting W-L, because if two guys post similar intrinsic numbers, player A getting 22 W's and player B only 14's, it means A did a better job with the same stuff than B. Here, Unit had, under every possible measure of team-independent pitching performance, better stuff than Clemens. Simply put, had Unit pitched for the Astros, he would have posted a record at least as good as Clemens.
And yes, I would have picked Sheets over Clemens without even thinking about it. When a pitcher is better than another in every possible aspect of the pitching game but Wins, make no mistake, the team got these extra wins, not the pitcher.
That's where I disagree, though. Supporting stats are just that. If a guy gives up 3 earned runs in 8 innings in a 4-3 win, it doesn't mean that he pitched worse than a guy who allowed 3 ER in 9 innings in a 3-2 loss. A guy with a higher ERA may bear down when he needs to prevent more runs. A guy with a higher WHIP might do a better job getting out of jams.
I'm with you if the records are at all similar, but 18-4 versus 16-14 is far too disparate, imo.
(btw, I think this is one where we agree to disagree -- I think we clearly understand one another's argument, but simply view it differently)
cubswin
06-23-05, 01:22 PM
A half run in ERA, and 15 hundredth points in WHIP with nearly 10% more innings pitched is a very solid margin, and at these heights, I'd say it's as close as 'head and shoulders' as you could find (the difference between a 3.05 and a 3.51 pitcher being much bigger IMO than between a 4.05 and a 4.51 pitcher)
4th in ERA+ versus 6th (138-128), 50 fewer Ks, 2 fewer wins, 3 more losses -- plus, guys who were above him not only in ERA+ but also in WHIP, W and other stats.
Like I said, I would have taken him, too, but I don't think it's any stretch to choose Clemens, or a couple other guys. Garcia didn't distinguish himself; nor did anybody else among a handful of guys.
pedromartinezfan
06-23-05, 01:48 PM
My point is that Roger 1997-1998 is very close to Pedro 99-00.
It depends. WARP3 is a counting stat. Roger Clemens pitched 68 more innings than Pedro in those two years. When people say Pedro had a better peak than him, they are right. It was better.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 02:08 PM
4th in ERA+ versus 6th (138-128), 50 fewer Ks, 2 fewer wins, 3 more losses -- plus, guys who were above him not only in ERA+ but also in WHIP, W and other stats.
Like I said, I would have taken him, too, but I don't think it's any stretch to choose Clemens, or a couple other guys. Garcia didn't distinguish himself; nor did anybody else among a handful of guys.
You're right, I could have mentioned Mays, or Buehrle, I just picked the people in the voting top 5 to point out that the argument for Clemens in 2001 is what it is, thin.
As for your previous post, I understand we'll have to agree to disagree but let me say that I don't think the 'getting out of jams' or 'pitching to the scoreboard' theory applies when we're talking about these pitching heights (I don't think it ever applies but that's another subject for another thread). The difference is not between 9IP/3ER/L and 8IP/3ER/W, it is between someone pitching for a playoff team, and someone pitching for a last place team. Using W-L records to compare such different environments is unfair, and can't lead to a correct decision making.
That 18-4 versus 16-14 is far too disparate is the result of one team being 92-70 when the other ended with a 51-111 record. Johnson - Clemens 2004 is actually one of the easiest 'let's throw W-L out of the window' case I have ever defended. I mean, this is a team that lost 111 games !!! This is miles away from the classic and always annoying Moose vs. Pettitte argument. Unit pitched for a AAA team in 2004.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 02:34 PM
It depends. WARP3 is a counting stat. Roger Clemens pitched 68 more innings than Pedro in those two years. When people say Pedro had a better peak than him, they are right. It was better.
That is something I didn't think about.
So, most of my numbers from the previous page should be carefully analyzed. However, I think my basic point still holds. Roger's 97-98 were not terribly far from Pedro's 99-00, and Roger's got much higher career value.
cubswin
06-23-05, 02:54 PM
...Using W-L records to compare such different environments is unfair, and can't lead to a correct decision making.
That 18-4 versus 16-14 is far too disparate is the result of one team being 92-70 when the other ended with a 51-111 record. Johnson - Clemens 2004 is actually one of the easiest 'let's throw W-L out of the window' case I have ever defended. I mean, this is a team that lost 111 games !!! This is miles away from the classic and always annoying Moose vs. Pettitte argument. Unit pitched for a AAA team in 2004.
Of course Johnson was much more likley to fare poorly due to his team. But some pitchers manage to compile good records for bad teams, just like many pitchers compile poor records for bad teams.
I could make the same argument re. meaninglessness of ERA, WHIP and Ks, if I wanted to take that approach:
ERA differential of .38 -- that's an earned run every 24 innings -- so, Randy Johnson is clearly a better pitcher b/c every 3 1/2 starts he gives up 1 fewer earned run?
WHIP differential of 0.14 (this actually may have been Garcia v. Johnson -- I'm too lazy to go back and check :) ) -- one extra man on base every start means a guy is clearly better?
Ks: they're outs (yes, they avoid the ball being in play, but otoh, sometimes it's good to have a ball in play)
So, back to the heart of the matter, I believe the job of the pitcher is to win, not to compile stats. If a pitcher is hurt in Cy consideration in part due to playing for a bad team, so be it -- it's kind of like players suffering from MVP consideration due to being on a bad team (which isn't always the case, of course -- but that's another topic)
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 03:13 PM
Roger's 97-98 were not terribly far from Pedro's 99-00, and Roger's got much higher career value.
Agreed on the latter part, couldn't disagree more with the former. Roger's peak was not 'terribly' far, but still it was far.
As for Pedro's career value at this point, I'd say that it's very similar with Mariano Rivera among the best pitchers of his era (regardless of starting or relief) debates. The extreme brilliance of both pitchers helps them to overcome the relative lack of innings pitched.
This is not to say that I think Pedro is greater than Clemens (I don't) but you cannot dismiss his greatness just because of fewer innings / smaller body of work because what he did during this smaller timespan is greater than anything ever seen in the history of the game.
For instance, ask me one hundred times who is the greatest, Unit or Pedro, 99 times, I'll pick Pedro. Only people I'd rank over him from this era are Clemens and Maddux.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 03:20 PM
Agreed on the latter part, couldn't disagree more with the former. Roger's peak was not 'terribly' far, but still it was far.
As for Pedro's career value at this point, I'd say that it's very similar with Mariano Rivera among the best pitchers of his era (regardless of starting or relief) debates. The extreme brilliance of both pitchers helps them to overcome the relative lack of innings pitched.
This is not to say that I think Pedro is greater than Clemens (I don't) but you cannot dismiss his greatness just because of fewer innings / smaller body of work because what he did during this smaller timespan is greater than anything ever seen in the history of the game.
For instance, ask me one hundred times who is the greatest, Unit or Pedro, 99 times, I'll pick Pedro. Only people I'd rank over him from this era are Clemens and Maddux.
Well, then, I hadn't understood your argument. I completely agree, especially after looking at more numbers, that Pedro is/was better than Randy.
And you say, Roger was a little better (though not in terms of peak value.) So, I'm going to get off this argument.
LBS, I agree with you though on the RJ over Roger thing last year. I can't remember where I saw it, but I saw something which said that in Randy's losses last year, the D-Backs averaged 2 runs. Considering he "won" almost 1/3 of his teams games, and had better numbers in every category, I think you have to give it to Randy.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 03:43 PM
But some pitchers manage to compile good records for bad teams, just like many pitchers compile poor records for bad teams.
I don't think there are any examples of a 18-20 game winner pitching for a 51-111 team.
Like Paulie pointed out, Randy won 16 games out of the 51 wins his team had. That's nearly a 1/3 ratio.
PaulieIsAwesome
06-23-05, 03:57 PM
I don't think there are any examples of a 18-20 game winner pitching for a 51-111 team.
Like Paulie pointed out, Randy won 16 games out of the 51 wins his team had. That's nearly a 1/3 ratio.
Well, there was that year that Steve Carlton won 27 (!) the year the Phils won 59 games. That's amazing.
Little Big Sheff
06-23-05, 04:38 PM
Wow !!
I stand corrected.
Pretty amazing achievment indeed.
cubswin
06-23-05, 06:50 PM
I don't think there are any examples of a 18-20 game winner pitching for a 51-111 team.
Like Paulie pointed out, Randy won 16 games out of the 51 wins his team had. That's nearly a 1/3 ratio.
well, one problem is that there aren't that many 51-win teams.
But I just took a look through some bad AL teams of the past 20 years, and found a handful of pitchers -- some good, some bad -- that managed to win in the teens despite playing for bad teams:
'97: Tim Belcher, 13-12 (5.02ERA; KC, 67-94); Brad Radke, 20-10 (Min, 68-94)
'92: Dave Fleming, 17-10 (3.39era; Seattle, 64-98)
'85: Charlie Hough, 14-16 (3.31 era; Texas, 62-99)
patrick.o
06-24-05, 12:30 AM
Preach on, Sheff. I'd be making almost every point you've already made, if you hadn't already made them ;)
Little Big Sheff
06-24-05, 02:06 AM
well, one problem is that there aren't that many 51-win teams.
My point exactly.
cubswin
06-24-05, 02:31 AM
My point exactly.
It still doesn't mean that a good pitcher can't win with a bad team. I've given you just a few examples, ranging from Carlton to Radke, to Belcher and Hugh, to the immortal Dave Fleming.
My point is that good pitchers on bad teams aren't destined to lose, and pitchers on good teams aren't guaranteed to win. Yes, Johnson's and Clemens's records of course were influenced by their teams, but their records also were influenced by the pitchers themselves. Clemens won and barely lost. Johnson won less and lost a lot. That's the bottom line -- not their WHIP or K/9.
Snatch Catch
06-25-05, 12:30 AM
That 18-4 versus 16-14 is far too disparate is the result of one team being 92-70 when the other ended with a 51-111 record. Johnson - Clemens 2004 is actually one of the easiest 'let's throw W-L out of the window' case I have ever defended. I mean, this is a team that lost 111 games !!! This is miles away from the classic and always annoying Moose vs. Pettitte argument. Unit pitched for a AAA team in 2004.
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?p=1887726&highlight=Johnson+Clemens+2004#post1887726
Mystic Merlyn
06-25-05, 09:17 PM
Pedro is a man among boys in this discussion.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0