Roger Clemens: greatest pitcher since WW II?

In My Humble Opinion
1

In this article Rob Neyer of ESPN.com discusses, on the eve of Roger Clemens’ winning his 300th game, who might be the greatest pitcher in the postwar years.

It’s an excellent column, as most of Neyer’s are, very illuminating for we wonks who eat up stats and analysis of baseball.

Neyer posits that the five greatests pitchers of the post WWII era are

and then proceeds to eliminate names using his own hypotheses.

So what do you all think? Is his conclusion accurate? Did he forget some great pitchers?

I can’t argue with his conclusion, although I think he left himself enough wiggle room. Basically, he said that Seaver is the best right now, and we won’t know for sure if Clemens is for at least a few years, to give the idea some sense of perspective. I agree with that - it’s a good idea to wait until a few years have passed after a player’s retired to examine his career as a whole.

2

I disagree with the logic behind some of his analysis. First, he pays too much attention to innings pitched. At this level, they have all pitched a lot and any differences are of little relevance. To eliminate Maddux because he has pitched 8% fewer innings than Clemens is silly.

I think that “wins” is overrated as a stat. as it depends so much on the hitting capability of the team. You could argue that Maddux’s wins are less “valuable” because he played on a dominant team. But in his case, the dominance was because of his (and others’) pitching.

I’d never heard of ERA+, but it sounds like a good stat. when comparing players from different eras. That would point to Clemens or Maddux. However, as both these pitchers are still active, their ERAs will change. The way Maddux has pitched this season, maybe that will lead to Clemens having a better career ERA+.

I’m aware that my location may suggest a bias towards Maddux. However, the idea of Maddux being the best just doesn’t fit right (not being very analytical here, am I?). If we drop the apparent longevity requirement, how about Koufax? 165-87, 2,324 2.76, ?

3

Based on his own numbers I see no basis for concluding that Seaver was better. Seaver had a longer career (so far) but Clemens was much more effective relative to his contemporaries. And that’s saying a lot. Clemens, IMHO, is in fact the greatest pitcher of the post-war era.

The differences between him, Seaver and Maddux are, however, pretty minor, and I’m sure I could be wrong.

Of course, if you go by peak value, you’d have to make up a list including the likes of Pedro, The Big Unit, Koufax, etc.

4

Innings pitched is a very good stat for determining how durable a pitcher is. Since most teams employ a five-man rotation, and since it’s become a lot tougher for players to stay off the DL, it’s a huge plus to be a workhorse pitcher who can throw 200 innings a year.

Maddux was eliminated not just because he pitched fewer innings. It’s that Clemens was as good for more innings. That’s a point in his favor right there.

Regarding Koufax, it’s a lot, lot tougher to be a dominant pitcher for 15-20 years than it is to be a dominant pitcher for, say, 10 years.

5

YOu are contraditing yourself.

Koulfax, Denny McLain, and Babe Ruth may only have pitched for a few years, but they were better than the rest "“when” they pitched, and pitched more comlpete games- ergo, they were the better pitchers.

Denny McLain is the only 30 game winner alive today. His carreer was cut short by off the field injuries, but it did not make him any less of a pitcher because of it. He was not a “one-year flash” like Roger Maris was.

That is like saying Hank Araon is a better home run hitter than Ruth, because he just happened to live/play longer.

“Longevity” has more to do with luck than with ability.

6

I am no baseball expert, and I admit that I am biased(my family was personal friends with both Ruth and McLain), but I would rather have Babe Ruth or Denny McLain pitching on the mound for my team when they were in their prime, than anyone else.

Other people may have “lasted” longer, but they were not “better”.

If you want to include “longevity”, then where do you make the break? longivity is always subjective and extraneous. Longivity is not a factor in who was actually “better”.

7

For the record, let me add Koufax to the above chart:

Spahn 363-245 5,244 3.09 118
Gibson 251-174 3,884 2.91 127
Seaver 311-205 4,783 2.86 127
Clemens 299-153 4,132 3.15 142
Maddux 276-157 3,814 2.87 146
Koufax 165-87 2324.1 2.79 131

That last number being ERA+. So Koufax was great, no doubt. But compared to his contemporaries he was on par with Gibson and Seaver and behind Clemens and Maddux.

Me, my money’s on Maddux passing them all eventually if he can keep it together for several more years. He’s not in danger of burning himself out through over-throwing, God knows.

8

I’m not contradicting myself at all. Innings pitched is a very useful stat for determining the worth of a pitcher. The pitchers who pitch the longest usually have the most innings pitched. Ergo, longevity can be measured not just in years pitched but also (and more accurately) by innings pitched.

Denny McLain was a very good pitcher for all of six years. For this he should be one of the best ever? That’s crazy talk. Like I said before, it’s a lot tougher to dominate over a 15-20 year span than it is to dominate over a few years.

It’s not at all the same as saying Aaron’s a better homer hitter than Ruth, and that’s not what I’m saying here. However, a case could be made for Aaron’s being a better overall hitter, because he accumulated more homers and hits. In either case, the stat is just one ingredient in determining who might be the better player. In Clemens’s case, his longevity plays for him, not against him.

Longevity has little to do with luck. You can’t play for a long time if you’re a crappy player. I don’t care if you hit 600 home runs, if you’re hitting .165 one year, you’re probably not going to stick around much longer.

Also, we’re talkin about the best pitchers in the WWII era careerwise. McLain had a few good years, but so did many others. We’re not talking about building a team that you’d have for one year; you have to look at the player’s body of work. Ron Guidry, for example, was THE dominant righty in the seventies, and yet he’s not mentioned in the same breath as others.

I noticed Jonathan Chance posted, and I figured he was along to debunk anything I said. Ah, good. He didn’t. :wink:

9

Guidry was a leftie.

Having seen all of the above play, my vote goes to Koufax. I think complete games should weigh more than innings and anyone who completes 44% of their starts and dominates like he did offsets longevity to a great degree.

10

I realize you’re admitting a level of bias, but even for a short period of time McLain and Ruth were certainly not the greatest pitchers of all time. McLain’s 31-win season is no more impressive than Dwight Gooden’s 24-win season given the context. Actually, Gooden’s season was probably better. Nobody thinks Dwight Gooden is one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Lots of pitchers since 1968 have had better years - Clemens, Martinez, Carlton, Johnson, and others.

11

Oh, and Roger Maris has a longer career than Denny McLain, by the way. If he was a one-year wonder, why did he win TWO MVP Awards?

12

Sorry about that. No Yankee fan I, but I didn’t even think about that bit clearly.

13

“Greatness” has subjective definitions, as we’ve seen in this thread.

I’ll agree with CBEscapee: There has been no pitcher as dominant as Koufax was in the years preceeding his arm problem. Koufax retired as soon as his arm problems started. It’s very likely that had today’s medical techniques been available, Koufax could have lasted as long as any of the others.

Anyway, if I could pick one pitcher, in his prime, to win a game for me I’d choose Koufax. It wouldn’t take any lengthy thinking or complicated analysis on my part to make that decision. He was that good.

14

Pedro Martinez 152-63 1,892 2.62 171
Randy Johnson 224-106 3,008 3.06 144

What about relievers? John Franco has a career ERA+ of 143; 136 for Bruce Sutter and 132 for Lee Smith.

15

Give me Bob Gibson in 1968 and I’ll be perfectly happy.

16

Nice to know I’m feared in some quarters!

I don’t think RJ and Pedro can be considered because of the lack of length in which they’re dominant. If RJ lasts another 5 years we might talk about it. And Pedro has been much too fragile. I think there’s severe doubts that he’ll last all that much longer. The Saberhagen track (an astonishing pitcher for smaller and smaller periods of time) looks likely for him.

CBEspcapee, it’s very likely that all those complete games led to Koufax breaking down so young. Don’t go bragging on those complete games when it’s become clearer by the season that it can be a strong negative indicator of long-term health and success to throw that many pitches a season.

17

I was not old enough to see Spahn or Gibson, and I just starting becoming a baseball fan at the tail end of Seaver’s career.
Between Clemens and Maddux at this point? Flip a coin. I think the next couple years will tell us if there’s going to be any difference. Clemens is 3 years older than Maddux … I think we’ll see Maddux reach 300 sometime late next season.

18

What about Nolan Ryan? He is my favorite.

I loved it when Ventura charged the mound and Nolan put the boy in a head-lock and punched away.

19

That was my point exactly. Pitchers weren’t pampered then and were expected to throw more. Would Clemens have lasted 12 years or had the sucess he’s had if he had to pitch all of those innings on 4 days rest? I think Koufax has plenty to brag about.

Just for fun here’s a few comparisons.

Koufax career: 12 seasons, 4 Cy Youngs, 3 Triple Crowns, 2 World Series MVP

Clemens career: 20 seasons, 6 Cy Youngs, 2 Triple Crowns

Best 4 consecutive years:

Koufax:

1963 25-5, 311 IP, 11 SHO, 306 SO, 1.88 ERA 161 ERA+

1964 19-5, 223 IP, 7 SHO, 223 SO, 1.74 ERA 187 ERA+

1965 26-8, 335 IP, 8 SHO, 382 SO, 2.04 ERA 160 ERA+

1966 27-9, 323 IP, 5 SHO, 317 SO, 1.73 ERA 190 ERA+

Clemens

1986 24-4, 254 IP, 1 SHO, 238 SO, 2.48 ERA 169 ERA+

1987 20-9, 281 IP, 7 SHO, 256 SO, 2.97 ERA 1.54 ERA+

1988 18-12, 264 IP, 8 SHO, 291 SO, 2.93 ERA 1.41 ERA+

1989 17-11, 253 IP, 3 SHO, 230 SO, 3.13 ERA 1.32 ERA+

20

I saw Warren Spahn pitch, and he was good, and a fair hitter too.

I also saw Robin Roberts play, and I thought he was very very good.

Why isnt Robin Roberts on anybodys list? He played for some pretty crappy teams for most of his carreer, but still won 286 games, with a lifetime era of 3.41 in front of some lousey fielders. He also had 305 complete games. If Robin Roberts was playing for the Yankees with Mantle and Dimaggio backing him up, he would be on everybody’s list. You guys arent taking into account the the teams that these pitchers played with.

(I know this is a “post ww2” topic, but for the record, Babe Ruth had 94 wins and 46 losses, with a lifetime era of 2.28, and 107 complete games)