Well said.
Seems to me you can cook up stats that favor any one particular great pitcher. I remember that Seaver, Carlton and Palmer were all considered great pitchers in the seventies. In the seventies, Seaver evidently wins that ERA+. How about percentage of a team’s wins? In the seventies, Steve Carlton might win that one. I’m sure there is a stat in which Palmer comes out ahead. But, let’s not forget Ryan who was not all that highly considered because of his win-loss percentage - until he lasted forever and could still throw that fast ball at 40.
In my opinion, it is all kind of silly. Picking the greatest pitcher is no easier than picking the greatest hitter. Parks change, balls change, training changes. It just can’t be done.
Roberts was a pretty great pitcher, a Hall of Famer to be sure, but I wouldn’t say he was in the league of Seaver or Clemens. After all, he lost 245 games to go along with the 286 wins. He was every bit the pitcher Nolan Ryan or Steve Carlton were, though.
Actually, Robin Roberts is a case of a pitcher who might have been much greater than he was if he hadn’t been overworked. Roberts was in the Phillies’ rotation by the time he was 21. From age 23 to 28 he pitched more than 300 innings every year and won a gigantic boatload of games, including 28 wins in 1952, which I believe is the post-war National League record.
Then around age 28-29, his arm seems to have blown. He kept pitching, but he just was not the same pitcher; his ERA ballooned and he started giving up really massive numbers of home runs. He was never the same pitcher, although he had a nice little season with the Orioles in '62. I strongly suspect the overwork in his 20s damaged his arm. If they’d just pitched him a little less…
Oh, I’m not saying that Koufax doesn’t have a lot in his favor. But think how good he could have been had he not suffered under the misdirected ‘macho’ attitudes towards pitching that dominated the sport until the late 80s. The fascination with the complete game has cost more pitchers their careers than any other factor.
I think it’s short-sighted to say that because he pitched complete games he’s a better pitcher. His numbers would likely have been much better if he hadn’t pitched all those innings. Would we even be having this discussion if Koufax had been able to pitch until he was 40? No, the question would be asked and answered.
What are we, Rick?
Twins?
For the most part we agree, but I’m not so sure it was “misdirected ‘macho’ attitudes” but simply just the way it was back then. Another factor may have been the salary difference. At today’s salaries teams certainly don’t want to be paying millions of dollars for pitching talent residing on the DL. They have way too much at stake financially.
And my point wasn’t that because he pitched all those complete games he was the better pitcher. IMO Neyer gives too much weight to longevity. Maybe he could have used a “minimum seasons pitched” or “minimum games started” similar to the way minimums are required for batting or era titles.
How about asking this question:
Which pitcher (minimum 150 wins or 10 seasons etc.) would you want to have on the mound in the 7th game of the World Series?
I doubt Maddux or Clemens would be in the top 5, maybe even the top 10.
Koufax would be my lefthander and Gibson for the right side.
Oh and I made a mistake on Koufax’ Cy Young awards. He only won 3 but I didn’t include a NL MVP.
Maddux is not much of a postseason pitcher, and Clemens’ record isn’t great either. And neither is that of Randy Johnson, who I think does merit consideration as one of the most dominant pitchers ever. I might want John Smoltz, if he was still starting. 
I know he’s not the best ever, but he’s my personal favorite and IS a great postseason pitcher.
If we’re not limiting it to active players, I’d take Jack Morris. 
Greg Maddux’s career postseason ERA is 3.23. Considering that’s in a super-duper-hitting era against the best teams, I don’t think you can blame him for the 11-13 record. There is probably no living pitcher who has gotten screwed by his teammates choking in the postseason more than Greg Maddux.
Roger Clemens, meanwhile, is 9-6 with a 3.46 ERA. How is that bad?
Although it is true that he hasn’t pitched long enough to be considered the greatest since WWII, Pedro Martinez has clearly had the highest peak of any pitcher. It’s not even close.
To take his best four year span, along the lines of CBEscapee:
Martinez
1997 17-8, 241 IP, 4 SHO, 305 SO, 1.90 ERA, 221 ERA+
1998 19-7, 233 IP, 2 SHO, 251 SO, 2,89 ERA, 160 ERA+
1999 23-4, 213 IP, 1 SHO, 313 SO, 2.07 ERA, 245 ERA+
2000 18-6, 217 IP, 4 SHO, 284 SO, 1.74 ERA, 285 ERA+
That’s three of the top ten ERA+ seasons since WWII, all in a four year span. I know, he hasn’t pitched as many innings as Koufax, but when he pitched over those four years he’s been the most dominant pitcher, hands down.
The only span of time that comes close to that is Maddux of the mid nineties - his 1994 and 1995 are the second and fourth best ERA+ seasons since WWII. Those were both strike shortened years, however.
I’d also take Pedro to start one game for me, no question. And I’m a Yankee fan…
Really? I’m curious, why do you think this? I think of Carlton as being in the same league as Clemens and Seaver–perhaps not quite as great, but a notch or two above pitchers like Roberts or Ryan (both of whom I admire). 329 wins, 4 Cy Youngs, 4136 K’s…again, just curious…
Then he’d immediately hurt his arm, shoulder, groin, or something and be done for the series. He brings new meaning to the word “fragile.”
Ah, but the question that was raised earlier was who would you want to start game seven of a World Series. Who cares if he gets hurt after that?
I do agree, he is incredibly fragile. It’s interesting to think about where his career goes from here. He’s just 31 - where would you put the over/under on the number of games he’ll win for the rest of his career? Off the top of my head, I’d guess 60.
I always thought he was a lot older. Seems like he’s been around a long a long, long time. Remember when he was the kid and his brother Ramon was the older, wiser one?
Yep. Pedro is definitely fragile. And, he’s turning out to be almost as much of a whiny, spoiled, prima-donna as Roger “Fatboy” Clemens was, when he was here. But, he’s smarter. I believe he pulled a real fast one, in pressuring the Red Sox ownership to renew his contract at the beginning of this season. I think he knew he wasn’t going to be healthy, and that his bargaining position would be worse at the end of the season, when his renewal was due.
It was cool, for a while, when he and Ramon pitched back-to-back games. Before Ramon’s arm gave out. That was a shame. He always seemed like a class act.
And, I gotta say, while Fatboy may well be the best post-war pitcher, so far, I was still laughing over the whupping we gave him, today, when I spotted this thread. Especially after they made such a big deal out of it being “Roger Clemens Day”. “Come see Roger win his 300th game, against the team he hates the most!..errr…he what?..what do you mean, lost?” BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Well, with all due respect… Dan Duquette screwed up the Clemens situation, thereby making him not want to be there, anyway. He said Clemens was washed up.
Ah, the well-reasoned, thoughtful Boston fans!
I was there. He had nothing, except for one inning when he struck out the side. He hasn’t had much the last few starts.
Originally the game was supposed to be Pedro vs Clemens, that would have been fun.
BITE YOUR TONGUE!
Not for acknowledging the underrated Roberts, but for the lousy-fielder line. Roberts was a fly ball pitcher, aided by having behind him the greatest flychaser ever, Richie Ashburn.
Of course Del Ennis in left sort of evened things out.
I wonder if Bob Feller got excluded simply because hit pitched both before and after WW II? Given that he was still pretty successful even after his “hiatus,” I wonder how his stats should be computed to make a legitimate comparison to Neyer’s selection?
[ hijack ] I always find the W-L records to be a bit deceiving. I certainly enjoyed watching McLain get his 31 wins, but I also recall that many of his wins were of the 5-2 or 7-3 variety while, in 1968, Mickey Lolich “only” got 17 wins, (to McLain’s 22), but most of his losses were of the 1-0 variety. In other words, McLain got better offensive support than Lolich did and I’m not sure how that can/should be reconciled with the total statistics. (After all, Lolich almost single-handedly took the 1968 Series away from Bob Gibson–even hitting to help the team–while McLain simply could not pull it together for the Series.)
[ /hijack ]
What would interest me is to see some sort of TRP (Team Runs Produced) against the ERA to give some sort of idea of if the guy is getting run support. You can go 9 and give up one run and get a loss, but that’s a lot harder to do than going 6, giving up 5, and winning because your team got 6 for you.