Best pitcher of our era

[NetNerdsRevenge]

should I make a poll?

Im gonna say Pedro. career 166 ERA+, 2.72 ERA, 1.021 WHIP, 2,861 K, 662 BB.

not to bad

[Caleb Cattivera]

poll it up.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

alright, give me some names?

Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Johnson, Schilling, who else?

we could extend this beyond our era if need be.

[Caleb Cattivera]

alright, give me some names?

Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Johnson, Schilling, who else?

we could extend this beyond our era if need be.

lets do it from our era. players we've seen.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

ok well before I make a poll, lets get 5 or 6 good names up. Off the top of my head I would say Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Johnson, and maybe Schilling. what are some other names? do we want to include closers?

[xearlynovemberx]

should I make a poll?

Im gonna say Pedro. career 166 ERA+, 2.72 ERA, 1.021 WHIP, 2,861 K, 662 BB.

not to bad

pedro love baby!:D

[xearlynovemberx]

ok well before I make a poll, lets get 5 or 6 good names up. Off the top of my head I would say Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Johnson, and maybe Schilling. what are some other names? do we want to include closers?

i was going to say maddux but then i saw you had him on the list i cant really think of anyone else

[hockey0001]

santana could be added. But he has only really had a couple good years, not nearly as many as the names listed above.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

poll is up.

we could make another about up and coming. That could be an interesting thread.

[mikeford]

anyone who doesnt say clemens is dumb.

[xearlynovemberx]

poll is up.

we could make another about up and coming. That could be an interesting thread.

that would be cool

[Spicoli hey bud]

I say Clemens actually. 22 years and his numbers are better than ever. Pedros numbers are great but I'd like to see a few more years of stats. Randy has had a great career as well.

[thejetstolehome]

i hate to do it because for some reason i just HATE roger clemens, but i have to vote for him. consistent domination. as much as i hate him, he trots out there and gets his job done better than just about anyone else. he's just unspekably good.

[bigmike]

yeah, i've got to go clemens. but i loved watching maddux pitch. and it'll be hard for someone to win 15 games a year for like 16 years or something.

[thejetstolehome]

yeah, i've got to go clemens. but i loved watching maddux pitch. and it'll be hard for someone to win 15 games a year for like 16 years or something.

that's exactly why i wanted to vote for maddux, and because i actually like him, but he's just not as dominating as clemens is/was.

[bigmike]

that's exactly why i wanted to vote for maddux, and because i actually like him, but he's just not as dominating as clemens is/was.
i think you could make a case for maddux being 'dominant'. He just wasn't as over powering.

[mikeford]

seriously i hate clemens more than anyone on this board but if you dont say clemens you're stupid.

[wessa]

seriously i hate clemens more than anyone on this board but if you dont say clemens you're stupid.

um, no. You are stupid for only considering clemens. I was going to say clemens before i saw maddux up there. clemens has 341 wins, 318 for maddux (in two less seasons). Just because clemens had an amazing season last year doesn't mean that he is the clear cut best pitcher of the last 15 years. Plus clemens is a bitch with his demands the last few seasons. I am sure if maddux didn't go with the team to certain games if he wasnt pitching he would be a little more rested and would have some more wins. Maddux is also the greatest fielding pitcher ever (15 gold gloves) and he was one of the best hitting pitchers during most of his time in the league. Also, maddux almost never walks guys, clemens has thrown like 600 more walks in his career. So do not be an ass and say that clemens is hands down the best.

[Doug]

clemens is the best. pedro had the best stretch. randy was the most dominant. maddux is definately fourth. he's been a great pitcher on a great team for a long time. but he doesn't touch clemens.

[mikeford]

um, no. You are stupid for only considering clemens. I was going to say clemens before i saw maddux up there. clemens has 341 wins, 318 for maddux (in two less seasons). Just because clemens had an amazing season last year doesn't mean that he is the clear cut best pitcher of the last 15 years. Plus clemens is a bitch with his demands the last few seasons. I am sure if maddux didn't go with the team to certain games if he wasnt pitching he would be a little more rested and would have some more wins. Maddux is also the greatest fielding pitcher ever (15 gold gloves) and he was one of the best hitting pitchers during most of his time in the league. Also, maddux almost never walks guys, clemens has thrown like 600 more walks in his career. So do not be an ass and say that clemens is hands down the best.

clemens has SEVEN cy young awards dogg.

sit down with that greg maddux shit.

7>4

[Talib Scottie]

Maddux is the most consistant pitcher whereas Pedro is injury prone. Even though Clemons had a few off years but I chose him.

[mikeford]

it should also be noted that clemens tanked 3 seasons in a row to get out of boston cuz he didnt wann work for dan duquette anymore.

so you might as well either pencil him in for 15 in each of those seasons or erase those seasons from his list.

[wessa]

it should also be noted that clemens tanked 3 seasons in a row to get out of boston cuz he didnt wann work for dan duquette anymore.

so you might as well either pencil him in for 15 in each of those seasons or erase those seasons from his list.


you just lost all credibility in this conversation.

[Loch_Doun]

schilling is the pitcher i'd pick to win a big game; with pedro a very close 2nd
and when it comes to pure stuff; i'd go with johnson or clemens

[NetNerdsRevenge]

clemens has SEVEN cy young awards dogg.

sit down with that greg maddux shit.

7>4
Cy-young’s are usually based off of wins, which you cannot judge when judging a pitcher. Roger is dominate now, but he wasn’t always the most dominate pitcher. I think Roger could get the nod because of his longevity, but if (and Ill agree its a big if) Pedro stays healthy he could pass Roger SO total, maintain his lower ERA +, ERA, and BB rate.

And before you rant about Clemens last 3 years, his last year in Boston he had 242 IP, 257 SO, and a 142 ERA+.

[Doug]

you just lost all credibility in this conversation.

being a good pitcher has nothing to do with being a good dude

[weezer182]

Clemens is the best but Maddux is one of my all-time favorite pitchers

[Talib Scottie]

Clemens has been a top pitcher in three seperate decades. It's hard to top that.

[Chriz2z]

Roger Clemens is just so overpowering. The batters have trouble catching up. I love how his ERA was so low for most of last year, but his team couldn't win any games for him.

[thejetstolehome]

Clemens has been a top pitcher in three seperate decades. It's hard to top that.

it's ridiculous. that's why, against my wishes, i have to say he's the best in our era. however, maddux's consistency is also absolutely insane.

[Talib Scottie]

it's ridiculous. that's why, against my wishes, i have to say he's the best in our era. however, maddux's consistency is also absolutely insane.
Yeah, Clemems and Maddux are easily 1 and 2 on this list

[thejetstolehome]

Yeah, Clemems and Maddux are easily 1 and 2 on this list

without a doubt. i love pitchers like maddux--guys who don't have overpowering stuff but can paint the corners like no on else. as a baseball player, i'd rather bat against a power pitcher like clemens than a guy like maddux. while clemens can overpower a hitter, the harder a ball comes in, the harder it goes out. with maddux, he just has so many ways to fool you and to make you look like a complete douchebag at the plate.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

no love for pedro. I would take his numbers over anyone of the other 3 right now.

[Doug]

the one vote for "other" better have been for john rocker.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Where is Rocker? Last I heard he was playing for some independent league.

[Doug]

Where is Rocker? Last I heard he was playing for some independent league.

he's off somewhere being the best pitcher of our era

[mikeford]

maybe it was david wells. hes the best pitcher of our era.

drinker of pitchers, i mean.

[yeat182]

roger clemens has been pitching for longer than most people on this board have been alive, so i think he doesn't qualify for the best of "our" generation.

[jaimej]

Gotta go with Rog.

[jaimej]

roger clemens has been pitching for longer than most people on this board have been alive, so i think he doesn't qualify for the best of "our" generation.
For the majority of them, he has. He definitely qualifies.

[yeat182]

For the majority of them, he has. He definitely qualifies.

how does he qualify if most of the people weren't even alive when he started pitching. if thats the case, then nolan ryan should be on that list as well.

[Doug]

how does he qualify if most of the people weren't even alive when he started pitching. if thats the case, then nolan ryan should be on that list as well.

because roger clemens is still pitching, everyone on this board has watched him for at least 15 years.

[yeat182]

because roger clemens is still pitching, everyone on this board has watched him for at least 15 years.

meh, i suppose. i just find it strange because he's really the best pitcher of the last era, he's just still going. but whatever.

[mikeford]

i was born in 1985.

clemens starting pitching in 1983.

thus, my entire baseball life, he's been pitching.

that still qualifies as "my" generation.

[jaimej]

because roger clemens is still pitching, everyone on this board has watched him for at least 15 years.
Fact.

[yeat182]

i was born in 1985.

clemens starting pitching in 1983.

thus, my entire baseball life, he's been pitching.

that still qualifies as "my" generation.


if you say so.

[Caleb Cattivera]

roger clemens has been pitching for longer than most people on this board have been alive, so i think he doesn't qualify for the best of "our" generation.

haha are you fucking serious? we've all seen him play for at least 10 years. i remember seeing him pitch at a game when i was seven...

that's definatley OUR generation.

[Caleb Cattivera]

and of this list id say the order is 1. clemens 2.maddux 3. johnson 4. pedro

[Scott Weber]

Clemens, easily.

[yeat182]

and of this list id say the order is 1. clemens 2.maddux 3. johnson 4. pedro

pedro is at worst the #2.

[yeat182]

haha are you fucking serious? we've all seen him play for at least 10 years. i remember seeing him pitch at a game when i was seven...

that's definatley OUR generation.

who would you say is the best QB of our era? or the best shooting guard?

also, it should say 'best starting pitcher', RJ was a closer for most of his career.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

and of this list id say the order is 1. clemens 2.maddux 3. johnson 4. pedro
you are on serious drugs if you have pedro as #4. I have him #1 based on his ERA and SO numbers at age 33. If he can pitch into his 40's like Roger (which is another question) he will no doubt reach the level we view Clemens on. Roger is almost done in our era, Pedro still has another 6 or 7 years.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

RJ was a closer for most of his career.
not according to this...

http://baseball-reference.com/j/johnsra05.shtml

[yeat182]

not according to this...

http://baseball-reference.com/j/johnsra05.shtml

hmm..weird, why did i think he was a closer while he was out in Seattle?

[Scott Weber]

hmm..weird, why did i think he was a closer while he was out in Seattle?
I don't know, he definitely wasn't. He came in as a closer in the movie Little Big League though. Hahahahahaha.

[Scott Weber]

roger clemens has been pitching for longer than most people on this board have been alive, so i think he doesn't qualify for the best of "our" generation.
Haha, that's so funny that you say that because Clemens rookie year was 1983, when I was born, and he's still pitching, in 2005, and had the best ERA in the majors last year if I'm not mistaken...I don't know what's a better definition of "my generation" than a guy whose career has spanned my entire life.

[Caleb Cattivera]

you are on serious drugs if you have pedro as #4. I have him #1 based on his ERA and SO numbers at age 33. If he can pitch into his 40's like Roger (which is another question) he will no doubt reach the level we view Clemens on. Roger is almost done in our era, Pedro still has another 6 or 7 years.

then i guess im on serious drugs

im going based on how, they've helped...and what they've done for thier teams, and also their individual perfromances. if you have martinez ahead of maddux and all of his gold gloves...youre on serious drugs.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

then i guess im on serious drugs

im going based on how, they've helped...and what they've done for thier teams, and also their individual perfromances. if you have martinez ahead of maddux and all of his gold gloves...youre on serious drugs.
When you start basing the quality of a pitcher of off gold gloves, you are not analyzing it correctly. Pedro has a lower ERA, higher ERA+, will pass him in SO, stay below him in walks, and either equal or come close to his IP by the time both are done. I dont see how you rate Pedro's performance or value to his team lower than Maddux. Keep in mind, Pedro has pitched 7 years in the AL which is tougher on pitchers

[Scott Weber]

then i guess im on serious drugs

im going based on how, they've helped...and what they've done for thier teams, and also their individual perfromances. if you have martinez ahead of maddux and all of his gold gloves...youre on serious drugs.
plus Pedro's career is seriously on the decline. Randy's best years came when he was like 37, 38...Clemens has been a total stud and he's well into his 40's. Pedro's best years clearly appear to be over, and his numbers have never been as dominating as RJ or Clemens....nor has he ever been as steadily consistent as Maddux once was.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

plus Pedro's career is seriously on the decline
Maybe with injury, but moving to the NL is going to help him. He pitched more innings the last two years than he did in 01, 02, and 03. Clemens also had a stretch such as this and now look at him.

[yeat182]

then i guess im on serious drugs

im going based on how, they've helped...and what they've done for thier teams, and also their individual perfromances. if you have martinez ahead of maddux and all of his gold gloves...youre on serious drugs.

gold gloves for a pitcher are almost irrelevant, its a fielding award, so a good pitcher shouldn't have to do much fielding. i'd go by strike outs, era or cy youngs.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

his numbers have never been as dominating as RJ or Clemens
he happens to be ahead in ERA and ERA+. And im sure if I had the time, is on track with their SO, BB, and IP.

[jaimej]

plus Pedro's career is seriously on the decline. Randy's best years came when he was like 37, 38...Clemens has been a total stud and he's well into his 40's. Pedro's best years clearly appear to be over, and his numbers have never been as dominating as RJ or Clemens....nor has he ever been as steadily consistent as Maddux once was.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

[yeat182]

Haha, that's so funny that you say that because Clemens rookie year was 1983, when I was born, and he's still pitching, in 2005, and had the best ERA in the majors last year if I'm not mistaken...I don't know what's a better definition of "my generation" than a guy whose career has spanned my entire life.


larry birds carreer spanned my entire life but i don't consider it my generation really, i don't know, i guess its different cuz he's still going but it just seems weird to me.

[yeat182]

plus Pedro's career is seriously on the decline. Randy's best years came when he was like 37, 38...Clemens has been a total stud and he's well into his 40's. Pedro's best years clearly appear to be over, and his numbers have never been as dominating as RJ or Clemens....nor has he ever been as steadily consistent as Maddux once was.

pedro was the most dominating pitcher from '98 to about '02.

[jaimej]

larry birds carreer spanned my entire life but i don't consider it my generation really, i don't know, i guess its different cuz he's still going but it just seems weird to me.
Well then you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Give it up. This is annoying.

[yeat182]

Well then you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Give it up. This is annoying.
then don't waste your time writing a response.

[Scott Weber]

gold gloves for a pitcher are almost irrelevant, its a fielding award, so a good pitcher shouldn't have to do much fielding. i'd go by strike outs, era or cy youngs.
Strike outs are also somewhat irrelevant. An out is an out, and some of the most successful pitchers in MLB history have not relied on strikeouts to get people out and they've had amazing careers (Maddux)

[Scott Weber]

larry birds carreer spanned my entire life but i don't consider it my generation really, i don't know, i guess its different cuz he's still going but it just seems weird to me.
What are you talking about, Larry Bird retired like 14 years ago, he did not span your entire life, he was a player when you were a little kid, that's totally different than Clemens, who's been dominating over the course of our entire lives. Give it up.

[yeat182]

Strike outs are also somewhat irrelevant. An out is an out, and some of the most successful pitchers in MLB history have not relied on strikeouts to get people out and they've had amazing careers (Maddux)

thats true. however, the NL has at least 1 easy out in the line up. you can certainly be a great pitcher without striking everyone out, but someone that does get those SO should get credit for it.

[yeat182]

What are you talking about, Larry Bird retired like 14 years ago, he did not span your entire life, he was a player when you were a little kid, that's totally different than Clemens, who's been dominating over the course of our entire lives. Give it up.

hence, " i guess its different cuz he's (clemens) is still going"

i just find it weird, thats all, especially since most people that visit this site are probably under the age of 18.

[Scott Weber]

thats true. however, the NL has at least 1 easy out in the line up. you can certainly be a great pitcher without striking everyone out, but someone that does get those SO should get credit for it.
Strikeouts are more of a glory statistic to me. Cool, but not important in determining a pitcher's success. And the only reason I mentioned the Bird thing was because you said it spanned your entire life when it only spanned like less than half of it.

[yeat182]

Strikeouts are more of a glory statistic to me. Cool, but not important in determining a pitcher's success. And the only reason I mentioned the Bird thing was because you said it spanned your entire life when it only spanned like less than half of it.

yeah, i see. i guess i meant my life spanned his entire career.

btw, i'm not saying Clemens isn't deserving of it, he's HOF for certain, and still one of, if not the best pitcher in the league right now. I guess it has more to do with me being old, and less to do with other people being young.

[Scott Weber]

yeah, i see. i guess i meant my life spanned his entire career.

btw, i'm not saying Clemens isn't deserving of it, he's HOF for certain, and still one of, if not the best pitcher in the league right now. I guess it has more to do with me being old, and less to do with other people being young.
yeah, i see your point

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Strike outs are also somewhat irrelevant. An out is an out, and some of the most successful pitchers in MLB history have not relied on strikeouts to get people out and they've had amazing careers (Maddux)
hahaha, no, you couldn’t be more wrong. A strikeout defines a pitcher. A ball on the ground or in the air is the responsibility of the defense, which can be ultra good or ultra bad. That’s why ERA is a somewhat misleading stat. ERA relies on outside forces, which is why I use stats such as ERA+ because they adjust it for league averages. Pitchers strikeout and walks rates are his sole responsibility. It’s completely absurd to call a strike out irrelevant. It deals with the most important aspect of the game, the strike zone. Controlling the strike zone makes or breaks a team on a certain day or season. Maddux has the ability to control the strike zone by spotting the ball and also keeps his walks down. He also has pitched in front of good defensive teams and is able to keep the ball on the ground more, which helps in Chicago.

[jaimej]

hence, " i guess its different cuz he's (clemens) is still going"

i just find it weird, thats all, especially since most people that visit this site are probably under the age of 18.
Well it just so happens that the people in this thread are not.

[wessa]

hahaha, no, you couldn’t be more wrong. A strikeout defines a pitcher. A ball on the ground or in the air is the responsibility of the defense, which can be ultra good or ultra bad. That’s why ERA is a somewhat misleading stat. ERA relies on outside forces, which is why I use stats such as ERA+ because they adjust it for league averages. Pitchers strikeout and walks rates are his sole responsibility. It’s completely absurd to call a strike out irrelevant. It deals with the most important aspect of the game, the strike zone. Controlling the strike zone makes or breaks a team on a certain day or season. Maddux has the ability to control the strike zone by spotting the ball and also keeps his walks down. He also has pitched in front of good defensive teams and is able to keep the ball on the ground more, which helps in Chicago.


Dude, you are an idiot. Clemens is a power pitcher. Strikeouts are a lot more common for him. There are a lot of pitchers who force hitters into hitting groundballs. If you knew anything about baseball, you would know that if the "outside forces" as you call them make a mistake when the pitcher (god forbid) allows a batter to hit the ball, it is called an error. If that person scored, it is considered an UNEARNED RUN. ERA DOES NOT INCLUDE THESE RUNS. SO ERA DOES NOT RELY ON THE DEFENSE NOT MAKING MISTAKES. By saying a stikeout defines a pitcher, you are obviously saying that clemens was much greater than maddux. Yet than you say the controlling the strike zone is the most important aspect of being a pitcher. Any person who knows something about baseball will tell you that Maddux was the greatest of his time at controlling the strike zone. When you are able to throw very hard (like clemens), you have a greater ability to make people chase pitches, making the strike zone less relevant. Also, Maddux has thrown like 600 less walks in his career than clemens.

[wessa]

gold gloves for a pitcher are almost irrelevant, its a fielding award, so a good pitcher shouldn't have to do much fielding. i'd go by strike outs, era or cy youngs.

I wouldn't compare cy youngs. they pitched in different leagues. Pitching is usually better in the national league so maddux had more competition than clemens for most of his career. And why are gold gloves irrelevent. Part of the position is fielding the position. And the fact that he has won the gold glove 15 times is ridiculous.

[Scott Weber]

hahaha, no, you couldn’t be more wrong. A strikeout defines a pitcher. A ball on the ground or in the air is the responsibility of the defense, which can be ultra good or ultra bad.
hahahahahahahahaha that is seriously the funniest thing I have ever read, oh my god, thank you for that.

[Scott Weber]

Dude, you are an idiot. Clemens is a power pitcher. Strikeouts are a lot more common for him. There are a lot of pitchers who force hitters into hitting groundballs. If you knew anything about baseball, you would know that if the "outside forces" as you call them make a mistake when the pitcher (god forbid) allows a batter to hit the ball, it is called an error. If that person scored, it is considered an UNEARNED RUN. ERA DOES NOT INCLUDE THESE RUNS. SO ERA DOES NOT RELY ON THE DEFENSE NOT MAKING MISTAKES. By saying a stikeout defines a pitcher, you are obviously saying that clemens was much greater than maddux. Yet than you say the controlling the strike zone is the most important aspect of being a pitcher. Any person who knows something about baseball will tell you that Maddux was the greatest of his time at controlling the strike zone. When you are able to throw very hard (like clemens), you have a greater ability to make people chase pitches, making the strike zone less relevant. Also, Maddux has thrown like 600 less walks in his career than clemens.
thaaaaaaank you.

[thejetstolehome]

hahahahahahahahaha that is seriously the funniest thing I have ever read, oh my god, thank you for that.

yea that was a nice and funny joke. strikeouts in no way define pitchers. so long as a pitcher can throw strikes (not necessarily strikeouts...just put the ball over the plate) and get outs, he's a good pitcher. some of the best pitchers i've played behind (granted at a much lower level) barely struck anyone out but forced hitters to pop-up or hit ground balls. not only were they easy outs but they kept us fielders on our toes so we would be less tense and make less errors. they made us look good and we made him look good.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Dude, you are an idiot. Clemens is a power pitcher. Strikeouts are a lot more common for him. There are a lot of pitchers who force hitters into hitting groundballs. If you knew anything about baseball, you would know that if the "outside forces" as you call them make a mistake when the pitcher (god forbid) allows a batter to hit the ball, it is called an error. If that person scored, it is considered an UNEARNED RUN. ERA DOES NOT INCLUDE THESE RUNS. SO ERA DOES NOT RELY ON THE DEFENSE NOT MAKING MISTAKES. By saying a stikeout defines a pitcher, you are obviously saying that clemens was much greater than maddux. Yet than you say the controlling the strike zone is the most important aspect of being a pitcher. Any person who knows something about baseball will tell you that Maddux was the greatest of his time at controlling the strike zone. When you are able to throw very hard (like clemens), you have a greater ability to make people chase pitches, making the strike zone less relevant. Also, Maddux has thrown like 600 less walks in his career than clemens.
errors are arbitrary. let me ask you something, where in my post did I ever say Maddux wasn't the best at controlling the strike zone? That's why he is on this list, hello! however, Rogers superior number in strikeouts is also controlling the strike zone. you must have misinterpreted what I meant...controlling the strike means throwing strikes, striking hitters out, not walking many. You must be stupid if you think Clemens can‘t paint the corner. Roger has more walks, yes, but also makes up for it with more strike outs.

don’t be ignorant like Scott and say strikeouts are irrelevant. and don’t think errors tell the whole story, because they don’t. there are much more complicated defensive metrics id be happy to show you.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

yea that was a nice and funny joke. strikeouts in no way define pitchers. so long as a pitcher can throw strikes (not necessarily strikeouts...just put the ball over the plate) and get outs, he's a good pitcher. some of the best pitchers i've played behind (granted at a much lower level) barely struck anyone out but forced hitters to pop-up or hit ground balls. not only were they easy outs but they kept us fielders on our toes so we would be less tense and make less errors. they made us look good and we made him look good.
its called defense. its an outside force. a strikeout is all on the pitcher.

[thejetstolehome]

its called defense. its an outside force. a strikeout is all on the pitcher.

true but that doesn't mean a strikeout is the only thing that defines a pitcher or makes him good. an out is an out. if a pitcher can make a hitter swing at a bad pitch and ground out, it's the same as getting him to strike out. i love strikeouts but an out is an out. so long as a pitcher can get outs, he's good in my book. and defense isn't that much of an outside force. if a pitcher throws a lot of ground balls, he keeps his defesne sharp.

[wessa]

its called defense. its an outside force. a strikeout is all on the pitcher.

ass, stop responding with your garbage. So you are saying that a strikeout has never occured when a player has swung at a ball outside of the strike zone? Isn't that an outside force that is helping the pitcher get the strikeout? I never said strikeouts were irrlevent, but they are not nearly as important as you think they are. How can you say strikeouts show you have a superior command of the strike zone? Does Armando Benitez have a superior command of the strikezone? NOOOO. But he does throw 99 miles per hour.

[thejetstolehome]

ass, stop responding with your garbage. So you are saying that a strikeout has never occured when a player has swung at a ball outside of the strike zone? Isn't that an outside force that is helping the pitcher get the strikeout?

exactly...i forgot to say that.

[Goodbye Forever]

plus Pedro's career is seriously on the decline. Randy's best years came when he was like 37, 38...Clemens has been a total stud and he's well into his 40's. Pedro's best years clearly appear to be over, and his numbers have never been as dominating as RJ or Clemens....nor has he ever been as steadily consistent as Maddux once was.

Seriously on the decline?

In 2005, he was 4th in the majors in ERA, 1st in WHIP, 2nd in H/9IP, 6th in K's and K/9IP, 4th in CG, 6th in SO/W, and had the 6th best adjusted ERA.

And if you don't think his numbers for his career have been as dominating as Clemens or Johnson, you need to actually go look at career numbers. He has a better career ERA than either of them by nearly half a run, as well as a better career WHIP.

[Scott Weber]

don’t be ignorant like Scott and say strikeouts are irrelevant. and don’t think errors tell the whole story, because they don’t. there are much more complicated defensive metrics id be happy to show you.
ahem. I said "somewhat" irrelevant. Don't be an asshole.

[Scott Weber]

Seriously on the decline?

In 2005, he was 4th in the majors in ERA, 1st in WHIP, 2nd in H/9IP, 6th in K's and K/9IP, 4th in CG, 6th in SO/W, and had the 6th best adjusted ERA.

And if you don't think his numbers for his career have been as dominating as Clemens or Johnson, you need to actually go look at career numbers. He has a better career ERA than either of them by nearly half a run, as well as a better career WHIP.
You think I didn't look at his numbers? Look at where Pedro was 4-7 years ago. Then tell me his career isn't seriously on the decline. Come on. He went 15-8 last year. He's riddled with injuries. His ERA the past 2 years was higher than it'd been in the 6 years before that. Look at his strikeout numbers (yeah.) look at how many HRs he's giving up over the past couple years. Now you're trying to sit here and tell me his career isn't seriously on the decline? He's still one of the best, there's no argument there, but come on, seriously? It's gone downhill. A lot.

As far as the comparisons to Randy, Clemens, and Maddux, looking at career numbers is off, and you know it. Pedro is 34. Randy and Maddux have/are about to pitch well into their 40's and they've done it while continuing to be effective. Hell, Randy didn't even hit his peak until his mid 30's. That's the difference. Those guys were solid contributors to their teams for years and years and they've had huge impacts on their teams over their careers. Look at Maddux's career - scroll back 5 years to when he was 34 and you'll find that his career ERA was lower than Pedro's is at now. I really don't feel like I even need to address Roger.

[thejetstolehome]

in all fairness, the mets' bullpen blew a shitload of leads for pedro last year. he should've had a few more wins. he is, however, riddled with injuries but he's done something to combat that. he's a pretty small guy by power pitcher standards so he's toned down his velocity from 95-96 to 92-93 mas to take a load off of his shoulder. for a guy as small as him to have thrown that fast consistently is pretty sick. he's a great pitcher despite still taking off velocity 'cause he's now relying on his other pitches to get batters out. i still think he's got a few good years left in him as a starter and i think see him as a closer in the next few years because he is absolutely untouchable in his first few innings.

[wessa]

in all fairness, the mets' bullpen blew a shitload of leads for pedro last year. he should've had a few more wins. he is, however, riddled with injuries but he's done something to combat that. he's a pretty small guy by power pitcher standards so he's toned down his velocity from 95-96 to 92-93 mas to take a load off of his shoulder. for a guy as small as him to have thrown that fast consistently is pretty sick. he's a great pitcher despite still taking off velocity 'cause he's now relying on his other pitches to get batters out. i still think he's got a few good years left in him as a starter and i think see him as a closer in the next few years because he is absolutely untouchable in his first few innings.

92-93 is being generous for pedro. A lot of starts last year, his fastball was like 88.

[mikeford]

i cant believe people are seriously saying maddux.

youre on drugs.

whos takin the ball in game 7 of the world series out of these dudes?

Clemens.

[thejetstolehome]

92-93 is being generous for pedro. A lot of starts last year, his fastball was like 88.

he was still effective, though.

[wessa]

im suprised we made it through a conversation about clemens this long and nobody has even suggested that he used steroids at any point...oh crap, what have i done!

[thejetstolehome]

im suprised we made it through a conversation about clemens this long and nobody has even suggested that he used steroids at any point...oh crap, what have i done!

psh i've had that idea in the back of my mind the entire time. everyone likes to think that they don't but pitchers juice just as much, if not more, than position players.

[mikeford]

if clemens did roids he'd have to still be on them, otherwise he'd be racked with injuries

[Scott Weber]

i really don't think clemens took roids. people just get bigger as they get older sometimes...look at spud webb these days. hah.

[jaimej]

ahem. I said "somewhat" irrelevant. Don't be an asshole.
I love when people try and argue with you. I haven't seen you lose am argument on here yet. <3

[jaimej]

i really don't think clemens took roids. people just get bigger as they get older sometimes...look at spud webb these days. hah.
In Canseco's tell all book he named Clemens as the only stand up guy in the MLB. That he never cheated on his wife or did anything illegal.

[Scott Weber]

I love when people try and argue with you. I haven't seen you lose am argument on here yet. <3
oh jamie. By that logic, let's hope we never get into a serious Yankees suck debate then. ;)

[jaimej]

oh jamie. By that logic, let's hope we never get into a serious Yankees suck debate then. ;)
Notice how I've always avoided it, love.

[LeftWideOpen]

i cant believe people are seriously saying maddux.

youre on drugs.

whos takin the ball in game 7 of the world series out of these dudes?

Clemens.

yep. maddux was one of the best for 10 years or so ..clemens has done it for 20 ...end of story. there is no greater pitcher in the modern era of baseball ...the question that needs to be asked instead is this: is he the greatest pitcher ever?

[mikeford]

yep. maddux was one of the best for 10 years or so ..clemens has done it for 20 ...end of story. there is no greater pitcher in the modern era of baseball ...the question that needs to be asked instead is this: is he the greatest pitcher ever?

cy young.

[Scott Weber]

yep. maddux was one of the best for 10 years or so ..clemens has done it for 20 ...end of story. there is no greater pitcher in the modern era of baseball ...the question that needs to be asked instead is this: is he the greatest pitcher ever?
I can see an argument for it, but the game has changed so much over 100+ years that it's impossible to say if he's better than Walter Johnson or Cy Young, or even Sandy Koufax or Bob Feller.

[LeftWideOpen]

I can see an argument for it, but the game has changed so much over 100+ years that it's impossible to say if he's better than Walter Johnson or Cy Young, or even Sandy Koufax or Bob Feller.

that's how i feel about it all. offense has fluctuated so much over the history of baseball and there's even the question's of juiced, or dead, balls that need to be considered ..it's impossible to come to a definitive answer.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

ahem. I said "somewhat" irrelevant. Don't be an asshole.
They're not even "somewhat" irrelevant. A strikeout is the best thing a pitcher can do. It keeps runners of the bags and keeps him in the game.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

ass, stop responding with your garbage. So you are saying that a strikeout has never occured when a player has swung at a ball outside of the strike zone? Isn't that an outside force that is helping the pitcher get the strikeout? I never said strikeouts were irrlevent, but they are not nearly as important as you think they are. How can you say strikeouts show you have a superior command of the strike zone? Does Armando Benitez have a superior command of the strikezone? NOOOO. But he does throw 99 miles per hour.
stop putting words into my mouth to make yourself sound better. Of course a batter could strike out by swinging at a bad pitch, but now you’re going to tell me that every strike out is the batter fault and not the good pitch the pitcher threw? or maybe the pitcher threw something nasty that dives out of the strike zone and the batter swings at it because it looks good. why cant you comprehend that when judging a pitcher, strikeouts are one of the best forms of analysis? Strikeouts show that you have command of the game, its not just all luck. The more a pitcher can keep the ball out of play, the better chance his team has of winning that game. And when did I EVER say throwing heat meant control of the strike zone? you’re trying to get me on things I haven't said. Speed doesn't mean a thing if you cant control it. it helps, but if you can strike batter out with change ups and curve balls, be my guest.

strike outs are very important. fill a rotation with guys who have a high K/9 rate and watch what happens.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

true but that doesn't mean a strikeout is the only thing that defines a pitcher or makes him good. an out is an out. if a pitcher can make a hitter swing at a bad pitch and ground out, it's the same as getting him to strike out. i love strikeouts but an out is an out. so long as a pitcher can get outs, he's good in my book. and defense isn't that much of an outside force. if a pitcher throws a lot of ground balls, he keeps his defesne sharp.
but when placing value on a pitcher why would give him credit for something 2 or 3 guys did? An out cant be because of a good defense behind the pitcher? A strikeout is something he can control directly, and thats why theyre so important. The more you can keep the ball out of play, the better.

[wessa]

but when placing value on a pitcher why would give him credit for something 2 or 3 guys did?

BECAUSE THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE GAME. THE PITCHER PITCHES AND TRIES TO PREVENT BATTERS FROM REACHING BASE. IF THE BALL IS HIT, THE FIELDERS FIELD. THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF BASEBALL.

wait, a second, your right. If a guy throws a perfect game by continually making hitters ground to shortstop, we shouldn't give him credit. Dude, i should have been listening to you the whole time. Instead, the perfect game should go to the shortstop and firstbaseman because they fielded and caught the ball. The pitcher should get no credit for what they did. You should replace selig as commisioner and change this because it makes so much sense...

[thejetstolehome]

but when placing value on a pitcher why would give him credit for something 2 or 3 guys did? An out cant be because of a good defense behind the pitcher? A strikeout is something he can control directly, and thats why theyre so important. The more you can keep the ball out of play, the better.

there is NOTHING in the game of baseball that is done by one person. every single play is based on the effort of at least two people--even strikeouts. and i'm not saying that strikeouts aren't important--they are but they certainly do not define a pitcher and are not the most important stat.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

BECAUSE THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE GAME. THE PITCHER PITCHES AND TRIES TO PREVENT BATTERS FROM REACHING BASE. IF THE BALL IS HIT, THE FIELDERS FIELD. THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF BASEBALL.

wait, a second, your right. If a guy throws a perfect game by continually making hitters ground to shortstop, we shouldn't give him credit. Dude, i should have been listening to you the whole time. Instead, the perfect game should go to the shortstop and firstbaseman because they fielded and caught the ball. The pitcher should get no credit for what they did. You should replace selig as commisioner and change this because it makes so much sense...
wow, ok, let me make this clear. I never once said a pitcher has to throw 27 strike outs, and I never once said don’t give him credit for getting outs. And yes, a no hitter is actually a team effort. Give credit to the pitcher or pitchers for pitching a good game, but Clemens 21 strikeouts in a single game is more dominate than a no hitter. I still don't see where you’re having trouble with this? When you want to place value on a pitcher you look at what he is responsible for. When he pitches a ball and it gets hit, its now the defenses responsibility to field the ball and get the out. If you want to argue about defense, you have a point, but were talking about pitchers. A strike out is the pitch he threw and the ball the batter could not hit. How is that not a great, simple, and easy way to judge a pitcher? Now, am I saying the pitcher with the most strikeouts is the best? no, by no means am I saying that. There are other factors that you look at as well. However, are strikeouts a big part to analyzing his (or her) productivity? yes, they are.

and yes, I should replace Selig. He has no clue what’s going on. He continually tries to make the case that mid and lower market teams cannot compete when Oakland and Atlanta do it year in and year out.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

there is NOTHING in the game of baseball that is done by one person. every single play is based on the effort of at least two people--even strikeouts. and i'm not saying that strikeouts aren't important--they are but they certainly do not define a pitcher and are not the most important stat.
ok i'll agree 'define' was not a good word to use, but ill only say that to you....anyway...I didn't say it was the most important, I said one of the most. And it is. A pitcher with high strike out totals has a better chance of keeping batters off the bases. If controlling the strike zone is the most important part of baseball, strikeouts are a key ingredient (for a pitcher).

[thejetstolehome]

ok i'll agree 'define' was not a good word to use, but ill only say that to you....anyway...I didn't say it was the most important, I said one of the most. And it is. A pitcher with high strike out totals has a better chance of keeping batters off the bases. If controlling the strike zone is the most important part of baseball, strikeouts are a key ingredient (for a pitcher).

the way i feel is that if my pitcher can get outs, i'm happy. if he does that by getting me/the other fielders to help out and make plays, great. if he does that by blowing guys away, fooling them, and striking them out, terrific. an out is an out. sometimes, play behind a strikeout pitcher can get frustrating, though. especially if he works slowly. if i pitcher works fast, my day is made. left field gets boring sometimes...

[Scott Weber]

They're not even "somewhat" irrelevant. A strikeout is the best thing a pitcher can do. It keeps runners of the bags and keeps him in the game.
Yeah? And so does a foul pop fly, genius. Shut up. You're caught in the middle of an extreme argument.

[Goodbye Forever]

You think I didn't look at his numbers? Look at where Pedro was 4-7 years ago. Then tell me his career isn't seriously on the decline. Come on. He went 15-8 last year. He's riddled with injuries. His ERA the past 2 years was higher than it'd been in the 6 years before that. Look at his strikeout numbers (yeah.) look at how many HRs he's giving up over the past couple years. Now you're trying to sit here and tell me his career isn't seriously on the decline? He's still one of the best, there's no argument there, but come on, seriously? It's gone downhill. A lot.

As far as the comparisons to Randy, Clemens, and Maddux, looking at career numbers is off, and you know it. Pedro is 34. Randy and Maddux have/are about to pitch well into their 40's and they've done it while continuing to be effective. Hell, Randy didn't even hit his peak until his mid 30's. That's the difference. Those guys were solid contributors to their teams for years and years and they've had huge impacts on their teams over their careers. Look at Maddux's career - scroll back 5 years to when he was 34 and you'll find that his career ERA was lower than Pedro's is at now. I really don't feel like I even need to address Roger.

You'll have to excuse me, I'm a Mets fan so I'm completely biased (I have a Pedro wallpaper on my computer right now), but let's continue.

I don't think he's the same player from the late 90's, but I think saying that his career is "seriously" on the decline is a bit of an exaggeration. He's still one of the most dominating players in the game, and will continue to be IF he stays healthy. He had at least five games last year that Looper blew for him alone, and that's not counting the rest of the bullpen outside of Hernandez and Heilman.

As far as Johnson goes, yes, he didn't hit his peak until his 30's. So what happens if Pedro puts up five years of numbers that are equal to or better than Johnson's early years? Doesn't it at least even out then?

Maddux had 11 outstanding years (92-02, although 99 and 01 were good but not great for him). Pedro has had 9 so far, and he could definitely put up at least two more that are comparable to Maddux. If he evens out with Maddux to close his career, they'd be pretty even as well.

And I voted for Clemens, so no argument there.

[FinchBulldog2]

Clemens

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Yeah? And so does a foul pop fly, genius. Shut up. You're caught in the middle of an extreme argument.
aha, you had to resort to a foul pop fly for an argument. If they had a "foul pop fly" stat more power to ya, but to make that out you still need more than a pitcher.

we're talking about analyzing a pitcher and strikeouts are one of the best ways. its not an extreme argument at all. Saying their irrelevant is stupid, and I called you on it. Just admit you were to strong in your choice of words and we can go back to love. I already did.

[wessa]

wow, ok, let me make this clear. I never once said a pitcher has to throw 27 strike outs, and I never once said don’t give him credit for getting outs. And yes, a no hitter is actually a team effort. Give credit to the pitcher or pitchers for pitching a good game, but Clemens 21 strikeouts in a single game is more dominate than a no hitter. I still don't see where you’re having trouble with this? When you want to place value on a pitcher you look at what he is responsible for. When he pitches a ball and it gets hit, its now the defenses responsibility to field the ball and get the out. If you want to argue about defense, you have a point, but were talking about pitchers. A strike out is the pitch he threw and the ball the batter could not hit. How is that not a great, simple, and easy way to judge a pitcher? Now, am I saying the pitcher with the most strikeouts is the best? no, by no means am I saying that. There are other factors that you look at as well. However, are strikeouts a big part to analyzing his (or her) productivity? yes, they are.

and yes, I should replace Selig. He has no clue what’s going on. He continually tries to make the case that mid and lower market teams cannot compete when Oakland and Atlanta do it year in and year out.

im getting tired of this. You make these ridiculous and then people like myself and scott give you an example of how you are wrong and then you respond with "i never said that".

oakland may compete (in a weak division) but they haven't come close to winning anything in a while. I do not know if i would call atlanta a small market. Milwaulkee, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, those are small markets, and they haven't been able to compete for a while.

[Vincewithouthee]

Clemens. That's easy.

[Scott Weber]

aha, you had to resort to a foul pop fly for an argument. If they had a "foul pop fly" stat more power to ya, but to make that out you still need more than a pitcher.

we're talking about analyzing a pitcher and strikeouts are one of the best ways. its not an extreme argument at all. Saying their irrelevant is stupid, and I called you on it. Just admit you were to strong in your choice of words and we can go back to love. I already did.
Haha, i was not too strong in my choice of words! I said "somewhat" irrelevant from the begininng. The only point I ever made and will continue to make is that strikeouts do not determine a pitcher's ability to get batters out - period. Strikeouts are not one of the best ways to analyze pitchers, period. Of course they're not entirely irrelevant, but in the context of your argument I stand by my choice of words - do you? They're a great measure of a pitcher's success, but some of the best pitchers in the game rely on ground ball and pop up outs to get their batters out and not speed. Control pitchers. Maddux, Moyer, the list goes on and on. And by the way, to get more than a pop-up out you need any fielder in the game with eyes and a glove. Don't even try to pull that. Baseball is not a solo effort.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

im getting tired of this. You make these ridiculous and then people like myself and scott give you an example of how you are wrong and then you respond with "i never said that".
because I never did. You argue that a strikeout is meaningless, I argue it means more than you give credit. Then you try to put words into my mouth and make a case about it. My point is simple and I've said every time...a strikeout is not irrelevant, its very important. When judging a pitcher its something you want to look at. I never said it was the end all be all, I never said you had to throw hard to strike someone out, I never said dont give the pitcher credit unless its a strikeout. I simply said, its probably the best thing someone can do. They can control their pitch and control their destiny.

oakland may compete (in a weak division) but they haven't come close to winning anything in a while. I do not know if i would call atlanta a small market. Milwaulkee, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, those are small markets, and they haven't been able to compete for a while.
Oakland does not play in a weak division. Every team besides Seattle improved this year. The Angels are a threat. And Oakland probably has one of their best teams now. All the guys are young and will be around for a couple years. Atlanta is a small market in the sense that they dont draw very much. I'm also talking about their payroll. Milwaukee (the team selig owns or used to anyway) is improving. And maybe the question shouldn't be about money, but about how they develop talent. Sabremetrics is the new wave in baseball (the stats I follow) thinking and teams such as the A's, Red Sox, and Indians are proving that it works. Atlanta just has some crazy way of judging talent and getting a good deal. Renteria is going to be gold for them next year.

[Scott Weber]

Oakland does not play in a weak division. Every team besides Seattle improved this year. The Angels are a threat. And Oakland probably has one of their best teams now. All the guys are young and will be around for a couple years. Atlanta is a small market in the sense that they dont draw very much. I'm also talking about their payroll. Milwaukee (the team selig owns or used to anyway) is improving. And maybe the question shouldn't be about money, but about how they develop talent. Sabremetrics is the new wave in baseball (the stats I follow) thinking and teams such as the A's, Red Sox, and Indians are proving that it works. Atlanta just has some crazy way of judging talent and getting a good deal. Renteria is going to be gold for them next year.
How can you say Seattle didn't improve from last year? Just wondering.

They added Kenji at catcher, picked up Carl Everett for DH, got Jarrod Washburn for their rotation...

[wessa]

because I never did. You argue that a strikeout is meaningless.


Oakland does not play in a weak division. Every team besides Seattle improved this year. The Angels are a threat. And Oakland probably has one of their best teams now. All the guys are young and will be around for a couple years. Atlanta is a small market in the sense that they dont draw very much. I'm also talking about their payroll. Milwaukee (the team selig owns or used to anyway) is improving. And maybe the question shouldn't be about money, but about how they develop talent. Sabremetrics is the new wave in baseball (the stats I follow) thinking and teams such as the A's, Red Sox, and Indians are proving that it works. Atlanta just has some crazy way of judging talent and getting a good deal. Renteria is going to be gold for them next year.

first, the strikeout argument. I have said many many times that a strikeout is not meaningles. I only said that it wasn't as important as you were making it out to be. So you are wrong about that.
Second, i said that oakland plays in a weak division and you counter by saying the teams have improved this year. So you are countering my argument by telling me the division will be better during the upcoming season. You cannot guarantee that and that doesn't change the point that the division had two weak teams in it (and there are only four teams!) So I am right about that.
Third, again i said that milwaukee, KC, and Pittsburgh have not been able to compete. You tell me thatthe brewers are improving. But that still doesn't change the fact that they have not competed very well and have gone a very long time without being a relevant team in the playoff race. So I am right about that.
The braves have the 10th highest payroll in the league. They are able to compete because Ted Turner owns the team and they are able to continually sign people like john smoltz, andruw jones, chipper jones and all the rest of the great people they had during the 90s.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Haha, i was not too strong in my choice of words! I said "somewhat" irrelevant from the begininng. The only point I ever made and will continue to make is that strikeouts do not determine a pitcher's ability to get batters out - period. Strikeouts are not one of the best ways to analyze pitchers, period. Of course they're not entirely irrelevant, but in the context of your argument I stand by my choice of words - do you? They're a great measure of a pitcher's success, but some of the best pitchers in the game rely on ground ball and pop up outs to get their batters out and not speed. Control pitchers. Maddux, Moyer, the list goes on and on. And by the way, to get more than a pop-up out you need any fielder in the game with eyes and a glove. Don't even try to pull that. Baseball is not a solo effort.
Again, read what im saying. strikeouts are no where near irrelevant. I'll say it a million times and we'll go round and round, but when you quickly analyze a pitcher, what do you look at? IP, HR, SO, BB, ERA, and maybe ERA+ if you’re into that. Why would you rather a contact pitcher who has to rely on defense that may or may not be good? Why not just strike as many batters out as you can? And again, I said Maddux was a good pitcher, which is why he is an option. Never has it my intention to discuss actual pitchers and their K/9 rates. My sole reason for debate was to make you see that a strike out is very important part of the game. Just like slg% and to some extent obp%, SO rates are something the pitcher does on his own and is a good way of judging a pitcher.

conclusion: not irrelevant.

I dont think this is going to be resolved. can we agree to disagree and move on? I have to leave for the airport in about an hour

[NetNerdsRevenge]

So you are wrong about that.
Actually I know for a fact smart statistical baseball teams value strikeouts just as much as I do. I'm no more wrong than you are.

Second, i said that oakland plays in a weak division and you counter by saying the teams have improved this year. So you are countering my argument by telling me the division will be better during the upcoming season. You cannot guarantee that and that doesn't change the point that the division had two weak teams in it (and there are only four teams!) So I am right about that.
The West is weak in your eyes because it has 4 teams, two of which are never in the playoff hunt. However, I would argue the West is no more weak than the Central who only has two playoff contending teams. The A's are going to be very good this year.

Third, again i said that milwaukee, KC, and Pittsburgh have not been able to compete. You tell me thatthe brewers are improving. But that still doesn't change the fact that they have not competed very well and have gone a very long time without being a relevant team in the playoff race. So I am right about that.
youre a very arrogant person. You ignored my comment about player development. Maybe they should look inside their own organization instead of blaming other teams.

The braves have the 10th highest payroll in the league. They are able to compete because Ted Turner owns the team and they are able to continually sign people like john smoltz, andruw jones, chipper jones and all the rest of the great people they had during the 90s.
The Phillies and Mets had higher payrolls and the Braves beat them out. Also, another good example would be the Marlins. They developed and won a world series. It can be done.

[Scott Weber]

Again, read what im saying. strikeouts are no where near irrelevant. I'll say it a million times and we'll go round and round, but when you quickly analyze a pitcher, what do you look at? IP, HR, SO, BB, ERA, and maybe ERA+ if you’re into that. Why would you rather a contact pitcher who has to rely on defense that may or may not be good? Why not just strike as many batters out as you can? And again, I said Maddux was a good pitcher, which is why he is an option. Never has it my intention to discuss actual pitchers and their K/9 rates. My sole reason for debate was to make you see that a strike out is very important part of the game. Just like slg% and to some extent obp%, SO rates are something the pitcher does on his own and is a good way of judging a pitcher.

conclusion: not irrelevant.

I dont think this is going to be resolved. can we agree to disagree and move on? I have to leave for the airport in about an hour
Jesus fucking christ, do you know what the definition of "somewhat" is? You're arguing things I already know! Of course SO matter, it just is not as big of a factor in determining a pitcher's success as you're arguing. Present all the rates you want, it's just NOT that black and white and you know it. If a pitcher could actually get dribblers to the mound every time instead of strikeouts, then yes, strikeouts WOULD be irrelevant. And as far as your argument as to how strikeouts are completely in a pitcher's control, that's not true either! You say "Well, infielders still have to catch pop-ups and field ground balls." Of course, but you know what? The catcher still has the catch the 3rd strike, or the runner can still get on base. No matter how you look at baseball, it's a team effort...unless of course the batter pops it up to the pitcher. That's the only situation in which the pitcher 100% controls the outcome of the play. So why aren't we talking about how that's the best stat? Your argument is just incredibly flawed. Strikeouts are great and all, but there's an overrated statistic that doesn't straight-up determine a pitcher's success. I will forever stand by my statement that they are a somewhat (a word that you refuse to comprehend) irrelevant statistic, because it's not black and white like you continue to suggest.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

You speak of ideal situations. Never is a pitcher going to induce slow groundball all 27 times a batter comes to the plate. And how often does a catcher drop a 3rd strike call? And how often is that runner safe? I’m off the somewhat. you said it, yay for you. but its still not somewhat, a little bit, or any other fraction of irrelevant. It does judge a pitchers success because he is the one throwing the pitch. It is no way overrated. you’re the one making it overrated. I have said a couple times its not the only thing you look at for a pitcher. Saying a strikeout is irrelevant when talking about the success of a pitcher is like throwing out HR's when talking about a hitter. Its a very important piece of statistical information, and a very important part of the game. It obvious neither of us will change our mind, so lets move on.

you want an overrated stat? RBI. there, jump on that one.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

and baseball is not all a team effort. Yes, the team has to play well in order to win, but its also an individual sport. 1 pitcher vs. 1 batter. Its not like basketball where you can set screens or work some sort of passing game, or like football where the OL has to work for the RB or QB to make a play.

[wessa]

The West is weak in your eyes because it has 4 teams, two of which are never in the playoff hunt. However, I would argue the West is no more weak than the Central who only has two playoff contending teams. The A's are going to be very good this year.
Cleveland fought the white sox for the central up until the last week of the season until they dropped off. Before last year, Minnesota won the division and had another good year last year.


youre a very arrogant person. You ignored my comment about player development. Maybe they should look inside their own organization instead of blaming other teams.

you have ignored everything i have said. And the small market teams do develop players, but unfortunately they have to trade them because they cannot pay them big salaries. Example: Kansas City Royals - they developed carlos beltran, johnny damon, jermaine dye. but when they became good they could not keep them. If i remember correctly beltran hit like 10 home runs in the playoffs with the astros two years ago and now makes millions with the mets, damon brought a world series to boston, and dye was the world series mvp last year. The same thing has continually happened with the pirates.


The Phillies and Mets had higher payrolls and the Braves beat them out. Also, another good example would be the Marlins. They developed and won a world series. It can be done.


that is a bad comparison because the gap is pretty insignificant. Phillies payroll was only 9 million more. That doesn't make a difference. But Atlanta's payroll was 50 million more than the royal's last year. That obviously makes a big difference. And the marlins are a bad example. Both times they won they signed a lot of talent and then dropped it all after they won because they knew they couldn't continue to pay them. Call them lucky. Call them smart for making that gamble. I hope you are not suggesting though that they are a model for small markets.

[mikeford]

and baseball is not all a team effort. Yes, the team has to play well in order to win, but its also an individual sport. 1 pitcher vs. 1 batter. Its not like basketball where you can set screens or work some sort of passing game, or like football where the OL has to work for the RB or QB to make a play.

i said this in another thread and got shot down. i said team chemistry was overrated in baseball and this basically proves it.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

Cleveland fought the white sox for the central up until the last week of the season until they dropped off. Before last year, Minnesota won the division and had another good year last year.
The Twins are nothing now. If they didnt have the Tigers and Royals to beat up on, they wouldnt have as good of a record. Texas, even though they havent made run, is still a better team than both the Tigers and Royals.


you have ignored everything i have said. And the small market teams do develop players, but unfortunately they have to trade them because they cannot pay them big salaries. Example: Kansas City Royals - they developed carlos beltran, johnny damon, jermaine dye. but when they became good they could not keep them. If i remember correctly beltran hit like 10 home runs in the playoffs with the astros two years ago and now makes millions with the mets, damon brought a world series to boston, and dye was the world series mvp last year. The same thing has continually happened with the pirates.
Oakland again is a great example. They cannot hold on to players, but continually find ways to make it work. Its hard, but if those teams can't or do not want to dish out the money, they have to find other ways of competing. Sell high is not bad if you get the right people in return.



that is a bad comparison because the gap is pretty insignificant. Phillies payroll was only 9 million more. That doesn't make a difference. But Atlanta's payroll was 50 million more than the royal's last year. That obviously makes a big difference. And the marlins are a bad example. Both times they won they signed a lot of talent and then dropped it all after they won because they knew they couldn't continue to pay them. Call them lucky. Call them smart for making that gamble. I hope you are not suggesting though that they are a model for small markets.
Atlanta played with so many rookies last year that their payroll numbers are probably not accurate. The talent on the team for the price is amazing. Give them credit for developing young talent who they can sign later. The Marlins developed or traded early on for their talent. Their problem was keeping those players after they became good.

and no, my model team for small markets is Oakland.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

i said this in another thread and got shot down. i said team chemistry was overrated in baseball and this basically proves it.
at least someone is on my side. i thought i was alone. boston fans gotta stick together.....kinda.

[mikeford]

oakland will win that division this year if bobby crosby doesnt get hurt

[mikeford]

at least someone is on my side. i thought i was alone. boston fans gotta stick together.....kinda.

trust me, as much as i hate clemens, theres no fucking way im ever going to argue that fuckin greg maddux is better.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

trust me, as much as i hate clemens, theres no fucking way im ever going to argue that fuckin greg maddux is better.
haha, good man.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

"Properly, statistically, OBP rewards the batter who knows the strike zone. Conversely, analysts evaluate pitchers not so much by their runs allowed or ERA, which are significantly affected by defense and luck, but by their strikeout rate and their strikeout-to-walk-ratios, which show how well a pitcher commands the strike zone"

quote from the book mind game which was written by a team of analysts from baseballprospectus.com, a well credited baseball think tank.

[crit]

i voted roger. pedro is a close second.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

i voted roger. pedro is a close second.
I think this would be the way most people view it. Roger has pitched great for so long, but I still gotta go with Pedro. He may not look as dominate as the rocket, but he certainly has better numbers.

[Scott Weber]

You speak of ideal situations. Never is a pitcher going to induce slow groundball all 27 times a batter comes to the plate. And how often does a catcher drop a 3rd strike call? And how often is that runner safe? I’m off the somewhat. you said it, yay for you. but its still not somewhat, a little bit, or any other fraction of irrelevant. It does judge a pitchers success because he is the one throwing the pitch. It is no way overrated. you’re the one making it overrated. I have said a couple times its not the only thing you look at for a pitcher. Saying a strikeout is irrelevant when talking about the success of a pitcher is like throwing out HR's when talking about a hitter. Its a very important piece of statistical information, and a very important part of the game. It obvious neither of us will change our mind, so lets move on.

you want an overrated stat? RBI. there, jump on that one.
You know, I just had my friend come over who's played ball his entire life, he was our HS league MVP and he got offered scholorships to play college ball, and he agreed that strikeouts are a misleading and overrated statistic - as a means to measure a pitcher's success. He argued that coaches discourage strikeouts because they rapidly increase a pitcher's pitch count and tire out their arm faster...a pitcher can be much more efficient if he can force ground balls instead of doing deep into every count.

[thejetstolehome]

You know, I just had my friend come over who's played ball his entire life, he was our HS league MVP and he got offered scholorships to play college ball, and he agreed that strikeouts are a misleading and overrated statistic - as a means to measure a pitcher's success. He argued that coaches discourage strikeouts because they rapidly increase a pitcher's pitch count and tire out their arm faster...a pitcher can be much more efficient if he can force ground balls instead of doing deep into every count.

thank you! i've been trying to say this all day...

[Scott Weber]

I think this would be the way most people view it. Roger has pitched great for so long, but I still gotta go with Pedro. He may not look as dominate as the rocket, but he certainly has better numbers.
I'm sorry, last time I checked 341 wins > 197 wins...When talking about a pitcher of a generation, not considering longevity as a serious statistic is just foolish. Plus, you already admitted you're a big Mets fan, so I can see your bias, even though he's only been in NY for one freaking year.

[Goodbye Forever]

I'm sorry, last time I checked 341 wins > 197 wins...When talking about a pitcher of a generation, not considering longevity as a serious statistic is just foolish. Plus, you already admitted you're a big Mets fan, so I can see your bias, even though he's only been in NY for one freaking year.

I was the Mets fan. He's a Red Sox fan.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

You know, I just had my friend come over who's played ball his entire life, he was our HS league MVP and he got offered scholorships to play college ball, and he agreed that strikeouts are a misleading and overrated statistic - as a means to measure a pitcher's success. He argued that coaches discourage strikeouts because they rapidly increase a pitcher's pitch count and tire out their arm faster...a pitcher can be much more efficient if he can force ground balls instead of doing deep into every count.
I know he plays baseball and it gives him credibility, but I also know almost every baseball analyst would agree with me. However, my drive to the airport and back has made me realize that my thinking of baseball is not exactly accepted all over, therefore different opinions rise and its hard to knock those. so called "money ball" is still not accepted by prominent athletes and will never be. They cant shake their own feeling of what is right, and I don’t expect them too. All I can say is to read the quote I posted. Baseball prospectus is big in sabremetric communities, and their opinion gains a lot of respect. Even ESPN has mentioned them a few times. I just dont see how one could view strikeouts, which is a great measurement of a pitchers ability, as overrated, but whatever, I guess its done now.



I'm sorry, last time I checked 341 wins > 197 wins...When talking about a pitcher of a generation, not considering longevity as a serious statistic is just foolish. Plus, you already admitted you're a big Mets fan, so I can see your bias, even though he's only been in NY for one freaking year.
I guess were going to get into it again, but wins mean nothing. That takes a whole team effort, not just one person. Its to easy to pitch a 5 hit, 2ER game and still lose. I mean, Clemens if a perfect example. 1.87 ERA, 221 ERA+ (which is outstanding), 44 ER, and you only manage to win 13 games? And you must not know or read much of what I say. I'm a giant Red Sox fan and do not hide it whatsoever.

EDIT: I did take longevity into account and I know Pedro has ground to gain, but still right now I would call him the best by a very slim margin. His move to the NL was a great move for him. As much as I want him to fail so the Sox look smart in letting him walk, I want him to succeed, because I actually believe he could be the best of all time if he keeps this up. already he is in the tops of major categories, and if he can pitch healthy for the next 7 or so years, there is no telling what he could do

[Scott Weber]

I can't even debate this anymore because your bias for Pedro is clouding your argument so much it's hilarious. There's just really no point. I honestly believe with all the information here you'd have to be crazy to argue Pedro over Roger, and you keep using baseball analysts in your arguments...try telling one of them Pedro's career has been better than Roger's, you'll get laughed at. You're NOT taking longevity into account because you're assuming Pedro will continue to be as effective down the stretch as Roger. At 43, Roger had the lowest ERA of his career! There's no way Pedro will be able to continue that. If you're comparing the 2 right now, you have to pick Clemens, if you truly are taking longevity into consideration. You can't assume Pedro will continue to be effective in years to come, especially with, YES, his stats considerable declining from when he was untouchable. And, he's also been getting hurt a lot....it's a big assumption, I just don't think you can make it in a poll that measures success right now.

You should also address the pitch count issue with strikeouts, because it's a serious issue.

p.s. i hope you're not taking any of these arguments personal because you're a great poster in the sports forum and I'm loving these debates, I think you make great points all the time. Just thought I'd say that.

[mikeford]

yeah if pedros even still in the LEAGUE at 43, ill be stunned.

[Scott Weber]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2380500

haha, hurt again.

And another thing to add to the longevity argument, NetNerds....Clemens has 6 Cy Youngs, AND an MVP award. Pedro has 3 Cy Youngs.

[Spicoli hey bud]

haha 47 votes for Clemens. This may be AP, but enough said..

[mikeford]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2380500

haha, hurt again.

And another thing to add to the longevity argument, NetNerds....Clemens has 6 Cy Youngs, AND an MVP award. Pedro has 3 Cy Youngs.

clemens has 7 Cy's

[Scott Weber]

clemens has 7 Cy's
I only count 6 on his ESPN.com player page

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3340

[Scott Weber]

No you're right, it's 7. For some reason it doesn't show his 2004 Cy Young on his ESPN page. weird.

[Loch_Doun]

clemens can't win the big games, deal with it.

[Scott Weber]

clemens can't win the big games, deal with it.
That's news to me. Could you provide specific examples, dating back his entire postseason career? Or is this just a generalization from the past 4-5 years of his career.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

I can't even debate this anymore because your bias for Pedro is clouding your argument so much it's hilarious. There's just really no point. I honestly believe with all the information here you'd have to be crazy to argue Pedro over Roger, and you keep using baseball analysts in your arguments...try telling one of them Pedro's career has been better than Roger's, you'll get laughed at. You're NOT taking longevity into account because you're assuming Pedro will continue to be as effective down the stretch as Roger. At 43, Roger had the lowest ERA of his career! There's no way Pedro will be able to continue that. If you're comparing the 2 right now, you have to pick Clemens, if you truly are taking longevity into consideration. You can't assume Pedro will continue to be effective in years to come, especially with, YES, his stats considerable declining from when he was untouchable. And, he's also been getting hurt a lot....it's a big assumption, I just don't think you can make it in a poll that measures success right now.
Roger also had years where his numbers were down. He had Pedro are really on the same track in most cases. Youre also confusing arguments. Analysts would agree with me on strikeouts, not Pedro. Although im sure some would agree. And even with Longevity and all of Rogers awards (which by the way cy youngs are based highly on wins, something pitchers should not get all credit for) I still feel Pedro is the best. Nothing about Pedro or any player clouds my arguments. you make it out to be that way, but I have not shown any bias towards anyone. In fact, if you go back into old baseball threads I rip Pedro for health. That’s the only thing that I see that makes Roger better, and if Pedro ends up on the DL with a torn ligament or what not, ill back down. But as someone who believes in numbers and statistical metrics, Pedro has an argument. He's second is k/bb rate, 3rd in k/9 rate, and 1st in ERA+....all of this at 33. Now of course these stats do not require longevity, but they directly affect a pitcher. Success does not always come in wins and awards, especially when other people are voting. [flash back to ortiz/a-rod mvp debate]

You should also address the pitch count issue with strikeouts, because it's a serious issue.
Ill address it with a blurb from hardball times baseball annual. (http://www.actasports.com/detail.html?&id=076) they wrote an article about pitch count. Ill give some of the tables they have.

"whats so magic about 100 pitches?" the question was, do starters get stronger later in the season if they throw more pitches

Avg number of pitches per season by starters
1974-1975: 102.4
1976-1978: 99.9
1979-1980: 98.4
1981-1988: 97.5
1989-2005: 96.0

Avg pitches per start
1st half of the season:
-less than 100: era 5.05
-100 or more: era 3.87

2nd half of the season
-less than 100: era 4.67
-100 or more: era 4.16

this would agree with your theory, however, bill james found a flaw in John Dewan's (who is great anyalst) work. This is what he said:
There is a selection problem. Pitchers who are pitching well in the first half of the season will be much, much more likely t exceed the 100-pitch threshold consistently....thus will tend to pitch less well in the second half. Pitchers who are pitching badly in the first half of the season will less often reach the 100-pitch count, and also (incidentally) are more likely to pitch better in the second half. You need to start to sort by era in the first half to get a different look at the picture...that is, pitchers with era's of 4.00 the first half of the season...those who have a 100 pitch games and those who dont...

so, after a few other tables, he gets to his main one, which follows Jame's advice. ill try to make it clear

First half era group- The pitch counts are for the first half of the year
under 3.00
-100 or more: first half era was 2.52. second half era was 3.47
-less than 100: first half era was 2.55. second half era was 3.90

3.00 to 3.99
-100 or more: first half era was 3.47. second half era was 3.73
-less than 100: first half era was 3.54. second half era was 3.97

4.00-4.99
-100 or more: first half era was 4.38. second half era was 3.99
-less than 100: first half era was 4.48. second half era was 4.19

5.00-5.99
-100 or more: first half era was 5.37. second half era was 4.36
-less than 100: first half era was 5.43. second half era was 4.43

so in the first two groups we see and increase an era over the second half, but less of an increase in the 100 or more category. Also, in the second groups we a decrease in era over the second half, but more with the 100 or mare category (although, the final group is almost equal).

It doesn't directly touch on strikeouts, but I wanted to show you some of the analysis I use on here. You can relate this work to strikeouts though


[/QUOTE]

[mikeford]

clemens can't win the big games, deal with it.

he's 2-4 in world series games, but thats with a 2.37 ERA in those 8 starts

doesn't look like the losses were his fault to me.

[ActorInThisPlay]

honestly, anyone who says Pedro has had a better career then Clemens is stupid. Pedro might be a better pitcher now, but who says he will be 10 years from now.

[Scott Weber]

he's 2-4 in world series games, but thats with a 2.37 ERA in those 8 starts

doesn't look like the losses were his fault to me.
he's 12-8 postseason as well.

[mikeford]

he's 12-8 postseason as well.

yeah im just saying generally once someones made a WS or two, big games becomes more drawn to that scope rather than post season as a whole. and his win/lose record in WS games is skewed badly. honestly i was surprised to see that, coupled with a low ERA. i dont remember any of the series' he was involved in (i was 1 in 86, didnt watch the 2000 or 2001 series' out of pure unadultered hatred for clemens and the yankees)

[Scott Weber]

NetNerds. I see all your points. Pedro has had some incredible individual seasons, and his numbers in them are amazing. But when defining a pitcher of a generation, longevity has to matter. It just has to. Your stats about pitch counts are interesting, but they really don't address strikeouts directly, although I do see the connection, albeit not clear cut. I still hold that it's all wouldacouldashoulda with Pedro right now in this argument, and you cannot call him the best of our generation if he hasn't had the career to date to merit it. I mean, if Pedro's career ended today, could you call him the best? Of course not.

[mikeford]

pedro's got 2-3 years left, max

roger looks like he could still be pitching 2-3 years from now too... except that'd be his like 26th year in the league.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

NetNerds. I see all your points. Pedro has had some incredible individual seasons, and his numbers in them are amazing. But when defining a pitcher of a generation, longevity has to matter. It just has to. Your stats about pitch counts are interesting, but they really don't address strikeouts directly, although I do see the connection, albeit not clear cut. I still hold that it's all wouldacouldashoulda with Pedro right now in this argument, and you cannot call him the best of our generation if he hasn't had the career to date to merit it. I mean, if Pedro's career ended today, could you call him the best? Of course not.
No, I wouldn't call Pedro the best if he ended today, and I said that. I just see him pitching longer than the next few years and all the while being a pitcher you can invest your faith in and someone the other team does not want to match up against. I am speaking of the future, yes, but the next 5 or so years is still our era. I believe that when all is said and done, Pedro will be known as one of the best who ever played the game. The same will be said for the Rocket, and he'll probably get more play because of how long he pitched. However, its always open for debate.

on a side note, im very glad you, wessa, and myself had this debate. I've been missing the baseball discussions on here.

[Scott Weber]

No, I wouldn't call Pedro the best if he ended today, and I said that. I just see him pitching longer than the next few years and all the while being a pitcher you can invest your faith in and someone the other team does not want to match up against. I am speaking of the future, yes, but the next 5 or so years is still our era. I believe that when all is said and done, Pedro will be known as one of the best who ever played the game. The same will be said for the Rocket, and he'll probably get more play because of how long he pitched. However, its always open for debate.

on a side note, im very glad you, wessa, and myself had this debate. I've been missing the baseball discussions on here.
Ok, well after all these pages we've finally gotten down to the core of the argument! Haha. I don't think at this point in time you can vote for Pedro, that's mainly why I disagree with your pick.

[wessa]

No, I wouldn't call Pedro the best if he ended today, and I said that. I just see him pitching longer than the next few years and all the while being a pitcher you can invest your faith in and someone the other team does not want to match up against. I am speaking of the future, yes, but the next 5 or so years is still our era. I believe that when all is said and done, Pedro will be known as one of the best who ever played the game. The same will be said for the Rocket, and he'll probably get more play because of how long he pitched. However, its always open for debate.

on a side note, im very glad you, wessa, and myself had this debate. I've been missing the baseball discussions on here.

i bowed out because i was getting arthritis from typing so much.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

i bowed out because i was getting arthritis from typing so much.
I didn't read for my critical thinking class.