User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.8258 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Where he set a major league record for walks in a season, and led the league in walks 6 times (yet apparently his wildness no longer "plagued him"). Glad to know the mindless hero-worship of Ryan hasn't abated in some quarters.
I mean, I admire Ryan's career and all, but the notion that he's the greatest living pitcher ever/greatest pitcher of the 20th century/whatever is just weird.
If you like peak over career, you could argue for Pedro, but yeah, that's about it.
(VERY short peak, though)
Tom Seaver says hello. Clearly the best pitching career between 1955 and 1995. I'd vote for the Rocket if it were me (how in the WORLD can Maddux be considered even with Clemens unless you invoke Roids??), but to leave Seaver out of the discussion is silly.
Or it could just be a coincidence...
This isn't 2001, jmac ;).
I'm partial to Sidd Finch.
(VERY short peak, though)
Hey, man, what about Ron Necciai?
Think of all the walls he tore down after his memorable breakthrough.
I mean, Pedro has a reasonably good case for the best in-context peak ever, as does Johnson. Clemens has a real case for the best career performance ever, Maddux is close to Clemens. Why not just celebrate that extraordinary cluster of talent?
(VERY short peak, though)
This isn't 2001, jmac ;).
I'm partial to Sidd Finch.
John Paciorek is the Tom Cheney of hitters
OK, then, Johnny Vander Meer (oh, wait--he's dead, too)
Herb Score (my final answer)
Just looking at that span, he's 2nd in Wins, tied with Sutton
Carlton was first.
By ERA+ among pitchers with 2500+ IP he was 16th (Seaver was first, almost in a tie with Palmer, followed by Stieb)...
Actually using 1966-2003 (Ryan's career), 5 pitchers had more IP than Seaver, but if you subtract Seaver's innings from theirs, you see their extra IP had no value:
Nolan Ryan (ERA+ in extra IP: 55)
Phil Niekro: 62
Steve Carlton: 55
Bert Blyleven: 42
Gaylord Perry: 18
Thirteen pitchers had ERA+ s of 111 or greater (Ryan's mark) and 2500+ IP), if you subtract their IP from Seaver, Seaver's extra IP had the following ERA+s:
Fergie Jenkins -218
Tommy John -185
Jim Palmer 126
Jerry Koosman 338
Rick Reuschel 189
Luis Tiant 159
Dennis Eckersley 149
Dave Stieb 133
Steve Rogers 147
Frank Viola 150
Mike Cuellar 155
John Candelaria 145
Wilbur Wood 143
Seaver was clearly the best pitcher of Nolan Ryan's generation
(VERY short peak, though)
No way! Cheney had THREE game scores over 100, baby!
That can't be true. This is the Steroids Era. Writers have been telling me for a while now that because of steroids, all the hitters are super-powered, and all their massive hitting records are tainted, and that pitchers were overmatched by these muscle-bound freakshows.
Except Clemens. He's the only one that could match up because he used them too. But only him.
That's from Payne's argument for Clemens. And it's fine except for the fact that Clemens is actually 16th alltime in innings, not top 10.
Duh.
Think of all the walls he tore down after his memorable breakthrough.
Oh yeah.
I think it is easier to dominate, or more specifically, look dominant today. I've mentioned my reasons before, and that is that teams are giving way more innings to substandard pitchers today than in the past. By that I mean that more and more innings are being pitched by a team's 12th, 13th, 17th best (in terms of IP) pitchers. For example, last year the Phillies employed 28 pitchers. Tom Gordon ranked 14th on the team in IP, and he pitched 40 innings. Another 200 innings were pitched by guys with fewer IP than Gordon. 12 different pitchers started a game, and 8 of those had 10 or more starts. Those kind of numbers were virtually unheard of 30+ years ago, except on historically poor teams. The Phillies last year won 89 games.
The Marlins used 30 pitchers and gave 4 or more starts to 11 different guys. The pennant winning Rockies also used 30 pitchers. The Nats gave 6 or more starts to 12 different pitchers. The 94 win Yankees had 19 different guys throw 21 or more innings.
The point is, more and more innings are being thrown by pitchers who have no business in MLB. Way more than in the past. So when comparing the best pitchers to the league, today's have an advantage of a more diluted league to be compared to.
This is why guys like Dan Rosenheck and Michael Schell adjust for standard deviations. Schell has done work on hitters. Dan has done work on postion players. He may have done some on pitchers as well, but I'm not aware of him or anyone else adjusting pitchers that way.
... and 29 of them pitched in Game No. 163 against the Padres.
2. Lefty Grove+* 148 L
3. Walter Johnson+ 147 R
4. Dan Quisenberry 146 R
4. Ed Walsh+ 146 R
4. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 146 R
4. Joe Wood 146 R
8. Brandon Webb (29) 144 R
9. Roger Clemens 143 R
10. Jim Devlin 142 R
10. Addie Joss+ 142 R
10. Al Spalding+ 142 R
OK, quick, somebody--calculate how many runs he'd have to give up tonite to have his lifetime ERA+ drop by 10
I don't see Rivera pitching 2 2/3 innings tonight.
Through age 29:
Cnt Player ERA+ IP From To Ages
+----+-----------------+----+------+----+----+-----+
1 Pedro Martinez 169 1693 1992 2001 20-29
2 Walter Johnson 165 3474.1 1907 1917 19-29
3 Roger Clemens 152 2031 1984 1992 21-29
4 Charley Radbourn 152 2110.1 1881 1884 26-29
5 Ed Walsh 150 2012 1904 1910 23-29
6 Joe Wood 148 1434.1 1908 1919 18-29
7 Kid Nichols 146 3985.2 1890 1899 20-29
8 Dave Foutz 145 1118.1 1884 1886 27-29
9 Brandon Webb 144 1228 2003 2008 24-29
10 Addie Joss 143 2219.2 1902 1909 22-29
11 Christy Mathewson 143 3285 1900 1910 19-29
12 Whitey Ford 143 1357.2 1950 1958 21-29
13 Rube Waddell 143 2137.2 1897 1906 20-29
14 Roy Oswalt 143 1413.1 2001 2007 23-29
15 Tom Seaver 142 2167 1967 1974 22-29
16 Pete Alexander 142 2104 1911 1916 24-29
17 Jim Devlin 142 1405 1875 1877 26-28
18 Al Spalding 142 2890.2 1871 1877 20-26
19 Cy Young 141 2639.2 1890 1896 23-29
20 Johan Santana 140 1439.1 2000 2008 21-29
I thought Webb would drop a lot further than that...
Does the MSM have any idea how good Webb is? Ok they gave him a CY award, but that was flukey, and its not like they gave him the majority of the votes...
I'd almost want to see him hire Boras as agent, juts to see what contract he'd end up with after free agency
I'd bet that a good number of the posters here didn't realize that Webb is as good as that list shows. I, for one, did not.
60 ER with 0 IP.
But yes, I do know how good Brandon Webb is/has been
It's a shame the Dbacks are trying to nickel and dime him
At this rate, he'll tell them to f-off soon and wait for free agency
Only one guy on that list has fewer innings.
I've had just about enough of your Dave Foutz bashing.
It took me a minute to realize this wasn't referring to Roberto Hernandez.
A) Best "career stats"
B) Best "peak"
I'd rather go with "B", and go with SANDY KOUFAX. He was completely dominant in the 1960s. Without him, the Dodgers wouldn't have won the World Series in 1963 or 1965 (plus he contributed in 1959).
The other greatest "peaks" are BOB GIBSON (leading the Cardinals in 1964, and 1967, and almost in 1968).
PEDRO MARTINEZ's peak in the late 1990s and early 2000's was Koufax-esque, but he never reached the World Series until 2004 (when he was "very good", but not "superhuman-great").
If we went via "(A)", "Best Career Stats", we'd be back to the argument between:
CLEMENS (cheater, often disappointing in the playoffs)
MADDUX (incredibly consistant, some lights out years, but overall disappointing in the playoffs)
RANDY JOHNSON (except for 2001, many disappointing years in playoffs, plus the fact that he seems like a jerk, makes it hard to pull for)
STEVE CARLTON (stuck around too long, had some amazing years, like Randy Johnson, high on the jerk factor, which is hard to ignore, even though we should).
My other favorite question, if I had one guy to pitch "game 7", here's how I'd rank them:
1) Sandy Koufax
2) Curt Schilling (you can't argue with his post-season record)
3) Bob Gibson
4) John Smoltz
2) Curt Schilling (you can't argue with his post-season record)
3) Bob Gibson
4) John Smoltz
I'd flip Gibby and Schilling, but just make sure that your centerfielder's wearing sunglasses.
It's so true. Amazingly, he even beats Rollie Fingers.
79 times since 1946 a pitcher has posted a 150 ERA+ in 250+ ip
2 men have done it 4 times:
Player ERA+ IP Year
Roger Clemens 221 264 1997
Roger Clemens 169 254 1986
Roger Clemens 164 271.1 1991
Roger Clemens 154 281.2 1987;
and
Tom Seaver 193 286.1 1971
Tom Seaver 175 290 1973
Tom Seaver 165 273.1 1969
Tom Seaver 150 261.1 1977
5 men have done it 3 times:
Steve Carlton 182 346.1 1972
Steve Carlton 162 304 1980
Steve Carlton 153 283 1977
Sandy Koufax 190 323 1966
Sandy Koufax 160 335.2 1965
Sandy Koufax 159 311 1963
Greg Maddux 187 251 1998
Greg Maddux 171 267 1993
Greg Maddux 166 268 1992
Juan Marichal 169 295.1 1965
Juan Marichal 168 299.2 1969
Juan Marichal 167 307.1 1966
and
Jim Palmer 169 323 1975
Jim Palmer 156 296.1 1973
Jim Palmer 150 274.1 1972
and 5 men twice:
Bob Gibson 258 304.2 1968
Bob Gibson 164 314 1969
Randy Johnson 197 260 2002
Randy Johnson 186 271.2 1999
Sam McDowell 165 269 1968
Sam McDowell 161 273 1965
Warren Spahn 188 265.2 1953
Warren Spahn 168 289.2 1947
and
Frank Viola 159 251.2 1987
Frank Viola 153 255.1 1988
Here's those with 3 or 4 of those years- their "average peak" season:
Player ERA+ IP
Roger Clemens 177 268
Greg Maddux 175 262
Tom Seaver 171 278
Sandy Koufax 170 323
Juan Marichal 168 300
Steve Carlton 166 311
Jim Palmer 158 298
There's lots of guy pitching in the major leagues, but there's not so many major league pitchers. -- Sparky Anderson (paraphrasing)
This may be true, but do you have any evidence of this?
All post 25 does is mention the number of different pitchers used by a few teams recently. That doesn't really validate the statement I quoted. How many pitchers were used in the past? Even if a greater number of different pitchers are used, how do we know that they are less effective than the pitchers used in the past? The talent base MLB draws from is vastly greater than it was in the past, doesn't this make up the difference in shear number of players currently in the game?
The evidence is that there are at most 13 pitcher positions per roster, yet teams routinely have twice that number make appearances during the season. Those pitchers are by definition not major leaguers, and those 14th through 30th pitchers are throwingm ore and more innings each year.
In 1972 when Steve Carlton posted a 182 ERA+, only one NL team got as many as 100 innings from pitchers outside of the top 12 (ranked by innings), and many teams got very few outside their top 10. In 2004 when Johan Santana matched him at 182, 11 AL teams were over 100, and many were over 200. The Rangers had 288 and the Rays 297. Last year's NL was worse. The Nats got 365, which is probably more than the entire NL in 1972.
Only if the development of pitchers has outpaced the development of hitters. There is a finite number of roster spots, and not only are pitchers occupying a larger number of those than in the past, but many more than that number see action during a season.
I was correct. The entire 12 team NL in 1972 got a total of 359 innings from pitchers outside of the top 12. Only three teams had more than 31 innings, and the Expos had none and the Pirates 1/3 of an inning. Only 2.1% of the leagues innings were thrown by pitchers outside of the top 12. I'm not going to do the 2007 NL, but it's obvious by a glance the number is much much higher. The Nats bottom feeders alone account for 1.6% of league innings.
And, less surprisingly, Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown.
First, you're way overrating the pitchers of the past. And second, you're evidently forgetting how many innings were logged by those pitchers of the past when they were dead in the water due to overuse.
Here's a little exercise that will illustrate my point. Take a look at Roger Maris's 1961 home run log. Count the number of HOF pitchers. Then count the number of HOF pitchers under the age of 41. Then count the number of pitcher who would even make the Hall of the Very Good.
You'll have plenty of fingers left when you're finished.
The only real caveat here is that one of Maris's teammates was Whitey Ford. But please don't try to promote this fiction that the past was some sort of a Golden Age for anything other than cheap ticket prices.
Yes, and Brown still holds the record for fewest fingers(pitching hand), but surprisingly was bested by Jim Abbott in fewest fingers(total).
I'm not Andy, and your point about tired pitchers is a valid one. But I don't think that cancels out the additional hundreds of innings thrown today by has beens and never wasses. Hell, Steve Trachsel and Sidney Ponson keep getting starting jobs.
Let me put it to you this way. Do you think Steve Carlton's pitching peers in toto, were no better or worse than Jason Schmidt's in 2003 or Johan Santana's in 2004, and thus Lefty was no better than those two, additional innings pitched notwithstanding?
Depending on the arrangement of these players - whether their performance drags down or bolsters the median, and whether they distribute normally along the talent curve - the effect on a (+) stat like OPS+ or ERA+ may be very varied. It simply isn't okay to say that as there may be worse players, dominance must be easier. It may be that dominance is harder, because there's less chance of pitcher x's season being significantly better than the best outliers of the bigger group of pitchers at large.
Moreover, we need to factor hitters into this equation, and it's actually a pretty tough question as to what an increase in the number of hitters does to ERA distribution. Is there the same influx of new bad hitters as new bad pitchers? Can we make the case that the affect is the same?
You need some type of endpoint at both ends, the pro-Koufax crowd will always point to Koufax's IP advantage over Pedro...
The name that surprsied me was Viola, but he skated in barely matching both criteria...
If you drop the IP bar from 250 IP to 200, the # of seasons jumps from 79 to 178
2 Pitchers have 8 such seasons: (followed by mean ERA+ and ip):
Greg Maddux 195 240
Roger Clemens 187 249
1 pitcher has 7 seasons:
Randy Johnson 188 243
1 pitcher has 5 seasons:
Kevin Brown 174 234
4 pitchers have 4 such seasons:
Pedro Martinez 229 226
Sandy Koufax 174 298
Tom Seaver 171 278
Steve Carlton 165 292
6 pitchers have 3 such seasons:
Bob Gibson 191 284
Juan Marichal 168 300
Whitey Ford 167 230
Johan Santana 166 231
Jim Palmer 158 298
Curt Schilling 152 236
15 pitchers have 2 such seasons:
Warren Spahn 178 277
Kevin Appier 172 223
Phil Niekro 169 255
Andy Pettitte 166 231
Sam McDowell 163 271
Tom Glavine 161 238
Don Sutton 161 242
Teddy Higuera 159 238
Jose Rijo 158 231
Howie Pollet 157 248
Frank Viola 156 253
Bert Blyleven 155 280
Brandon Webb 154 236
Dutch Leonard 154 230
Mike Cuellar 152 259
Which is why my first sentence in this thread went like this:
"I think it is easier to dominate, or more specifically, look dominant today."
Bad pitchers do have a direct influence on ERA+, as league ERA is the numerator in the equation. If more bad pitchers means a higher league ERA, then the ERA+ of the best pitchers will rise through no additional effort of their own. That was my point about looking dominant. By ERA+, Tom Seaver at his best looks no better than Kevin Brown at his best:
Brown - 216, 169, 169, 164, 150
Seaver - 193, 175, 165, 150, 145
And Kevin Brown, while a very good pitcher, is hardly the best pitcher of his generation.
I'm not Andy, and your point about tired pitchers is a valid one. But I don't think that cancels out the additional hundreds of innings thrown today by has beens and never wasses. Hell, Steve Trachsel and Sidney Ponson keep getting starting jobs.
Let me put it to you this way. Do you think Steve Carlton's pitching peers in toto, were no better or worse than Jason Schmidt's in 2003 or Johan Santana's in 2004, and thus Lefty was no better than those two, additional innings pitched notwithstanding?
Miserlou, my opinion of Steve Carlton's peers doesn't stop me from saying that Steve Carlton was more valuable than Schmidt or Santana. Just as I don't think that the fact that Babe Ruth played against far worse competition than he would today means that he wouldn't have been able to adapt. Great talent transcends eras.
And yes, Lefty's extra innings are a big factor in my judgment of him. We've had threads on this subject. I've always held that "talent" and "value" are two distinct categories, and that while the top starters of today may well have had more talent than some of the best oldtimers, the oldtimers contributed more value to their teams, due to their extra workload. Whether or not those same pitchers could have carried a similar workload under today's conditions is still another separate question, to which my answer would almost certainly be "no."
One small point. Don't lose sight of the big NL / AL gap from the mid-50's through the early 70's. The star power in that period was overwhelmingly in the National League, for the obvious reason.
Seaver was throwing more innnings and more innings per start in his years- you have to take that into account too.
Brown - 216, 169, 169, 164, 150
Seaver - 193, 175, 165, 150, 145
And Kevin Brown, while a very good pitcher, is hardly the best pitcher of his generation.
There are several problems with this statement. First, Brown, from 1996 to 2000 when he put up these numbers, may have been the best pitcher of his generation; its just not widely known. Him or Maddux, anyway. The fact that Brown happened to be perhaps the best pitcher of the late 90's says nothing about the number of bad pitchers in the league.
Second, there are many factors that may cause a league to be easier to dominate - the quality of the bottom feeders is not the only one. Since the mid 1990's, the top OPS+ is much higher than it was in the 1980's, for example, but that may be related to many things, including, for example, the overall level of offense. The fact that teams are using more pitchers today than in previous years does not necessarily mean a) there are more bad pitchers today, or b)changes in the ERA+ of the top pitchers is automatically connected.
Finally, more bad pitchers does not necessarily mean a higher league ERA. Nor does the converse hold - a higher league ERA does not necessarily mean worse pitchers. Smaller ballparks, a livelier ball, steroids, lasix surgery, a change in bats, etc., have been associated with changes in the game, rightly or wrongly. There's no reason to think the use of a 12th pitcher is somehow more responsible than each of these factors.
That really doesn't address my point, which was a) there's as many bad hitters as bad pitchers and b) this assumes a distribution of ERA that certainly can't be assumed. Why would more bad pitchers make the league ERA higher if more bad hitters also appeared, who surely must (in your example) depress ERA? Plus, the higher the ERA, the higher the variation required to get greater +s, thus making it harder to dominate, if anything.
At this point, you are making a conjecture completely unsupported by any form of evidence other than 'Pitcher X looks like he had a better prime than Y, which cannot be'. Do pitchers nowadays cluster around the median or at the extremes of the curve? Is the standard deviation of league ERA and ace ERA higher or lower? How does the influx of more hitters affect this? These are the minimum number of questions you need to answer to argue this point on a statistical level. You may be right, of course, but this is the equivalent of saying 'Bonds is a better hitter than Ruth because athletes are more talented these days, look at how fast they run the 100m'.
2. Lefty Grove+* 148 L
3. Walter Johnson+ 147 R
4. Dan Quisenberry 146 R
4. Ed Walsh+ 146 R
4. Hoyt Wilhelm+ 146 R
4. Joe Wood 146 R
8. Brandon Webb (29) 144 R
9. Roger Clemens 143 R
10. Jim Devlin 142 R
10. Addie Joss+ 142 R
10. Al Spalding+ 142 R
quisenberry is the third greatest pitcher of all time and isn't even getting a sniff of the hof?
It's a Q & D list, and other pitchers besides Maddux would have cause to complain.
1: Drop IP below 200 and the list expands dramtically
2: Drop ERA+ below 150 and the list expands dramtically
3: My 200 IP list includes 8 seasons for Maddux
4: The 250+ IP list was generated because someone else threw out Koufax as being best living pitcher- based upon a peak argument- All of Koufax's listed season were 300+ ip
When guys like Carlton and Seaver were plying their trade, there were often 3 or 4 automatic outs at the bottom of the line up -- two middle infielders, or a weak fielding outfield glove, the catcher and the pitcher. They couldn't hit, but they could pick it. Meanwhile, it was easier for pitchers to rack up a lot of innings, and teams did not need as much manpower, and did not have as much dross at the back end of the bull pen.
To address you last point first, I've already explained that twice. Now I will a third time. Look dominant. Not be dominant, but look more dominant. If you throw a 2.000 ERA in a 3.50 league your ERA+ is 175. If you throw the same 2.00 ERA against the same hitters, but more crappy pitchers makes the overall league ERA 3.75, your ERA+ is now 188. You are the same, the hitters are the same, but your relative numbers are better due to crappier competition.
As for the rest, the number of pitchers being used, and the playing time (innings) the extra pitchers are amassing, outpaces any increase in playing time for extra hitters. By a lot. So, unless your contention is that the pitcher talent pool has expanded more than the hitter talent pool, the obvious conclusion is that the average pitcher-inning is of less quality than before.
If there's a sure sign of a predilection for blowing it through one's butt, it'd be a claim that we can prove that either Ruth or Bonds was "better" than the other. Because the only way to do that is by holding to one set, but only one set of assumptions: Either Ruth's relative dominance of his peers demonstrates his superiority, or Bonds's level of competition shows his higher level of greatness.
To make an honest comparison between Ruth and Bonds you have to assume that Ruth would have to face far greater competition, which would diminish his numbers, but you'd also have to acknowledge that this same increased level of competition (and an exposure to modern conditioning and health habits) would have the effect of raising Ruth's game, since a basic characteristic of great talent is its ability to adapt. IOW you have to assume a true leveling of the playing field in all respects, not just in some of them.
And when you try to combine all these factors, I defy anyone to come up with any definitive conclusion as to how Ruth and Bonds would rank.
---------------
One thing I've wondered about recently is, to what extent is the increase in hitting the result of teams that are willing to put up with lower caliber glove work than they have in the past, in exchange for getting a better bat into the line up; and to what extent does that become a self-enforcing trend, as poorer fielders get to fewer balls, which result in more hits and more runs?
When guys like Carlton and Seaver were plying their trade, there were often 3 or 4 automatic outs at the bottom of the line up -- two middle infielders, or a weak fielding outfield glove, the catcher and the pitcher. They couldn't hit, but they could pick it. Meanwhile, it was easier for pitchers to rack up a lot of innings, and teams did not need as much manpower, and did not have as much dross at the back end of the bull pen.
Good points, Srul, though I'm not sure how much of the "lower caliber glove work" you see is a lack of talent and how much of it is a lack of emphasis on defense, due to stats that show the relatively greater importance of offensive skills. Beyond that, I think that the decline of the 300 inning starter is mostly due to higher salaries, which lead to more incentive to preserve valuable arms.
Okay - I see now that you are talking about usage patterns, rather than expansion plus usage. I also think I am not making myself clear, so sorry for that.
Anyway, I do understand your argument, and I'm sorry if I sounded obstanant, but my point is that it is built on assumptions that need to be tested: in this case, that now we have more pitchers on a staff, these new pitchers throw more innings, and in turn these extra innings became clustered around the 'bad' part of the talent curve in such a way that they increase league ERA. While it may sound like common sense, that is a hypothesis that is very far from being proved, especially considering, as noted above, relief pitchers have a far higher replacement value than starters, and there's a fair case to say that taking innings away from starters may lower league era, rather than raise it (if we were talking about reliever dominance, we'd have to reverse this). This is before we think about durability, extreme variance in reliever performance, and an inherent sample bias towards the best pitchers getting the most innings etc. After all, the reason why rosters kept expanding exponentially is that managers saw short-term ERA boosts and durability benefits from them.
Again, this may well not be enough to offset the fact that Jason Marquis gets the ball every fifth day, but it sure isn't a definite, IMO. Still, food for thought.
That was my point. It's impossible to tell outside the context you create for the argument. If you create a context that modern pitching is worse (or more flabby, really) than past pitching, you can construct an argument from there, or if you hold it was better, then you can construct an argument from there. But it doesn't really change the fact that it's a construct, and the important thing is to work out how solid or otherwise that construct's foundations are.
Given that Clemens has 2,200 more IP, I don't think Pedro has an argument for career value. The Pedro of '97-'03, although a bit fragile, is probably the guy you'd want if your life depended on one start or one series. On the other hand, you'd want Clemens if Mike Piazza's life depended on said series.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main