Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Greg Maddux

eligible in 2014

DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM | 69 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4344135)
I would love for Dan R to come in and dump appropriate missing stats in these player threads.
   2. OCF Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4344179)
A hypothetical pure career voter could not possibly ignore him. He's got > 90 WAR. My RA+ equivalent record for his entire career is 343-213. Rank RA+ career records by Fibonacci win points, and the top 10 look like this (and this measure is probably biased towards earlier eras):

1. Young
2. W. Johnson
3. Clemens
4. Alexander
5. Nichols
6. Grove
7. Maddux
8. Mathewson
9. Seaver
10. Spahn

A prime, or peak/prime, voter could not possibly ignore him. On the 2014 general discussion thread, I posted a list of 7-year consecutive RA+ equivalent records, and Maddux has the best since Grove. Some highlights:

Maddux 139-47
Martinez 122-38
Seaver 149-69
Clemens 138-62 (of course, "consecutive" stacks the deck against Clemens)

But included in that 7 year span are the 1994 and 1995 strike years. During that whole time, Maddux was remarkably durable, so there's little doubt that the shortened seasons cost him a significant amount of playing time, at his absolute peak.

A hypothetical pure peak voter could not possibly ignore him. Here the focus has to be on just how dominant he was at his best, especially in 1994-95.

Even a BBWAA Hall of Fame voter probably can't ignore him.
   3. smileyy Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4344194)
He has the stink of steroids about him. Their use let him unnaturally extend his career, but limited his flexibility such that he could only pitch 6 innings at a time.
   4. OCF Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4344202)
I'm going to assume that smileyy's post was pure snark and directed more towards the BBWAA than us. But just to make one point: at the height of his career, Maddux routinely averaged more innings per start than most starting pitchers at the time. (Probably not more pitches per start, but that's a different issue.)
   5. Sweatpants Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4344210)
To that point, Maddux is the last pitcher to qualify for the ERA title and average over 8 IP per game, although he did it in a strike year.
   6. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4344217)
The Cubs taint should keep him out. No more Cubs!
   7. smileyy Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4344220)
[4] Yikes! Sorry...I momentarily forgot that this was an HOM thread. The "Even a BBWAA Hall of Fame voter probably can't ignore him" line got me all snarky. That line of snark is out of place in an HOM thread. I'll save it for something worthy of being derailed :)
   8. smileyy Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4344230)
On a personal note, let me add that as the Reds declined from their 1990 peak, and the Braves ascended the next year...I hated watching Maddux face the Reds. Just this endless parade of weak contact for outs. Probably topped off by the 1994 demolition in the NLCS where the Reds scored 5 runs in 4 games, including 8IP/1ER from Greg Maddux to put them in a 3-0 hole.
   9. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:11 PM (#4344244)
Here's my list

1) Johnson, Walter
2) Clemens, Roger
3) Alexander, Pete
4) Grove, Lefty
5) Williams, Joe
6) Young, Cy
7) Seaver, Tom
8) MADDUX, GREG
9) Spahn, Warren
10) Mathewson, Christy
11) Paige, Satchel
12) Niekro, Phil
13) Carlton, Steve
14) Feller, Bob
15) Gibson, Bob
16) Blyleven, Bert
17) GLAVINE, TOM
18) Nichols, Kid
19) Roberts, Robin
20) Dihigo, Martin
21) SCHILLING, CURT
22) Clarkson, John
23) Hubbell, Carl
24) Vance, Dazzy
25) Perry, Gaylord
26) Brown, Ray
27) MUSSINA, MIKE
28) Keefe, Tim
29) Lyons, Ted
30) Ford, Whitey
31) Rusie, Amos
32) Newhouser, Hal
33) Rogan, Bullet
34) Brown, Kevin
35) Jenkins, Ferguson
36) Foster, Bill
37) Ruffing, Red
38) Palmer, Jim
39) Plank, Eddie
40) Ryan, Nolan

That's without accounting for postseason work for the new guys. The new pitchers have a significant postseason resume.
   10. OCF Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4344251)
DL, where would you insert Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez into that list?
   11. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4344270)
I haven't worked them up post-2005. Johnson up to 2005 is below Spahn and might not pass him. Pedro up to 2005 is at Bob Gibson but it's a tight grouping, could be above Niekro. Smoltz is harder because Dan R doesn't have his relief years but he's Mussina +relief innings +post 2005 +more postseason, probably around #20.

Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Pedro
Glavine
Smoltz
Schilling
Mussina
Brown

Mariano Rivera is below all of them.
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4344285)
Probably topped off by the 1994 demolition in the NLCS where the Reds scored 5 runs in 4 games, including 8IP/1ER from Greg Maddux to put them in a 3-0 hole.


I had totally forgotten that. It's almost like that entire postseason never happened. (-:

Sorry for the HoM snark, but Christ, a Greg Maddux thread is just finding different ways to say, "wow, he was awesome."

   13. zonk Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4344297)
But just to make one point: at the height of his career, Maddux routinely averaged more innings per start than most starting pitchers at the time. (Probably not more pitches per start, but that's a different issue.)


Is it? Don't most studies tracking usage primarily tell us that it's more "pitches" than it is appearances or innings?

On Maddux himself, though not a HoM voter -- even not knowing what backlog you still have, hard for me to see how anyone would be able to justify not having Maddux #1.... not only are his pitching numbers alone sterling, but I think he's probably top-flight defensively, and for a pitcher -- could even hit a bit (a relative plus to other pitchers).

The interesting question on Maddux -- and I would imagine it might be a discussion that probably goes more to the foundation of things like WAR, win shares, et al -- could a pitcher actually be the best/most meritorious player in baseball history? Or - is that one position whose very nature disqualifies one from such a discussion?

   14. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4344336)
For about the first 50 years of baseball history pitchers clearly had the most value. Then they stopped pitching every day.
   15. John DiFool2 Posted: January 10, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4344373)
Then (recently) the strikeout rate started jumping up. Even tho K's are at an all-time high, nobody since Pedro/Unit have really taken advantage. Soon someone tho will undoubtedly come along and start K'ing 12-14 per 9, as a starter.

If you do any sort of significant timelining (which I know in these circles is frowned upon), it's either he or Clemens for the top spot, if you weigh peak/career more or less equally.
   16. bunyon Posted: January 10, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4344380)
(Probably not more pitches per start, but that's a different issue.)



Is it? Don't most studies tracking usage primarily tell us that it's more "pitches" than it is appearances or innings?


Number of pitches have no value. It's outs recorded. A hypothetical pitcher who averaged 9 IP/start but only 50 pitches/start is much, much more valuable than another hypothetical pitcher who averages 7 IP/start with 100 pitches/start. If Maddux averaged more innings than anyone else it doesn't matter a whit how many pitches he needed to do so.
   17. SoSH U at work Posted: January 10, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4344391)
I think you guys arguing IP vs. pitches aren't coming close to debating the same thing. One side is noting the value (IP) and the other the effect/toll (pitches).

   18. OCF Posted: January 10, 2013 at 04:32 PM (#4344401)
Clemens
Maddux
Johnson
Pedro
Glavine
Smoltz
Schilling
Mussina
Brown


There are no pure-peak or pure-career voters in the HoM electorate. Everyone has mixes and shadings. I would characterize that list as career-leaning. I'm also a career-leaning voter and I think I'd have them in the same order.

A much more peak-oriented voter might have Glavine lower and Pedro higher. An extreme peak-oriented voter might be arguing for Pedro for the top spot.
   19. Rob_Wood Posted: January 10, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4344504)

Did anyone else see Bill James on MLB Clubhouse Confidential last week? He commented on various Hall of Fame issues (of course). I think Brian Kenny said something like Greg Maddux next year could be the first unanimous selection. James quickly made an off-hand comment that Maddux is a well-known scuffer of the ball. Did I hear that right? Is it well-known?

Thanks much.
   20. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 10, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4344539)
James quickly made an off-hand comment that Maddux is a well-known scuffer of the ball. Did I hear that right? Is it well-known?


I've never heard that, but James has disparaged Maddux before, usually of the damning with faint praise variety of disparagement- I get the sense that he just doesn't like him- not with the venom he's directed at Hornsby*, but there's some animosity there- James has an inner fanboy who leaks out at odd times.


*His dislike of Hornsby as a human being (whom I assume James never met) was visceral, when he first started doing historical rankings he basically dropped Hornsby several rungs becaue James assumed that Hornsby had an unsually great home field advantage- he retracted that a year or two later when he got actual splits that showed that Hornsby's H/A splits were average... but dinged him because anecdotal evidence said that Hornsby couldn't go back to field pop ups, therefore Hornsby was an historically awful fielder- even though James defensive metrics showed Hornsby as merely mediocre and not awful- later in one of his Historical Abstracts he ranked Collins over Hornsby- saying that the number showed that Collins was better- but even if it was a tie that Collins was better because Hornsby was so obviously a miserable sob/teammate (which is what anecdotal evidence says about Collins as well)- but the fun part was how in the text he insisted and explaiend that Collins had better numbers (using one year as an example) but James' charts at the end of his 2B section showed Hornsby having higher career AND peak value... and later still James wrote that value should be deducted from Hornsby since he had short career because he didn't keep himself in shape (um, excuse me, but isn't that already reflected in the numbers?)

In the early 80s James was probably the most objective baseball analyst there was- but then more and more he left that behind...
   21. Chris Cobb Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4344650)
Re Maddux and ball-scuffing: I am hardly an expert on baseball rumors, but this is one that I have definitely heard.

It appears to still be in circulation, in a small way. Five seconds of google research turned up a reference in a 2012 blog post on gamesmanship to Maddux being "a master at throwing scuffed baseballs. Maddux didn’t scuff them himself, however—he held onto ones that had acquired abrasions through the course of regular use, taking what was legally given to him during the course of the game and using it to his fullest advantage" (http://thebaseballcodes.com/2012/06/).

A possible source for that reference is discussion of the issue in a 2006 Chicago Tribune article on Maddux's early success that year. Ned Yost, who was at that time managing the Brewers after having been a Braves coach, is quoted as dismissing rumors that Maddux was doctoring the ball:

One theory why Maddux is having better results this season is because he's relying on some sort of spitball or greaseball.

The Cardinals even asked to have a ball checked. This is not a new charge.

Yost laughed when asked why he didn't order an inspection Friday.

"It ain't nothing he's putting on the ball," Yost said. "That's a joke.

"Now, if there's a scuff on the ball, he's savvy enough to use it. He's not scuffing it, but he'll see it and use it if there is [a scuff]. For anybody who thinks Greg Maddux is cheating, sorry. He's just masterful at what he does."

Asked why more pitchers don't adopt Maddux's off-speed style, Cubs manager Dusty Baker had an immediate answer.

"If it was that easy, everybody would do it," he said.


I also turned up a story from Sports Illustrated in 1999 that mentioned that Maddux had been accused of doctoring the ball, so the public rumor goes back a ways.

I find it entirely plausible that Maddux, "the smartest pitcher who ever lived," would know exactly what to do with a scuffed baseball. Would he scuff one himself? Unknowable. Does it affect my view of Maddux one way or the other? Not at all.

I believe that I saw him throw a scuffed baseball once, though. I saw a fair amount of Braves baseball on television in the 1990s because of TBS, and one afternoon I was watching the Braves game, and Maddux was pitching. He was in a somewhat tight spot, with two on and two out, around the sixth inning. He had two strikes on the batter (can't remember who it was), and suddenly he threw a pitch on the inside corner that the bottom just dropped out of when it got to the plate--tremendous movement, not the usual subtle curves that Maddux usually worked with. It was a swinging strike three, and the hitter was not close to making contact. Inning over. I don't remember the name of the play-by-play guy from back then, but he was at a loss to describe the pitch--"what WAS that?" he asked the color commentator, who happened to be Don Sutton. "Well . . . " said Sutton, "well [another long pause] i don't know what that was." I had a feeling at the time that Don Sutton had a pretty good idea of what that was, but it wouldn't be tactful for him to go into that subject just then.
   22. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:42 PM (#4344680)
"Now, if there's a scuff on the ball, he's savvy enough to use it. He's not scuffing it, but he'll see it and use it if there is [a scuff]. For anybody who thinks Greg Maddux is cheating, sorry. He's just masterful at what he does."


I've always wondered why so many pitchers seem eager to remove balls from play that have been banged up getting hit/bouncing along the infield.
   23. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4344696)
Not everyone can take a scuffed ball and throw it for a strike.
   24. theorioleway Posted: January 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM (#4344706)
John Feinstein wrote a book on Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina when they were both in New York and at the end of their careers and at one point he illustrated how both of them valued a scuffed ball and tried to teach the younger pitchers on the staff how to take advantage of it. So it certainly wouldn't be surprising for Maddux to know it also. That being said, all three of those pitchers could get hitters out with a normal ball with regularity.
   25. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: January 10, 2013 at 11:55 PM (#4344716)
Hornsby was so obviously a miserable sob/teammate (which is what anecdotal evidence says about Collins as well)

?!? - never heard that about Collins before.
   26. OCF Posted: January 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM (#4344731)
One of the theoretical issues in ranking Maddux among all-time pitchers is his relationship with the "horizontal" strike zone prevalent through most of his career. That is, the umpires tended to call inside and outside pitches strikes but high and low pitches balls.

1. That strike zone was a condition of the times. By using comparative measures like ERA+, we are already adjusting for it.

2. Maddux's pitching style was such that he was uniquely positioned to take advantage of the strike zone. This is very much like talking about a RH fly ball power hitter in Fenway Park. Such a hitter will benefit from his home park by a greater amount than the raw park factor - but the very fact that he does so benefit creates real wins for his team. We've had this conversation before in different contexts, and differing opinions have been expressed.

As I recall it, Maddux threw his fastball on a very high percentage of his pitches - but he could both cut and fade the fastball, so there were really two (or more) versions of it. Some of the Atlanta pitchers, perhaps especially Glavine, relentlessly threw away, away, away, but by contrast, Maddux worked both in and out. For a pitcher with as few walks as Maddux gave up, he did hit a fair number of batters. The fact that he worked in and out rather than up and down was what suited him so well to the wide strike zone.

3. Maddux may have had an extra personal advantage in that the umpires would call strikes for him that would have been strikes for no one else. That's probably also true. And Barry Bonds (and probably Ted Williams before him) got pitches called balls that would have been balls for no one else. And every NBA superstar ever has the advantage on foul calls over the journeymen. I'm not really sure how to deal with this. But you don't get the point of having this matter without already being very, very good.
   27. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4344736)

I basically agree with that point, and Questec made it a little awkward.

Golfers as much as any athletes talk about "muscle memory." If you find a good groove in your swing, you seek to repeat it.

I suspect that Maddux and Glavine each grasped how to very consistently find the exact extreme point that could get you a strike call, early in their careers. And once they kept finding the - well, K spot or GB spot - it was reinforced forever, even if it was a little bit off.

If Leo Mazzone or Bobby Cox came up with this idea, immortality awaits!

And are Maddux and Glavine HOFers? Of course.

   28. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 11, 2013 at 12:47 AM (#4344741)
I suspect that Maddux and Glavine each grasped how to very consistently find the exact extreme point that could get you a strike call, early in their careers. And once they kept finding the - well, K spot or GB spot - it was reinforced forever, even if it was a little bit off.


I think one of the keys is throwing to the target. If the catcher sets up six inches outside, and you throw it right to the mitt, you're going to get that strike call more frequently (I think Livan is a great example of this, and he doesn't have the resume of Maddux and Glavine) than a guy who's catcher has to move to catch the exact same pitch.

   29. smileyy Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:05 AM (#4344743)
OCF -- to your point #3, I think its an issue from a competitive point of view, but not so much of an issue from a historical ranking point of view. I think it creates more of a gap between the "very good" and the "very very good", but there's already some separation there.
   30. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:10 AM (#4344745)
1. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4344135)

I would love for Dan R to come in and dump appropriate missing stats in these player threads.


I am no Dan R, but I have compiled some stats to contemplate for the 4 standout hurlers on the ballot, the top votegetters in the 2013 Hall of Merit election, some of my most valued pitchers without votes, and a few Hall of Meriters who aren't clearly above the backlog.

Notes for rankings:
Pre-1893 hurlers - stats unadjusted - the onneous is on the individual to do this - I have my own system, but it is FAAARRR from perfect, so I prefer to show the raw stats by the metrics.

War credit: Urban Shocker, Don Newcombe (Integration credit), Eppa Rixey
Blackball: Tony Mullane
MLE credit: Jack Quinn and Tommy Bridges (PCL)
Minors credit: Luis Tiant and Doc Gooden (dominating) - given ~2 WAR for being "stuck" in the minors

For Sean Smith, Baseball Reference, and Baseball Gauge, I raise the replacement level to 1 WAR, and 1.5 WAR for Fangraphs, for better or worse.

To the numbers: Sean Smith:

Sean Smith WAR:
SS 1.000 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Name
6384 10.9 9.68 8.40 7.30 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 5.1 5.1 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.1 1.0 Maddux
4788 7.40 7.14 6.50 6.20 6.1 5.4 5.1 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4492 7.30 6.80 6.40 6.00 6.0 5.4 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.3 3.0 3.0 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Schilling
3903 7.40 5.60 5.60 5.17 5.0 4.5 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 Glavine

5900 13.9 13.0 12.7 11.5 8.5 5.2 3.6 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
5650 11.6 8.40 7.60 7.50 7.3 7.3 5.9 5.6 5.3 4.7 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
5081 17.3 9.90 9.50 8.50 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
4728 11.9 10.9 7.50 6.30 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.2 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch
4579 10.0 9.70 9.00 7.70 7.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick
3919 13.4 10.7 9.30 8.90 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond
3790 13.2 9.20 7.50 6.10 5.6 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney

3890 7.70 6.80 6.50 6.40 6.3 5.6 4.9 3.9 2.9 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
3866 7.50 6.40 5.90 5.40 5.4 5.2 4.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3860 8.76 7.62 7.42 5.15 5.0 4.2 3.9 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3827 8.40 7.60 6.20 6.16 5.3 4.7 4.7 3.4 3.3 2.7 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
3799 7.62 7.52 6.80 6.18 5.3 4.6 4.5 4.0 3.5 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
3798 7.62 7.00 5.56 5.36 5.4 5.3 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3791 8.08 7.70 7.30 7.00 5.4 4.9 3.6 3.5 3.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3733 7.31 6.08 5.15 5.05 4.9 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.5 3.1 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
3699 6.80 6.70 6.50 5.70 5.1 4.6 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
3617 7.50 6.60 6.30 4.62 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.2 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
3547 7.31 5.77 5.56 5.28 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.5 3.9 2.5 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
3534 8.76 7.00 6.43 4.74 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3488 7.30 6.90 6.70 5.80 4.0 3.5 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hershiser
3478 10.1 8.48 5.77 4.84 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
3398 6.90 6.90 6.18 5.36 5.2 5.0 3.5 3.2 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
3377 7.93 6.08 5.97 5.40 4.6 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
3377 6.39 5.25 5.05 4.74 4.6 4.4 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.1 3.0 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
3358 9.89 8.24 4.64 4.12 3.4 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3347 8.96 7.83 6.90 5.87 4.9 4.7 2.4 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
3332 7.73 7.52 6.59 4.84 4.2 4.1 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
3294 5.70 5.20 5.20 4.80 4.8 4.2 3.6 3.6 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 John
3278 11.7 5.40 4.40 3.80 3.7 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Gooden
3234 7.60 7.00 6.30 6.10 4.1 4.0 3.6 2.7 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3218 7.00 6.70 6.49 5.67 4.0 3.9 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
3159 8.34 8.24 6.18 5.02 3.7 3.3 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
3157 10.4 7.00 4.43 4.22 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
3091 9.02 7.52 4.80 3.81 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.6 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
3011 5.97 5.25 4.74 4.02 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
2981 7.41 7.31 4.74 4.53 3.1 3.5 3.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
2929 6.60 4.03 3.91 3.91 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 Quinn
2797 8.03 5.15 4.94 4.74 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.1 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss

Baseball Gauge WAR:

BG 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Name
7531 13.0 11.7 8.95 8.27 8.22 8.1 7.8 7.3 5.4 5.1 4.6 4.6 4.0 3.8 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.4 Maddux
5084 7.97 7.63 7.13 7.07 6.11 5.5 5.5 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4969 7.57 6.73 6.56 6.47 6.06 5.9 5.8 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 Glavine
4821 8.27 7.37 7.05 6.33 6.09 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Schilling

6077 16.6 13.4 13.2 12.6 12.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch
5997 15.3 13.2 13.1 10.3 9.00 5.9 2.8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
5512 20.8 10.7 9.70 9.60 4.67 3.6 3.0 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
5206 10.9 8.77 7.77 7.73 7.00 6.1 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.1 3.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
4039 14.9 11.2 8.47 5.81 5.36 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick
3464 10.8 8.85 5.99 5.56 5.29 3.3 2.4 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney
2804 7.40 6.92 5.36 5.22 4.51 3.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond

4069 7.34 6.15 5.81 5.61 5.00 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
3956 7.72 7.00 6.59 6.12 5.82 5.3 5.3 3.8 3.7 3.5 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3906 11.6 11.3 5.97 5.71 3.32 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3797 7.27 6.99 5.98 5.48 5.40 5.2 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
3725 7.22 7.07 6.60 6.07 5.35 5.3 4.4 3.9 3.6 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3721 8.15 7.97 7.04 7.03 6.12 4.5 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3690 7.99 6.85 5.95 5.69 5.54 4.6 4.3 3.5 3.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
3565 6.52 5.58 5.30 5.11 4.67 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3546 8.30 6.83 6.17 5.78 5.63 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
3482 9.08 8.32 6.97 4.65 4.17 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
3466 7.77 6.59 5.75 5.74 4.63 4.6 3.9 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3449 10.3 7.61 5.53 3.67 3.50 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
3448 7.96 7.22 4.77 4.61 4.24 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 John
3425 11.9 4.66 4.18 3.91 3.86 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
3384 8.15 7.94 6.76 5.00 4.52 4.5 3.9 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3321 11.2 8.43 5.69 3.28 2.91 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
3290 9.14 7.54 6.99 5.36 4.95 4.6 2.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
3265 7.23 6.65 6.02 5.74 5.51 4.2 3.8 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
3207 7.63 6.56 5.83 4.60 4.10 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
3207 11.1 7.51 4.51 3.84 3.29 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
3159 6.68 5.27 5.01 4.89 4.82 4.5 4.5 4.4 3.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
3142 7.37 6.85 6.26 4.61 4.57 3.9 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hershiser
3071 7.34 6.45 5.73 5.61 3.84 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
2985 7.49 5.73 5.50 5.09 4.76 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
2968 6.11 4.89 4.89 4.73 4.48 4.4 3.8 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
2938 8.66 6.37 4.97 4.95 3.87 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Quinn
2909 6.47 5.33 4.84 3.99 3.89 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
2878 6.06 5.62 5.31 4.64 3.82 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
2647 4.75 4.36 4.34 4.07 3.86 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 Gooden
2580 5.62 4.48 4.32 3.92 3.70 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
2497 7.18 5.60 4.46 3.95 3.59 3.5 3.5 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss
   31. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:20 AM (#4344751)
Baseball Reference WAR:

BR 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Name
6569 11.9 10.3 9.10 7.50 7.00 6.8 6.4 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.4 3.7 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.0 1.0 Maddux
4825 8.20 8.20 7.40 6.00 5.70 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.6 3.9 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Glavine
4816 7.90 7.28 6.80 6.38 6.30 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.2 3.3 3.2 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4518 9.00 6.60 6.30 6.20 5.83 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 Schilling

5216 14.1 13.0 12.6 11.0 10.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
5146 10.5 10.3 10.3 9.50 8.00 6.9 6.3 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney
4831 15.5 11.5 10.7 7.30 5.10 4.6 3.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
4610 11.9 10.1 7.40 6.10 5.80 5.3 5.1 4.9 3.9 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond
4446 11.1 10.7 9.30 8.00 7.10 4.7 3.6 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch
4283 12.8 7.10 6.00 5.70 5.50 5.4 4.5 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
3924 12.2 8.10 8.10 7.70 7.70 3.9 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick

4055 8.24 7.21 7.00 6.39 6.18 6.1 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3973 7.40 7.40 6.24 6.00 5.40 5.0 4.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3800 8.22 8.21 7.55 7.14 5.59 3.7 3.6 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3798 7.60 7.30 6.70 6.50 6.45 5.7 4.6 3.9 3.0 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
3685 9.00 7.70 6.02 5.60 5.20 5.2 4.7 3.2 3.1 2.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
3560 6.59 5.56 5.25 5.15 4.90 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
3548 8.65 7.21 7.00 5.97 5.15 4.3 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
3538 8.14 8.03 6.80 5.87 4.64 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
3513 10.8 9.06 4.84 3.71 3.50 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
3503 7.31 6.49 6.08 5.56 5.18 4.9 4.8 4.1 3.7 2.6 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3452 10.5 9.12 6.21 4.53 3.46 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3419 7.10 7.00 6.80 6.00 4.40 3.9 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
3417 7.50 6.80 6.70 4.60 4.48 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
3367 13.0 5.40 4.00 4.00 3.80 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3351 9.06 7.62 6.90 4.93 4.22 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
3300 7.97 7.06 6.12 5.36 4.33 4.0 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3295 9.17 7.11 7.00 6.59 5.56 4.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Quinn
3150 9.7 7.52 5.00 3.81 3.50 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
3146 7.21 6.90 5.67 4.94 4.74 4.3 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
3141 7.88 7.23 6.49 4.54 4.08 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 John
3104 7.80 7.40 6.00 5.90 4.20 4.1 3.8 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
3077 6.70 6.59 5.77 4.94 4.94 4.4 4.3 3.8 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
3067 10.9 6.59 4.84 4.64 2.99 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
3050 6.08 4.90 4.74 4.64 4.53 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
2982 6.90 5.90 4.90 4.90 4.80 4.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
2982 6.90 5.84 5.56 4.75 4.54 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
2972 5.97 5.36 5.25 4.12 4.12 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
2964 5.60 5.50 5.20 4.30 4.20 4.0 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 Hershiser
2876 6.12 4.53 4.22 4.12 3.91 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 Gooden
2829 7.73 7.00 5.25 4.84 3.40 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
2610 7.42 5.28 4.82 4.36 4.17 4.0 3.8 3.0 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss

Fangraphs WAR:

FG 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 19 20 21
7839 10.8 8.80 8.20 8.20 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.4 6.7 6.6 6.1 5.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.7 Maddux
5641 9.70 8.60 8.40 7.30 7.3 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.5 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Glavine
5199 7.10 6.40 6.30 6.00 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.9 1.7 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4235 6.40 6.40 5.50 5.40 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.0 Schilling

5662 10.8 9.40 8.70 8.30 8.0 6.7 6.5 5.1 4.2 3.3 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
5133 12.5 12.1 11.2 10.1 8.1 3.5 2.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch
4848 13.1 10.1 8.20 7.80 7.1 6.4 6.3 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick
3961 9.90 9.20 7.30 6.50 6.0 4.6 4.4 3.4 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney
3789 8.00 7.70 7.60 7.20 5.8 5.8 5.7 4.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
3760 12.3 7.10 6.10 5.70 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
3645 8.50 8.30 7.40 4.80 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.3 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond

4220 7.11 6.39 6.28 6.28 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.2 4.6 4.1 3.8 2.4 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
4160 9.80 8.70 7.40 6.20 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3882 7.10 5.10 4.90 4.30 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.4 Hershiser
3836 8.14 6.90 6.80 5.46 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.4 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
3784 6.40 5.60 5.40 5.20 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
3742 5.97 5.67 5.56 5.46 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
3665 7.40 6.60 6.16 6.16 5.6 5.4 5.2 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
3655 6.59 6.08 5.87 5.15 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.3 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
3652 7.21 6.18 6.08 5.77 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.2 3.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
3640 7.00 6.59 6.18 5.25 5.2 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.4 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
3606 8.71 5.36 5.12 4.43 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Gooden
3592 6.87 6.30 5.97 5.15 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.0 3.7 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3564 7.41 6.90 6.84 6.18 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3562 7.20 7.11 6.59 6.59 6.6 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.5 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3458 7.52 6.84 6.08 5.46 5.5 5.4 5.2 4.0 3.4 2.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3404 7.11 7.00 6.54 4.94 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3349 7.93 6.28 5.97 5.46 4.7 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.1 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 John
3335 5.32 5.30 5.30 5.06 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.0 2.9 2.4 2.2 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
3263 6.70 6.39 6.39 6.08 5.0 4.1 3.5 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
3180 6.28 6.18 5.87 5.25 5.2 4.3 3.9 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
3077 6.90 6.40 5.40 5.10 4.7 4.1 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3071 7.31 6.60 5.36 5.15 5.0 4.6 4.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
3061 7.10 6.20 5.70 5.70 4.8 4.7 4.3 3.7 3.3 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
3025 8.46 6.28 4.53 4.12 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
2956 6.20 5.90 5.80 4.50 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
2910 6.10 5.90 5.40 5.10 5.0 5.0 4.3 3.6 3.0 2.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
2904 6.90 5.67 5.46 5.46 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 3.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
2884 7.83 7.42 4.53 4.22 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
2824 8.03 6.49 5.36 5.25 5.0 4.4 4.0 2.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss
2607 7.11 7.00 6.28 5.97 5.6 5.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Quinn
1643 5.25 4.64 4.00 3.71 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
   32. Alex King Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:36 AM (#4344755)
Random Hornsby digression:

Just saw this from his bb-ref page: Hornsby led his league in AVG/OBP/SLG six years in a row (1920-1925)!!! I know this isn't news to anyone, but wow, peak Hornsby was a great hitter (for comparison, neither Bonds, Williams or Ruth accomplished this feat, though Williams did lead the league in OBP/SLG 6 years in a row).
   33. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:38 AM (#4344756)
Crap, I lost the edit function and had the names out of order...take II - only Sean Smith WAR has the correct names.

Baseball Gauge:
BG 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
7531 13.0 11.7 8.95 8.27 8.22 8.1 7.8 7.3 5.4 5.1 4.6 4.6 4.0 3.8 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.4 Maddux
5084 7.97 7.63 7.13 7.07 6.11 5.5 5.5 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4969 7.57 6.73 6.56 6.47 6.06 5.9 5.8 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 Glavine
4821 8.27 7.37 7.05 6.33 6.09 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.4 3.2 2.8 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Schilling

6077 16.6 13.4 13.2 12.6 12.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond
5997 15.3 13.2 13.1 10.3 9.00 5.9 2.8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
5512 20.8 10.7 9.70 9.60 4.67 3.6 3.0 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
5206 10.9 8.77 7.77 7.73 7.00 6.1 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.1 3.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
4039 14.9 11.2 8.47 5.81 5.36 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney
3464 10.8 8.85 5.99 5.56 5.29 3.3 2.4 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch
2804 7.40 6.92 5.36 5.22 4.51 3.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick

4069 7.34 6.15 5.81 5.61 5.00 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
3956 7.72 7.00 6.59 6.12 5.82 5.3 5.3 3.8 3.7 3.5 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3906 11.6 11.3 5.97 5.71 3.32 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
3797 7.27 6.99 5.98 5.48 5.40 5.2 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3725 7.22 7.07 6.60 6.07 5.35 5.3 4.4 3.9 3.6 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
3721 8.15 7.97 7.04 7.03 6.12 4.5 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3690 7.99 6.85 5.95 5.69 5.54 4.6 4.3 3.5 3.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
3565 6.52 5.58 5.30 5.11 4.67 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
3546 8.30 6.83 6.17 5.78 5.63 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.6 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
3482 9.08 8.32 6.97 4.65 4.17 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
3466 7.77 6.59 5.75 5.74 4.63 4.6 3.9 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
3449 10.3 7.61 5.53 3.67 3.50 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
3448 7.96 7.22 4.77 4.61 4.24 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
3425 11.9 4.66 4.18 3.91 3.86 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Gooden
3384 8.15 7.94 6.76 5.00 4.52 4.5 3.9 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3321 11.2 8.43 5.69 3.28 2.91 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3290 9.14 7.54 6.99 5.36 4.95 4.6 2.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
3265 7.23 6.65 6.02 5.74 5.50 4.2 3.8 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
3207 7.63 6.56 5.83 4.60 4.10 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3207 11.1 7.51 4.51 3.84 3.29 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
3159 6.68 5.27 5.01 4.89 4.82 4.5 4.5 4.4 3.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
3142 7.37 6.85 6.26 4.61 4.57 3.9 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3071 7.34 6.45 5.73 5.61 3.84 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hershiser
2985 7.49 5.73 5.50 5.09 4.76 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
2968 6.11 4.89 4.89 4.73 4.48 4.4 3.8 3.1 3.1 2.5 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
2938 8.66 6.37 4.97 4.95 3.87 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
2909 6.47 5.33 4.84 3.99 3.90 3.7 3.6 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
2878 6.06 5.62 5.31 4.64 3.82 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
2647 4.75 4.36 4.34 4.07 3.86 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 John
2580 5.62 4.48 4.32 3.92 3.70 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Quinn
2497 7.18 5.60 4.46 3.95 3.59 3.5 3.5 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss



   34. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:45 AM (#4344762)
Baseball Reference:
BR 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
6569 11.9 10.3 9.10 7.50 7.00 6.8 6.4 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.4 3.7 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.0 1.0 Maddux
4825 8.20 8.20 7.40 6.00 5.70 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.6 3.9 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Schilling
4816 7.90 7.28 6.80 6.38 6.30 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.2 3.3 3.2 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4518 9.00 6.60 6.30 6.20 5.83 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 Glavine

5216 14.1 13.0 12.6 11.0 10.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond
5146 10.5 10.3 10.3 9.50 8.00 6.9 6.3 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick
4831 15.5 11.5 10.7 7.30 5.10 4.6 3.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
4610 11.9 10.1 7.40 6.10 5.80 5.3 5.1 4.9 3.9 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch
4446 11.1 10.7 9.30 8.00 7.10 4.7 3.6 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
4283 12.8 7.10 6.00 5.70 5.50 5.4 4.5 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
3924 12.2 8.10 8.10 7.70 7.70 3.9 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney

4055 8.24 7.21 7.00 6.39 6.18 6.1 4.6 4.5 4.3 3.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3973 7.40 7.40 6.24 6.00 5.40 5.0 4.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3800 8.22 8.21 7.55 7.14 5.59 3.7 3.6 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3798 7.60 7.30 6.70 6.50 6.45 5.7 4.6 3.9 3.0 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
3685 9.00 7.70 6.02 5.60 5.20 5.2 4.7 3.2 3.1 2.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
3560 6.59 5.56 5.25 5.15 4.90 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
3548 8.65 7.21 7.00 5.97 5.15 4.3 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
3538 8.14 8.03 6.80 5.87 4.64 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
3513 10.8 9.06 4.84 3.71 3.50 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3503 7.31 6.49 6.08 5.56 5.18 4.9 4.8 4.1 3.7 2.6 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
3452 10.5 9.12 6.21 4.53 3.46 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
3419 7.10 7.00 6.80 6.00 4.40 3.9 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hershiser
3417 7.50 6.80 6.70 4.60 4.48 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.1 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
3367 13.0 5.40 4.00 4.00 3.80 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Gooden
3351 9.06 7.62 6.90 4.93 4.22 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
3300 7.97 7.06 6.12 5.36 4.33 4.0 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3295 9.17 7.11 7.00 6.59 5.56 4.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
3150 9.70 7.52 5.00 3.81 3.50 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
3146 7.21 6.90 5.67 4.94 4.74 4.3 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
3141 7.88 7.23 6.49 4.54 4.08 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3104 7.80 7.40 6.00 5.90 4.20 4.1 3.8 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3077 6.70 6.59 5.77 4.94 4.94 4.4 4.3 3.8 3.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
3067 10.9 6.59 4.84 4.64 2.99 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
3050 6.08 4.90 4.74 4.64 4.53 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
2982 6.90 5.90 4.90 4.90 4.80 4.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
2982 6.90 5.84 5.56 4.75 4.54 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
2972 5.97 5.36 5.25 4.12 4.12 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
2964 5.60 5.50 5.20 4.30 4.20 4.0 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 John
2876 6.12 4.53 4.22 4.12 3.91 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 Quinn
2829 7.73 7.00 5.25 4.84 3.40 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
2610 7.42 5.28 4.82 4.36 4.17 4.0 3.8 3.0 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss
   35. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:48 AM (#4344764)
Fangraphs WAR:
BR 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

7839 10.8 8.80 8.20 8.20 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.4 6.7 6.6 6.1 5.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.7 Maddux
5641 9.70 8.60 8.40 7.30 7.3 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.5 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Schilling
5199 7.10 6.40 6.30 6.00 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.9 1.7 1.0 1.0 Mussina
4235 6.40 6.40 5.50 5.40 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.4 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.0 Glavine

5662 10.8 9.40 8.70 8.30 8.0 6.7 6.5 5.1 4.2 3.3 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mullane
5133 12.5 12.1 11.2 10.1 8.1 3.5 2.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Caruthers
4848 13.1 10.1 8.20 7.80 7.1 6.4 6.3 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Whitney
3961 9.90 9.20 7.30 6.50 6.0 4.6 4.4 3.4 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 McCormick
3789 8.00 7.70 7.60 7.20 5.8 5.8 5.7 4.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bond
3760 12.3 7.10 6.10 5.70 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Buffinton
3645 8.50 8.30 7.40 4.80 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.3 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Welch

4220 7.11 6.39 6.28 6.28 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.2 4.6 4.1 3.8 2.4 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newcombe
4160 9.80 8.70 7.40 6.20 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Gooden
3882 7.10 5.10 4.90 4.30 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.4 John
3836 8.14 6.90 6.80 5.46 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.4 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uhle
3784 6.40 5.60 5.40 5.20 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 Koosman
3742 5.97 5.67 5.56 5.46 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 Rixey
3665 7.40 6.60 6.16 6.16 5.6 5.4 5.2 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Appier
3655 6.59 6.08 5.87 5.15 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.3 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Bridges
3652 7.21 6.18 6.08 5.77 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.2 3.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Grimes
3640 7.00 6.59 6.18 5.25 5.2 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.4 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Newsom
3606 8.71 5.36 5.12 4.43 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Quinn
3592 6.87 6.30 5.97 5.15 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.0 3.7 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Willis
3564 7.41 6.90 6.84 6.18 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cicotte
3562 7.20 7.11 6.59 6.59 6.6 4.9 3.9 3.7 3.5 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Shocker
3458 7.52 6.84 6.08 5.46 5.5 5.4 5.2 4.0 3.4 2.2 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cooper
3404 7.11 7.00 6.54 4.94 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adams
3349 7.93 6.28 5.97 5.46 4.7 4.4 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.1 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Brown
3335 5.32 5.30 5.30 5.06 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.0 2.9 2.4 2.2 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Finley
3263 6.70 6.39 6.39 6.08 5.0 4.1 3.5 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Faber
3180 6.28 6.18 5.87 5.25 5.2 4.3 3.9 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Pierce
3077 6.90 6.40 5.40 5.10 4.7 4.1 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Tiant
3071 7.31 6.60 5.36 5.15 5.0 4.6 4.4 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mays
3061 7.10 6.20 5.70 5.70 4.8 4.7 4.3 3.7 3.3 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Viola
3025 8.46 6.28 4.53 4.12 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Trout
2956 6.20 5.90 5.80 4.50 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Hershiser
2910 6.10 5.90 5.40 5.10 5.0 5.0 4.3 3.6 3.0 2.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stieb
2904 6.90 5.67 5.46 5.46 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.2 3.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lemon
2884 7.83 7.42 4.53 4.22 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Luque
2824 8.03 6.49 5.36 5.25 5.0 4.4 4.0 2.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Joss
2607 7.11 7.00 6.28 5.97 5.6 5.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dean
1643 5.25 4.64 4.00 3.71 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Walters
   36. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 01:50 AM (#4344767)
Combined:
Regular season Mussina is a hair ahead of Schilling - bump Curt ahead after his amazing post season run.

28323 Maddux
19888 Mussina
19779 Schilling
17626 Glavine

19th century:
Mullane and Caruthers need adjusted for quality of competition.
Bond is a tough one to judge from the 1870s.
I did adjust McCormick's 1884 UA season ~ in half.

21476 Caruthers
20800 Mullane
19182 Buffinton
19001 Bond
16601 Whitney
16490 McCormick
16447 Welch

I will be voting for Newcombe and Shocker in 2014.

15583 Newcombe
15371 Shocker
14905 Willis
14867 Appier
14713 Tiant
14400 Cicotte
14323 Stieb
14231 Gooden
14198 Uhle
13954 Grimes
13668 Cooper
13647 Bridges
13492 Brown
13455 Faber
13444 Adams
13343 Koosman
13338 Finley
13190 Pierce
13045 Lemon
12934 Hershiser
12898 Newsom
12786 John
12783 Viola
12716 Trout
12634 Rixey
12539 Dean
12416 Mays
12315 Luque
11991 Quinn
11092 Walters
10728 Joss

Joe Dimino - do you have updated PA available?
   37. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2013 at 02:48 AM (#4344783)
Appier and Tiant have the challenge of being among an extremely strong cohort.
Willis for 1890s/1900s split of defense and pitcher credit and Cicotte (should you count 1919 or 1920?) present voters challenges also.
I condone electing Stieb and Gooden.
Is George Uhle really this good???
Grimes/Cooper/Bridges are all borderline PHOM potential.

Regarding Hall of Meriters:
By using Joe D's PA as part of my calculation, Faber vaults close to the Newcombe/Shocker level.
Disappointing to see 3 Finger Brown so low...no clear cut HOMs from one of the greatest dynasty teams of all time...are the Cubs fielders earning too much credit...if Brown isn't being elected, should Tinker's potentially awesome defense earn him a selection?
Pierce vaults into the Grimes/Cooper/Bridges borderline PHOM territory once I factor in a small dose of WPA - Billy is QUITE IMPRESSIVE in this metric.
Rixey moves into the Adams/Koosman/Finley area if you place a fraction of weight on Joe D's PA.
Lemon appears to be a clear mistake, unless Sean Smith WAR is your primary stat - although I would give Bob a bump ahead of Koosman/Finley.

Other notes from the calculations:
Luque was given credit for being blocked/minor league credit for 2 years @ a small amount.
The WWII years are discounted 5% 1943, 10% 1944, and 15% 1945.
Seasons post 1899 are prorated to 162 games if seasons were shorter than such.

What are the electorate's thoughts?
   38. OCF Posted: January 11, 2013 at 03:16 AM (#4344794)
Is George Uhle really this good???

My RA+ equivalent record for him is 186-160. Compare to Bob Friend (212-190), Jim Perry (196-169), John Candelaria (160-121), Murray Dickson (183-156), Curt Simmons (198-174), Mark Langston (178-151). Lemon would be in this range except for the upward adjustment for Lemon's own hitting. (And no, I don't see Lemon as belonging to the HoM even with the hitting.) That's all a notch below Adams/Koosman/Finley/Key/Tanana. And yes, I'm not adjusting for defensive support (which is, of course, the big issue with Mordecai Brown).
   39. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4348170)
Two thoughts immediately spring to mind re Maddux's career:

1. The strike of 1994/1995 was ill-timed for him.

2. I always expected Maddux to catch Clemens, but he never did.

Great, great pitcher.
   40. progrockfan Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4348215)
@Ray (RDP): "I always expected Maddux to catch Clemens, but he never did."

Ah, but Maddux did finish one solitary win ahead of Roger, 355 to 354 — earned, naturally, in his last-ever start.

I've always interpreted this as a pure act of will. Consider: This is the same guy who decided, with 999 career walks allowed and three starts remaining in his ML career, that he wasn't going to allow his 1000th career walk. So he didn't. Three starts, 18 innings pitched, 6 Ks, zero walks. Because he could.

Like you said, Ray: Great, great pitcher.
   41. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4348229)
Maddux is my favorite pitcher ever, and one of the greatest ever.

Nothing else to add.
   42. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 16, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4348237)
Probably topped off by the 1994 demolition in the NLCS where the Reds scored 5 runs in 4 games, including 8IP/1ER from Greg Maddux to put them in a 3-0 hole.


Reggie Sanders just swung and missed a pitch at his eyes.

I always expected Maddux to catch Clemens, but he never did.


Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens.

RE: "scuffs" and Bill James; this apparently disdain for GREG ####### MADDUX is actually more reason than the 'hey, let's defend the defenders of pedophiles!' thing to piss in a corner while Bill James burns alive.
   43. TomH Posted: January 25, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4354964)
I care not for James' thoughts nor the scuffing whispers. But the assertion that Maddux was better than Clemens has little evidnece to support it. Put them on the same teams in the same league wihthte same defences in the same parks, and Clemens' ERA is much better, Clemens wins more games and loses many fewer. It's so obvious to most that I don't see the need to provide details.
   44. gehrig97 Posted: January 25, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4354998)
Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens.


By what measure?
   45. zonk Posted: January 25, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4355020)
Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens.



By what measure?


Sadly, purely on the pitching numbers, it's hard to find a way to prove it... ERA+, WAR, every pitching metric I can find - Rocket tops Mad Dog (and does so whether you want to go career or peak).

The one thing I guess I might say that I think a case could be made for Maddux over Clemens: Maddux was also a brilliant fielder, perhaps the best (at least one of the best all-time). Maddux could also hit a fair bit for a pitcher - there - he's just decidedly upper half all-time, not a truly great hitting pitcher. I know/think that fielding at least, would be a component in WAR, no?

However, for that complete package - I would still draft Maddux over Clemens. I know it would be wrong and I know I'm overvaluing some little things that just don't close the raw gap (which is noticeable - not substantial, but noticeable and significant) between Clemens pitching and Maddux... but I'd rather have Maddux.

It's situations like this that I actually enjoy being a shadow HoM guy... coming into this thread - I'd have said Maddux was better than Clemens, too. Looking at the numbers, though - there is really just no possible way to make this case that I can find. They all seem to line up in Clemens favor. So color me learned.
   46. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 25, 2013 at 07:23 PM (#4355181)
Please keep in mind that only the shitty, backup voters are allowed to vote for Maddux's election. However, the regular voters are good enough for the Glavine and Smoltz votes.

Greg is also the career leader in "I crapped the bed so badly in that playoff game, my shitty personal catcher got pinch hit for in the very early innings" category with 4: 1996 against the Cardinals (8-3 loss), 1997 against the Marlins (5-0 loss), 2000 against the Cards (7-5 loss, where he memorably out-imploded Rick Ankiel who had full blown Steve Blass syndrome at that point) and 2001 against the D-Backs (11-4 loss). That record is going to last, it's going to take another HOF level prima donna to threaten it.

   47. theorioleway Posted: January 25, 2013 at 11:31 PM (#4355278)
Interestingly, in those 4 games you mention, Maddux gave up 12 earned runs and 14 unearned runs. Also interesting: times as a Brave Maddux gave up 4 or more runs in a postseason start: 5; times as a Brave Glavine gave up 4 or more runs in a postseason start: 7. Maybe Glavine should have used the personal catcher also.
   48. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: January 26, 2013 at 12:06 AM (#4355301)
Greg is also the career leader in "I crapped the bed so badly in that playoff game, my shitty personal catcher got pinch hit for in the very early innings" category with 4: 1996 against the Cardinals (8-3 loss), 1997 against the Marlins (5-0 loss), 2000 against the Cards (7-5 loss, where he memorably out-imploded Rick Ankiel who had full blown Steve Blass syndrome at that point) and 2001 against the D-Backs (11-4 loss). That record is going to last, it's going to take another HOF level prima donna to threaten it.

also this one
   49. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 26, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4355534)
Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens.

By what measure?


Atlanta Bonus Points?

Seriously, Sam, it's tough to see. Let's start with some basics:

Maddux - 5008 innings, 132 ERA+
Clemens - 4916 innings, 143 ERA+

That's a pretty wide gulf. And ERA+ doesn't account for quality of defense behind the pitcher.

Full seasons over 130 ERA+:

Maddux 271
Maddux 260

Clemens 226
Clemens 222
Clemens 211
Maddux 189
Maddux 187

Clemens 176
Clemens 174
Clemens 174
Maddux 170
Clemens 169
Maddux 166
Clemens 165
Maddux 162
Maddux 159

Clemens 154
Maddux 153
Maddux 146

Clemens 145
Clemens 139
Clemens 132
Clemens 131

That's 23 pitcher seasons. Clemens has 13 of them. And 6 of the top 10.

Maddux has the best season and the best two seasons. But Clemens beats him anyway, because of breadth.

Here's the argument for Maddux: He blows Clemens away on best 5-year consecutive peak:

Maddux 94-98: 1140 innings, 202 ERA+ (not accounting for strike)
Maddux 92-96: 1191 innings, 191 ERA+ (not accounting for strike)
Clemen 90-94: 1108 innings, 158 ERA+ (not accounting for strike)
Clemen 88-92: 1263 innings, 159 ERA+

Clemens gets hurt a little by the strike: He led the league in ERA+ in 1994 (176), but was having a subpar, injured year in 1995. In contrast, Maddux gets hurt by the strike a lot, as he was having historic seasons during it (271 and 260 ERA+).

If we open it up to best non-consecutive 5-year peak, well, Maddux probably still wins, but it's closer, and then if we start cherry picking seasons for best 7-year nonconsecutive peak and so forth Clemens starts to do really well. Maddux had a very clear shape to his career, a bell curve type shape -- he was basically Greg Maddux, Historic Pitcher for an 11 year stretch from 1992-2002 - which lets him do very well on consecutive peak. Clemens, on the other hand, had more of a jagged shape to his career; he never had a bad season, but he would sprinkle off years in much more frequently than Maddux.

Sam, my comment that I always expected Maddux to catch Clemens and yet Maddux never did is based on something like this:

Clemens through 2002 (age 39): 4067 innings, 142 ERA+.
Maddux through 2002 (age 36): 3750 innings, 146 ERA+.

Maddux was still at the top of his game in 2002 and was leading in career ERA+ while trailing by just ~300 innings. In 2002 Maddux pitched 199 innings at a 159 ERA+.

And Clemens was coming off of a four-year stretch with these ERA+s, all with the Yankees, all with Jeter at short: 102, 131, 128, 102.

But then this happened:

Maddux, 2003-2008 (ages 37-42): 1258 innings, 104 ERA+
Clemens, 2003-2007 (ages 40-44): 849 innings, 146 ERA+.

Maddux suddenly turned back into a league average innings eater, and Clemens's ERA+s went 113-145-226-194-108 in the equivalent of four full seasons over a five year stretch.

Maddux slipped, and Clemens turned it up with a final kick. And so Maddux never did catch Clemens.

Another interesting comparison:

Maddux through age 36: 3750 innings, 146 ERA+
Clemens through age 36: 3462 innings, 147 ERA+

Maddux 37-42: 1258 innings, 104 ERA+
Clemens 37-44: 1454 innings, 134 ERA+

Maddux simply didn't have the late-career kick that Clemens did.

As I said, Clemens also gets hurt by the defenses behind him, and by the fact that he pitched in a DH league during the bulk of his career and in Fenway during his theoretial prime, so he had to expend more pitches to get through an inning. If you look at WAR numbers, you see this more clearly: Clemens looks better in a peak comparison (relative to using ERA+) and Clemens soundly beats Maddux in career WAR 133.1 to 99.4.

Maddux's arguments: best two seasons, best consecutive peak.

Clemens's arguments: everything else.

I truly don't see, other than if the question is narrowed to best consecutive peak, how Maddux has an argument that he was a better pitcher than Clemens.
   50. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: January 27, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4356021)
However, for that complete package - I would still draft Maddux over Clemens. I know it would be wrong and I know I'm overvaluing some little things that just don't close the raw gap (which is noticeable - not substantial, but noticeable and significant) between Clemens pitching and Maddux... but I'd rather have Maddux.


Here's the thing: I think you're right to. Consecutive peak is a much bigger deal for an actual team than it is for us, evaluating retrospectively. The Braves always knew what Maddux would give them, and he gave what they expected every year. That meant the Braves could figure out how best to use their resources and plan effectively. You never knew whether Clemens was going to give you a really good, above average rate with lots of innings, or a historic year, and the inability to count on him made things harder for his team. I bet this is one reason (among several, undoubtedly) why Clemens moved teams a lot, but Maddux did not.

I don't know how much this should count, but this is a way to make the consecutive peak argument important.
   51. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 27, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4356040)
#50, thanks for your comment, which was well thought out. I'm interested in hearing more about the value of consecutive peak seasons versus non, if anyone has any other thoughts to contribute.
   52. DL from MN Posted: January 28, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4356306)
the inability to count on him made things harder for his team


Rarely if ever was Roger Clemens the reason a team didn't win.
   53. progrockfan Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4356337)
@Ray (RDP): "Maddux simply didn't have the late-career kick that Clemens did."

Um... 'roids?
   54. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:29 AM (#4356348)
the inability to count on him made things harder for his team

Rarely if ever was Roger Clemens the reason a team didn't win.


Well, harder relative to Maddux's enormously reliable and enormously high peak. it's a pretty harsh standard.
   55. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 28, 2013 at 01:34 AM (#4356350)

Um... 'roids?


Well, maybe, but probably not. I mean, it's true that steroids didn't help Kevin Brown have a late-career kick, but I wouldn't say that means Maddux took them.
   56. progrockfan Posted: January 29, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4357767)
Maddux simply didn't have the late-career kick that Clemens did.
Um... 'roids?

Well, maybe, but probably not. I mean, it's true that steroids didn't help Kevin Brown have a late-career kick, but I wouldn't say that means Maddux took them.


No no — not Maddux — Clemens.

The HoM has taken the decision not to ostracize known or suspected steroid users. Which is fine. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the statistical impact of steroid use. That's as silly as banning users from the HoM, is it not? If we can take notice of wartime service, minor-league experience, winter leagues &c., surely we can acknowledge the impact of performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens was, on balance, the greater pitcher. The numbers say so. But Maddux had better control, was a better hitter, a better bunter, and was much the better fielder — which might possibly lead one to the conclusion that he was in fact the superior athlete.

Without chemical intervention... who can say which would be considered the greater pitcher? Given the fact that Maddux's career followed a classic progression while Clemens's was, in its most benign interpretation, bizarre, I'll take Maddux.

It's a bit like the argument between Musial (or the Splinter if you prefer) and Bonds... like Bonds, Clemens was an all-time great, maybe the greatest ever — but like Musial, Maddux doesn't come with chemical caveats. I'd take the Man in left and the Professor on the mound against all comers, confident in their ability to triumph over the highest levels of competition and, after the game was won, to survive the rigors of peeing in a cup.
   57. marko Posted: January 29, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4357798)
delete
   58. bfan Posted: January 29, 2013 at 06:54 PM (#4357807)
after the game was won, to survive the rigors of peeing in a cup.


I bet Maddux could pee into a thimble, from 30 feet away.
   59. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: January 29, 2013 at 08:26 PM (#4357838)
I'm curious but does any data base keep track of career pitches? I always wonder on average how many pitches it took Maddux took to go 9 innings.
Something tells me it would be top 5 all time for starters
   60. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 29, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4357847)
No no — not Maddux — Clemens.


Your sarcasm detector is off. I know you meant Clemens.

But I did have a point: I see no reason to assume Maddux was clean, and we can make any steroids-based argument that we want in either direction, as the Brown argument I made shows.

Clemens was, on balance, the greater pitcher. The numbers say so. But Maddux had better control, was a better hitter, a better bunter, and was much the better fielder — which might possibly lead one to the conclusion that he was in fact the superior athlete.


This is probably the wrong view to take, but it is irrelevant to me who the better hitter/bunter/fielder was. I am only interested in the pitching. Reasonable people can disagree.

But with fielding you're double-counting: fielding is included in the pitchers' respective ERAs. This is like when people use to give Pettitte double credit for having a good pickoff move.

And pitchers are simply not selected for these skills.

That said, what "better hitter?" Maddux hit .171/.191/.205 and Clemens hit .173/.236/.207. It's frustrating when people say things that sound true but aren't.

So what do we have amongst hitting/bunting/fielding, all boiled down? Maddux was a better bunter (presumably; not that this has been shown, either), which is washed away by Clemens's superior hitting, albeit in many fewer PAs. But Maddux wasn't helping much with his batting, from what I can tell.

And so boiled down what is left is the pitching.

And we know who needed to expend more pitchers to get through an inning, pitching the bulk of his career in a DH league and in a hitter's park (Fenway) and then in a pitcher's park (YS) but with a horrid shortstop behind him.
   61. theorioleway Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:25 PM (#4359700)
Paul Byrd was implicated as using HGH. So it wasn't just hard throwers. And while I think Maddux was clean, there's no evidence to support one way or the other. There's also no evidence that any illegal drug use Clemens took made him better later. Clemens' B-Ref WAR at age 41: 5.4; Warren Spahn at age 41: 5.2. Or look at Ted Williams vs. Barry Bonds at age 38: 9.5 vs. 8.9. When we're talking about those that are in the 1%, anything is feasible.
   62. Alex Vila Posted: March 04, 2013 at 08:03 PM (#4380570)
I bet Maddux could pee into a thimble, from 30 feet away.

We do know Maddux could pee on rookies in the shower, so a thimble wouldn't be too tough.
   63. progrockfan Posted: July 18, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4498335)
Some quite amazing arguments advanced while I’ve been away.

@Ray (RDP): [“Um… ‘roids?] “Well, maybe, but probably not.”

What empirical evidence do you cite in support of this statement? Can you reference a single study that says steroids do NOT benefit athletes? If you’re aware of such a study, please do cite it – I’ve not seen one.

Whereas, there’s a whole big bunch of circumstantial evidence, statistical and otherwise, that says steroids DO benefit athletes. And MLB, the NFL, the NBA and WNBA, the NHL, the Olympics, the Nevada Athletic Commission, the UFC and Strikeforce, the International Tennis Federation, NASCAR, the NCAA, the PGA, and most every other professional sanctioning body all agree.

If NASCAR believes steroids benefit race car drivers, I hardly think it’s a stretch to assert they might – just might – benefit baseball players too.

@Ray (RDP): “I see no reason to assume Maddux was clean”

How about, innocent until proven guilty? Surely we haven’t abandoned that presumption?

Not to mention the fact that Maddux’s career follows an historically normal progression.

And so, of course, does Roger’s – for a steroid user.

Again, if you can cite the slightest evidence against Maddux – or even the slightest suspicion – then please do so. If not, please don’t infer suspicion where none exists.

@Rap (RDP): “We can make any steroids-based argument that we want in either direction…”

When we’ve got one guy who’s clean and another who’s dirty, no, we really can’t.

Clemens didn’t take ‘roids for giggles. He took them for an edge. And you can’t even argue that they clearly had no effect – because, like Mr. Bonds and Mr. McGwire, the ludicrous late-in-life surge is there for all to see.

Did ‘roids give Roger his preposterous surge? We’ll always wonder – to Roger’s shame. No such statement can be made – or even implied – about Maddux. So no, we really can’t make “any steroids-based argument that we want in either direction”.

@Ray (RDP): “…as the Brown argument I made shows.”

If you’ve ‘shown’ anything, it’s that steroids worked for Clemens, and not for Brown. This doesn’t ‘show’ that steroids don’t work. A sample set of one player falls a tad short of empiricism when attempting to draw such sweeping, generalized conclusions.

@theorioleway: You can’t compare Roger’s situation to Williams’s final season. Ted suffered only a one-year, injury-plagued dip in a long career that had ALL been at, or above, the level of his final year. Nor can you compare Roger’s situation to the Man’s. The event you cite is again a single season in a long, steady career: Musial had a one-year, last-hurrah surge and then fell back – not a mid-career transformation that lasted for many years. The worst comparison though, is Spahn, who led the league in wins at age 40 – and 39 – and 38 – and 37 – and 36 – and 32 – and 29 – and 28. Cherry-picking Warren’s age-41 season is another example of a minuscule sample set proving nothing.

@Ray (RDP): “What ‘better hitter’? Maddux hit .171/.191/.205 and Clemens hit .173/.236/.207. It's frustrating when people say things that sound true but aren't.”

Sure, Clemens was a better hitter – in 213 plate appearances – than Maddux – in 1812 plate appearances, or 850% more. Clemens had two seasons of as many as 50 PAs, versus twenty-one for Maddux.

This is a carbon-copy of another argument I’ve encountered, that Mantle, at 80%, was a better base stealer than Mays at 77%. Of course, Mantle had 191 attempts, Mays 441. Mays ran all the time, and was constantly targeted by pickoffs — Mantle’s top single-season total of twenty-four attempts was surpassed by Mays in eight different seasons. And then there’s Willie’s four consecutive stolen base titles.

But Mantle was obviously the better base stealer. When cherry-picked data is taken out of context. With no adjustment for sample size. Then sure.

Your central point may be correct, Ray: Roger may have been the better pitcher. But I’ll take Maddux’s much superior consecutive peak, control, bunting, and fielding over Roger’s erratic (though blindingly brilliant) career – and, especially, the ever-lingering suspicion that any edge he held over Maddux flowed from the tip of a needle.
   64. progrockfan Posted: July 18, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4498378)
And BTW, none of the above was intended to be confrontational, abusive, insulting, etc. - just basic argumentation. I enjoy a good debate, and there's some sharp brains here. Let the sparks fly.
   65. toratoratora Posted: July 18, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4498651)
I remember seeing Maddux in an interview way back when he was a young kid, maybe even still a Cub. The interviewer was talking about Mike Scott and scuffing balls. He essentially asked Greg if he could ever see himself doing that and Maddux responded something to the extent of, "You bet."
If for nothing else than the refreshing honesty, I always kinda liked Maddux after that moment
   66. TomH Posted: July 23, 2013 at 07:39 AM (#4501635)
Whiel I disagree with Ray's conlcusions as progrockfan has pointed out, I also enjoy a good argument. So here goes...

The stolen base argument is NOT a good parallel. As you mentioned, Mays was a much better basestealer; he would have had an 85% success rate or so if he had only run as often as Mantle. But if Maddux only had 213 PA, his rate stats would not have changed. Clemens had beter hitting stats. Fact. Not a huge difference (what, 8 or so walks over a career?), but still true.

And this thing about bunting; if Clemens failed to SAC and made outs (FC or pop-up) instead, THAT IS ALREADY INCLUDED in his stats! Maddux had 1 SH per 10 PA in his career; Rocket had 1 per 12. How many fewer runners did Roger move over, prorated to his 213 PA? 5 in his whole career? It adds up to even less than the OBP difference. Include bunting, and Clemens was still a slightly better hitter.

Fielding. Maddux was a GREAT fielder. And you know what? Again, his 'range' off the mound IS ALREADY INCLUDED in his stats! Greta play are reflected in his ERA. It just means that the difference in their pitchign ability is even magnified more... Maddux makes a bit of it back with his quickness. Oh, you wish to also count erros? I agree. Guess what; Maddux made more than TWICE as many errors as Clemens. oh wiat, that's becsause he was a ground-ball pitcher. Ground-ball pitchers have more errors made behind them. Which happened to Msaddux. Which meant he alowed more UNearned runs than Clemens. Which hurt his team more than ERA reflects. Which means Clemens is actualyh even MORE valuable than Maddux if you acccount for ALL of the runs he allowed; including those that Maddux didn't field properly.

Maddux had beter control than Clemens. Clemens as a package was a much superior pitcher, in every way except for 'consecutive peak'. If that means so much, we may as well take Willie Mays out of discussions as best player since he spread his great seasons out so broadly.

Maddux led the leguae in WAR 3 times; and had no other top-5 finishes. Clemens led 4 times and had 3 second-places besides. Clemens' 7 Cy Youngs (deserved) show his mastery over every other pitcher who ever lived. His W-L record, for teams of no better quality than Greg's, is far superior (post-seaosn makes it even more so).
If we find out someday that he 'cheated' his last years, that can be fatcored in. But this bit about 'bunting, control, gold gloves' is like Dusty Baker tyring to convince me that Neifi Perez did all of the little things to deserve being called a fine player. It don't add up.
   67. vivaelpujols Posted: July 23, 2013 at 08:21 AM (#4501648)
Can you reference a single study that says steroids do NOT benefit athletes? If you’re aware of such a study, please do cite it – I’ve not seen one.


Quick google search brings up this:

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml

I'm sure there are more studies. Can you point me to a study that shows that steroids improve player performance?

How about, innocent until proven guilty? Surely we haven’t abandoned that presumption?


Did I miss when Clemens was proven guilty of using steroids? The Brown stuff and the "normal progression" stuff sounds like a joke to me. You can't honestly believe what you're saying. Plenty of players have abnormal career paths and have never been linked to steroids. Plenty of players have normal career paths and have been linked to steroids. Outside of a few choice examples (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa) there's no evidence that taking steroids results in a flatter career path. Nearly all great players maintained much of the value up to their 40's.

But I’ll take Maddux’s much superior consecutive peak, control, bunting, and fielding over Roger’s erratic (though blindingly brilliant) career


Consecutive peak might be a good argument. Control and fielding are already factored into RA and WAR and every other run based pitching metric, so its unfair to double count them. That would be like saying "I'll take Clemens cause he had better stuff".
   68. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: July 23, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4501822)
#59, from back in January:

I'm curious but does any data base keep track of career pitches? I always wonder on average how many pitches it took Maddux took to go 9 innings.
Something tells me it would be top 5 all time for starters


BBRef has Maddux with 31 games in which he went 9 innings and threw 100 or fewer pitches. More impressively, he had 10 in which he threw 90 or fewer pitches. His 76-pitch complete game in 1997 is the lowest pitch total for a 9-inning start since 1979.

BBRef only lists 45 total games of 9+ IP and 90 or fewer pitches, so Maddux is responsible for 22% of such known instances. That's remarkable, even if the database is missing most of the first 100 years of MLB history.

(If BBRef is to be believed, in this game 16 batters put the first pitch in play against Rick Reuschel, allowing him to throw a 52-pitch complete game.)
   69. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 28, 2013 at 12:46 AM (#4607131)
bump

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1909 seconds
51 querie(s) executed