#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.

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.

@Ray (RDP): "Maddux simply didn't have the late-career kick that Clemens did."

Um... 'roids?

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.

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.

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.

delete

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.

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

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.

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.

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.