The bus-ride anecdote was classic muddy, unedited Pete... inpsiring mediocre creative writers for free again!

Now that is a broad statement when one begins to consider the credentials of Tom Seaver, Sandy Koufax, Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, et al.

Geez, Palmer and Juan Marichal gets mentioned but Maddux and Pedro don't? What the hell?

But they, we and most everyone else hold one truth to be self-evident: Roger Clemens is the greatest living pitcher.

Back to the lab I go to reanimate Walter Johnson.

There aren't many dead ones better either.

well um maddux is sure as hell doing his best this year to make his case for that claim

i wonder if future players will take this route when their careers are in the decline phase. It makes perfect sense. By midseason, teams will better know if they need to add a part, and are willing to pay more for it (proportionally). The vetran player gets to keep his name in the paper and maybe work on some side projects (endorsements, movies) while avoiding the injuries that come with a full schedule. It seems like a win win from the player's perspective.

I can't believe a former Red Sox pitcher is Gammons' selection as the greatest living pitcher. Who is the greatest of all time? Smokey Joe Wood?

Everybody get a hard-on for Roger!!!

Who is the greatest of all time? Smokey Joe Wood?

Jim Lonborg. Until he Spider Sabiched himself.

It seems like a win win from the player's perspective.

I don't think it would work for most players. Clemens is unique in that he's still pitching very well and, perhaps more importantly, three teams (two with lots of dough) stand to look bad if someone else signs him. If another player, even a good one, went this route, he would have a hard time getting a decent contract. Someone might give him a mil. for the last 4 months of the season, but he'd be much better off financially, and have more opportunity to pick his employer, if he signed a deal during the offseason.

I can't believe a former Red Sox pitcher is Gammons' selection as the greatest living pitcher.

Yeah, all those Cy Youngs and the 341 major league wins pale in comparison to Roger's stint with the Sox.

i wonder if future players will take this route when their careers are in the decline phase

Rickey Henderson is sitting by the phone.

I'm willing to give Roger the nod - but only because Spahn passed away.

I don't get the obsession with "greatest living ...". What kind of distinction is that anyway? "Greatest Active..." I can see, as well as "Greatest ... Ever". I can even get into "Last Living ...", but Greatest Living? It just means within the last 40-50 years, except when there's a long-lived player who also did something extraordinary. It's such an arbitrary distinction.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but it's not meaningless. The "Greatest Living [Whatever]" is the best [whatever] that any of us can hope to see/meet/get an autograph from. He'll be the answer when our grandchildren ask "Who was the best you ever saw?"

I don't get the obsession with "greatest living ...". What kind of distinction is that anyway? "Greatest Active..." I can see, as well as "Greatest ... Ever". I can even get into "Last Living ...", but Greatest Living? It just means within the last 40-50 years, except when there's a long-lived player who also did something extraordinary. It's such an arbitrary distinction.

I agree with most of this, but the living/dead distinction doesn't seem arbitrary. Ask Bill Frist.

and Mike Crudale

I don't get the obsession with "greatest living ...".

It was started with DiMaggio's obsession that he should be called that, since he knew he couldn't be called the greatest ever.

And even that was a slap in the face of Ted Williams. Ted was just crotchety enough for people to not care.

I'm willing to give Roger the nod - but only because Spahn passed away.

Are you serious? There's absolutely no question that Clemens is a better pitcher than Spahn was. Maddux has a shot at catching Clemens, but I doubt he will. In my opinion, Maddux has accomplished a lot more considering just his physical talents as compared to Clemens, but that doesn't really matter when you're talking about simply who's the best.

And even that was a slap in the face of Ted Williams. Ted was just crotchety enough for people to not care.

A lot of Yankees fans also seem to think that DiMaggio was a better player than Mantle. I don't understand thinking either.

The vetran player gets to keep his name in the paper and maybe work on some side projects (endorsements, movies)

Kingpin 2?

Kingpin comes in a close second to Caddyshack II for worst sports movie ever.

Kingpin comes in a close second to Caddyshack II for worst sports movie ever.

That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about William Bendix.

Who is the greatest of all time? Smokey Joe Wood?

Jim Lonborg. Until he Spider Sabiched himself.

Which is better I guess than getting Swede Savaged like Steve Howe did.

The ESPN poll on this question is appalling. Koufax, Gibson and Seaver all finishing ahead of Maddux? That's really all you need to know about their "baseball experts."

maddux has been solid his whole carrer if he has a good year this year and a good year next year with out clemens comming back i think he takes it

maddux has been solid his whole carrer if he has a good year this year and a good year next year with out clemens comming back i think he takes it

I agree. I had Maddux ahead by a nose 2 years ago, then Clemens unretired and had a good year and a great year, while Maddux merely had 2 decent years. If Maddux can add two more good years I think he retakes the lead.

maddux is god

its a trap

you guys are forgetting jonathon papelbon.

Sure, it's arbitrary, but it's not meaningless. The "Greatest Living [Whatever]" is the best [whatever] that any of us can hope to see/meet/get an autograph from. He'll be the answer when our grandchildren ask "Who was the best you ever saw?"

To take the second part first, it's patently untrue. I never saw Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio play, but for most of my life I've heard about DiMaggio being the greatest living hitter.

I suppose the first part is true as far as it goes, but I still don't see why that means it should be the subject of articles and polls.

But not only is Clemens the winningest modern pitcher with 341 victories,

When did Warren Spahn pitch, the deadball era?

Pedro was better than Clemens in his prime. In fact, Pedro is as good as anyone was in their prime.

Ergo, I'd argue Pedro is the greatest living pitcher. Clemens had a great career, but at no single point in his career was he a better pitcher than Pedro at his best.

Clemen and Maddux has certainly have had greater careers but I wouldn't call either a greater pitcher than Pedro.

With Dimaggio, he was voted the greatest living baseball player in 1969 by a group of sportwriters who were selecting all-time teams on the 100th anniversary of professional baseball. After that Dimaggio insisted on being called the greatest living player whenever he was introduced.

Let's try 35 again.

Clemens and Maddux certainly have had greater careers but I would call either a greater pitcher than Pedro.

Screw it.

Kingpin comes in a close second to Caddyshack II for worst sports movie ever.

Thanks for reminding why I mostly hate that this place has a comment feature.

Me.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

1) Big Ern McCrackin would make "Ishtar" an instant classic

2) I really don't agree with the POV that Clemens is getting something out of not pitching right now. If he wanted attention (of which he has more than he wants I would guess), wouldn't he get more by climbing the mound every fifth day?

3) Maddux is still my favorite and that has nothing to do with my Cubs fandom.

4) Can we get off the Koufax kick? He really wasn't that great.

He really wasn't that great.

Yes he was. He jsut wasn't that long.

Hey I am still living.

After that Dimaggio insisted on being called the greatest living player whenever he was introduced.
Outside of New York, Boston, and maybe California, Stan Musial would have gotten a lot of support.

The ESPN poll on this question is appalling. Koufax, Gibson and Seaver all finishing ahead of Maddux? That's really all you need to know about their "baseball experts."

All it really shows is how they frame the question in their minds. Whereas you seem to think it means "Who has had the longest and most distinguished career?", it's obvious that many people think that it's asking "Who would you rather have on the mound over anyone else in game 7 of a World Series?"

Two very good questions, but two different answers, both laced with a high degree of subjectivity and selective fact-quoting. And you can't automatically assume that the answer to one implies the answer to the other, however comforting that might be to your inner mathematician---or to your memory of a handful of 1960's World Series.

When did Warren Spahn pitch, the deadball era?

Actually it was from the 40's through the 60's, though he was seldom spotted whenever the Boys of Summer waved their silver crosses at him.

After that Dimaggio insisted on being called the greatest living player whenever he was introduced.

Outside of New York, Boston, and maybe California, Stan Musial would have gotten a lot of support.

The truth is that when they were all in their primes at the same time (the late 1940's), the consensus ranking among both players and writers was pretty firm: Dimaggio, Musial, and then Williams. The Fenway Park vs Yankee Stadium effect pretty much eliminated the difference in offense between Williams and Dimaggio---other than the walks---and the thinking was then that the extra walks didn't nearly make up for the differences in fielding, baserunning, and the dreaded "i" word. This reasoning carried over to Musial vs. Williams as well, though that comparison was usually just a subset of the Dimaggio-Williams debate.

Pedro was better than Clemens in his prime. In fact, Pedro is as good as anyone was in their prime.

Ergo, I'd argue Pedro is the greatest living pitcher.

I'm reminded of an old joke. Guy goes up to a beautiful woman in a bar and says "Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?" "Why sure!", she replies. "Would you do it for $100?" "Of course not, whay do you think I am?!" "Well, we've already established what you are, now wer're haggling over price."

To say that "Clemens had a great career, but at no single point in his career was he a better pitcher than Pedro at his best.", seems to be haggling over arbitrary time periods. What's "a single point?" A game, a month, a season, multiple consecutive seasons? At no point in his career was Pedro, or for that matter, any pitcher in history, as a good as Kerry Wood was on May 6, 1998.

Was Pedro's best season the best in history? Or at least among the pitchers under discussion? It might have been as good on a per inning basis, but it's not clear that it was a better season than Clemens 1997. Was Pedro's best two seasons the best ever? Again, it's not entirely clear that it was better than Maddux 1994-95. Oh sure, you can probably show that he was 5% better or something. But that's all he's got, a few seasons of truly spectacular dominance on a per inning basis, with less than outstanding durability. His top few seasosn stand up there with anybody. As good as, or even slightly better. But once you get past that, he falls off quickly.

Pedro was better than Clemens in his prime. In fact, Pedro is as good as anyone was in their prime

Miserlou is right.

Gibson has the greatest season in hte liveball era, and by a huge margin. Koufax and Johnson both psoted seasons as "great" as Pedro's greatest.

Gibson has the greatest season in hte liveball era, and by a huge margin.

I'm still wrestling with the question of how to compare seasons before and after about 1990. We've seen a number of spectacular ERA+ seasons in the Age of the Closer, but each with fewer IP than the top seasons before 1990. The IP matter, of course - that's why I'm not sure how to compare them.

Now, to get back to Gibson and his otherworldly great 1968 season. It was a fluke of course - a BABIP fluke compounded by the lowest-offense environment in half a century - but you have to be great even to have that great a fluke. It might, or might not, have been "the greatest season in the liveball era" (language chosen to avoid trying to compare to Walter Johnson's 1912-1913), but I am going to disagree with Dial's phrase "by a huge margin." There's another candidate season to be reckoned with: Dwight Gooden, 1985.

There's another candidate season to be reckoned with: Dwight Gooden, 1985.UNless I'm missing someone, these are the greatest seasons by pitchers since 1960 by WARP3:

Steve Carlton 1972 - 15.1
Roger Clemens 1997 - 14.6
Greg Maddux 1994 - 14.5
Pedro Martinez 2000 - 14.3
Dwight Gooden 1985 - 14.3
Bob Gibson 1968 - 14.1
Wilbur Wood 1971 - 13.8
Gaylord Perry 1972 - 13.7
Pedro Martinez 1999 - 13.4
Greg Maddux 1995 - 13.2
Ron Guidry 1978 - 12.6

Maddux's numbers are pro-rated for a full season. I'm not sure that's entirely fair, as it assumes he would have pitched as well over the rest of the season. But neither is it fair to assume he would have contributed nothing either. At a minimum, it shows that on a per inning basis, he was as valuable as Pedro over the repective peaks. At least by this metric.

Maddux's numbers are pro-rated for a full season

And Carlton lost a start or two in 1972, of course.

When people remember Gibson in 1968, the World Series has a lot to do with it; in fact, the 1967 World Series has a lot to do with it. From October '67 through October '68 he was otherworldly.

Two very good questions, but two different answers, both laced with a high degree of subjectivity and selective fact-quoting.

That's what makes these debates fun, though. For example, if I had my choice of guys I've actually seen pitch (over the last ~20 years) to staff the following situations, I would give very different answers.

1) Best for all scheduled starts (32+) in the regular season = Greg Maddux
2) Best for three starts in a 7-game playoff series = Roger Clemens
3) Best for one start in the deciding game of a playoff series = Pedro Martinez

The question of greatness always seems to be a variation on the theme of career versus peak. In my opinion, no pitcher in the last 20 years can lay claim to having had the greatest career and the greatest peak. Which is terrific, honestly. If there really was an obvious answer to these questions, baseball fandom wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

Everyone has their own preferences, and since there have been so many fantastic pitchers to watch during our lifetimes, the question of greatness often boils down to aesthetics. For me, aesthetics are the reason Pedro stands above the rest. It isn't necessarily that he was any more dominant than his peers, it's the method and the means of his dominance that made him the best.

Guys like Clemens and Randy Johnson were awesome to behold because of the pure power; they could just throw the ball by everyone and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Maddux had that geek cachet of incisively deconstructing the opposition by throwing with incredible precision, outsmarting and frustrating the hitters. Pedro, though, is the only pitcher I've ever seen who could do both. Clemens was overpowering. Maddux was crafty. Pedro bent hitters to his will. He had everything. The overpowering fastball. The nasty curve. The devastating changeup. Superb command of all three. The intimidation. The gift for improvisation. The sense of playfulness when he knew he was in complete control.

When anticipating a game to be pitched by Clemens or Maddux, I knew what his game plan was going to be and how he was going to get the hitters out. With Pedro, I never knew what to expect; there was always that excitement that he might do something I'd never seen or heard of being done on a mound before. It was difficult to even appreciate him properly during his peak because I was never quite sure exactly what we had our hands here. It doesn't seem like enough to just call him the greatest pitcher I ever saw. Some people took to calling his best work poetry or art, and I think that's probably as good a place as any to begin.

Pedro was better than Clemens in his prime. In fact, Pedro is as good as anyone was in their prime

Personally, I think Koufax in his prime was the greatest pitcher who ever lived. I'd take Koufax over Pedro and Clemens in a heartbeat if we're looking at their primes, for different reasons. And that's not meant as a slap at Pedro or Clemens.

And I know about the arguments about Dodger Stadium in the 1960s.

When people remember Gibson in 1968, the World Series has a lot to do with it; in fact, the 1967 World Series has a lot to do with it. From October '67 through October '68 he was otherworldly.

Yeah, adding in he WS, Gibby gets another 54 IP at a 1.33 ERA, giving him a 1+ year total of 27-10 1.15 ERA 359 IP.

Adding in the 1999 post season, Pedro gets another 17 IP at a 0.00 ERA.

Maddux's numbers are pro-rated for a full season. I'm not sure that's entirely fair, as it assumes he would have pitched as well over the rest of the season. But neither is it fair to assume he would have contributed nothing either. At a minimum, it shows that on a per inning basis, he was as valuable as Pedro over the repective peaks. At least by this metric.

WARP-3

WARP-2, expanded to 162 games to compensate for shortened seasons. Initially, I was just going to use (162/season length) as the multiplier, but this seemed to overexpand the very short seasons of the 19th century. I settled on using (162/scheduled games) ** (2/3). So Ross Barnes' 7.4 wins in 1873, a 55 game season, only gets extended to 15.2 WARP, instead of a straight-line adjustment of 21.8.

The link is coming up empty for me, but I found the article on ESPN. All I have to say is....DAVE STEWART?????????

When anticipating a game to be pitched by Clemens or Maddux, I knew what his game plan was going to be and how he was going to get the hitters out. With Pedro, I never knew what to expect; there was always that excitement that he might do something I'd never seen or heard of being done on a mound before.

A lot of this comes down to a matter of taste. When I used to watch Carlton or Seaver, or Clemens early in his career, I could anticipate a complete game, maybe a two- or three-hit shutout. When watching almost any great pitcher in the past decade (with the occasional exception of Schilling or the Unit on a really nasty day) ... I anticipate greatness that will be lifted after seven innings. Starting pitchers were not better in my youth; they were simply used differently. But I liked them better back then.

Hey, for a few years, Dave Stewart kicked people's butts. He was also an excellent postseason pitcher, 8-0 in LCS games. Clearly whoever gave him 2 votes for "greatest living" is a peak aficionado, but not an idiot.

Though if Stewart gets two votes, Orel Hershiser should have gotten ten. I notice that Hershiser is one of the voters, so perhaps he struck himself from the ballot ...

The link is coming up empty for me, but I found the article on ESPN. All I have to say is....DAVE STEWART?????????

OK, so one guy had stewart 9th, or two guys had him 10th. Wrong, yes. But hardly a travesty.

Can one make a case for stewart 10th? Not really, but here's one scenario:

Take the top 10. Knock out Feller on the E-X exception. Whitey Ford as well, as his league was barely integrated. No relievers need apply, so knock out Rivera, Gossage, and Eck. That leaves Stewart, Bunning, Palmer, Jenkins, Roberts, and Ryan for the 10th spot. Stewart won 20 4 times, something Ryan and Bunning didn't do. Palmer was a winer who also enjoyed the best defense this side of Three Finger Brown. Jenkins..., uh...

Never mind. There's no good case.

Except the post season stuff. yeah, that's the ticket!

WARP3:

Any particularl reason I should use that stat? I don't care for additional timeline adjustments.

When watching almost any great pitcher in the past decade (with the occasional exception of Schilling or the Unit on a really nasty day) ... I anticipate greatness that will be lifted after seven innings.

That's a good point. I remember Pedro finished plenty of his starts in '97 when Felipe Alou had him on a very long leash. After he signed with Boston, though, I don't think he had more than a half dozen CGs or so in any given year. Pedro still threw his share of innings, but I think Tom Gordon's terrific '98 season went a long way in helping the Sox get locked into the philosophy of treating Pedro with kid gloves.