I hate those bums who get "stuck on 350."

Well, the problem is, Greg Maddux doesn't know how to win. He pitches just well enough to get a no decision.

Maybe if weren't such a nerd.

I wanted to see him pass Mathewson and Alexander for the NL record. It really is a pity.

I'm a true Maddux appreciator. But. I can't be upset at this recent spate of bad luck and its impact on Maddux' career record, given Maddux' good fortune for the previous gazillion years to be on teams that were very conducive for pitchers to gain wins. If Maddux retires after the end of 08 with one win fewer than Clemens, justice would be served; because no reasonable person would argue that Maddux deserves, purely on pitching merit, to have more 'wins' (unless he comes back and pitches real good for another couple o' years), anymore than Christy Mathewson deserved to have a better W-L record than his contemproary superior, Pete Alexander.

This also means he set his own personal record. He had 13 straight in 1990.

given Maddux' good fortune for the previous gazillion years to be on teams that were very conducive for pitchers to gain wins

Those teams were rather dramatically helped by the presence of one of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game.

given Maddux' good fortune for the previous gazillion years to be on teams that were very conducive for pitchers to gain wins.

Pphhhhhhffffftttt! He has some of the worst run support of any 300 game winner ever. To be fair, that's partially because he insisted on having his personal catcher for many years in Atlanta, but even still, that ain't why he won so many games.

Also, those Braves teams were so good because of starting pitching. It didn't help Maddux much when he played that John Smoltz had pitched two days earlier.

Not that anyone cares, but Gaylord Perry had the worst run support in the 300 Win club.

anymore than Christy Mathewson deserved to have a better W-L record than his contemproary superior, Pete Alexander.

They're sorta contemporaries. Mathewson had 3 good years left in him when Alexander began, and Alexander's most famous moment came after Mathewson had died.

Second best of his era? What a disservice. Let's look at this by large peak, a player's ten best seasons (this is by ERA+).

Clemens: 226, 221, 213, 175, 174, 169, 164, 154, 146, 141
Maddux: 271, 262, 189, 187, 171, 166, 162, 159, 153, 146

However you want to cut it, best 3 years, best 5 years, best 10 years, whatever, Maddux wins, it's not a chasm but it's a very noticeable gap. And moreover Maddux had a legitimate peak where he was awesome every year from 1992 to 2002, whereas Clemens was far more up and down, you never knew what you were going to get. So if you go by best X consecutive seasons Maddux destroys Clemens. And workload doesn't enter into it either, they're about even there. If anything Maddux has the advantage - basically for his career Maddux averages 6 2/3 IP per start, whereas Clemens averages 7 IP. But they've pitched the same total innings, so Maddux's contribution is more important, because he's made rather more starts.

And then there's the playoffs, where Maddux was markedly better - and this is worth taking into account as they both basically pitched a full season's worth in the postseason, over the course of their careers.

The only advantage Clemens has on Maddux is that outside of his best years Clemens plodded along better than Maddux, whose last really good season was 2002. But that really doesn't matter too much in terms of a "greatest" argument, except to the most absurd career-over-peak people. If Maddux had been at 120 ERA+ since 2002 would it make him a greater pitcher? No. And that's the only gap between Clemens and Maddux.

You can further downgrade Clemens by whatever amount you want for steroids. I don't downgrade him for that, but if you do, it just seals the deal for Maddux even further.

Another advantage Clemens had (or one which Maddux had, depending on how you look at it), is the defenses behind Greg were probably better than they were behind Clemens. Even if you don't buy that, Maddux's lower K rate means that more credit for his success goes to his D anyway. [And before someone flames me I'm as big a Maddux fanboy as anyone here] Maddux was more consistent, Rajah with a late peak (won't speculate as to why).

As for this winless streak, he has lost 5 and has 9 NDs, with a 4.54 ERA and 2.5 K/W ratio, so he hasn't been horrible.

More credit for Maddux goes to his D? You don't want to go down that route, not one step. Pitching ain't just about strikeouts. Yes Clemens struck out more guys but Maddux walked far fewer, gave up fewer home runs and had a much better K/BB. Clemens career BABIP against: .259. Maddux career BABIP against: .291. You tell me who owes more to their fielders.

And of course, when it comes to fielding you might note Maddux's 17 gold gloves.

because no reasonable person would argue that Maddux deserves, purely on pitching merit, to have more 'wins'

Through the end of their age 39 seasons, after which Clemens ordered some MiracleGro and Maddux just aged like a normal human:

Maddux: 137 ERA+, 4406.3IP, 318-189 .627
Clemens: 141 ERA+, 4067.0IP, 293-151 .660

Granted, there's no strike credit here for either, but...

PRAR, best to worst:



Might not wanna be so conclusive about that peak argument, Alou.

PRAR is a proprietary BPro statistic, and neither you nor I know how it is calculated or how valid the methodology is. Relying on it is essentially a call to authority. I do know that in general terms, it is an attempt to break down credit between pitching and fielding, with the assumption that each are 50% of defense. Frankly that assumption seems unjustified at best, which makes me even less inclined to pay it any mind. I also don't see why the criterion is above replacement as opposed to average*. If it's a worthwhile statistic to you, all well and good, but to me it's totally meaningless.

And aside from my general objections to a mysterious black-box formula, I simply don't believe what that statistic is telling me. In 1995 Maddux pitched 209 1/3 innings at a 262 ERA+. If he had pitched an extra 18 2/3 innings giving up 12 runs** he would have pitched 228 1/3 innings at a 217 ERA+. In 1990 Clemens pitched 228 1/3 innings at a 213 ERA+. So Maddux's 1995 was better than Clemens' 1990. Yet BPro's stats say that Clemens' 1990 was better - and get this - not just versus replacement but versus average. If you set the replacement level stupidly low (which BPro do) I guess you can say that 18 2/3 innings at 5.79 ERA is value over replacement, although I would disagree with you. But it is quite clearly negative value compared to average. BPro think that's positive value - makes no sense.

And here's the thing - BPro's RAA stat agrees with me that Maddux's 1995 was better than Clemens's 1990. So at least part of the discrepancy is going from RAA to PRAA - i.e. in BPro's mysterious way of dividing credit between fielding and pitching. Given BPro's hilariously bad fielding statistics, you'll forgive me if I therefore regard both PRAR and PRAA as simply junk stats.

* Especially remembering that BPro think replacement level pitching has a 6.11 ERA. I think that's absurd.
** an ERA of 5.79 in an environment where 4.27 is average.

Alou,

Do you think Maddux's 1995 was better than Clemens' 1997?

I'm with Alou... Maddux is underrated -- folks toss around Clemens and maybe Pedro's shorter peak (along with a Unit Sprinkling here and there), and sure Maddux generally enters the discussion -- but he's too often the first cut.

I'm not aware if PRAR does -- and I know ERA+ doesn't -- [EDIT: account for 'non-traditional' aspects of a pitcher's game] but Maddux was also a hell of hitter and a damn good fielder. He was also incredibly durable. The only thing Maddux didn't do especially well was hold runners.

I might not say Maddux was clearly the best pitcher of my lifetime (which extends from the 70s) - but he'd be my pick.

#15 - my quick and dirty look, comparing to average and taking unearned runs into account, has Clemens 1997 7 and a half runs better than Maddux 1995, in the regular season. If you include the postseason (which I think you should) I have the years being essentially equal (Maddux half a run ahead).

EDIT: Also, idiot that I am, I notice I screwed up the BABIP calculations in #11, but I'm too lazy to work it out again properly.

Poor Matt Keough!

Hah, I looked up the same thing. 28 starts!

1 Gold gloves are ALREADY acccounted for in Maddux ERA and RA.

2 If you think Maddux' supporting Defenses weren't better than Clemens, you're blind. Okay, you don't completely trust BP. Fine, Win Shares shows the same thing. So do most people's eyes.

3 Worst run support of any 300 game winner? Ya think that maybe has to do with the fact that Maddux pitched in the NL (Clemens in AL vs DH), and that the Rocket toiled many years in Fenway? How about some adjustments, eh?

4 Maddux was 'markedly better' in the playoffs?

Maddux, career post-season record: 11-14. Clemens: 12-8. Maddux ERA a little lower (hello, no DH). Clemens even had a higher batting avg when hitting!

Let's use the pitcher's career run environment as the baseline, with a simple Pythagorean.

Maddux's career run environment was an ERA of 4.16. His postseason ERA was 3.34, with 194 IP. That works out to 2.33 wins above average in the postseason.

Clemens's career run environment was an ERA of 4.46. His postseason ERA was 3.75, with 199 IP.
That works out to 1.89 wins above average in the postseason.

So Maddux delivered 23% more value in the postseason than Clemens. Yes, that's markedly better.

Girls, girls! You're both beautiful!