Best Season ever by a ML pitcher?

[Topnotchsy]

Best ERA+ is a season ever (shown below). Not a perfect indicator, but helps normalize the data across eras (by comparing ERA to others in the same season).

Keefe's 1880 season he only pitched 105 innings, but BP includes pitchers that pitched more innings than the team played games, and the Troy Trojans only played 83 games that season which is why he is on the list.

Pedro's 2000 season tops the list by a decent margin. Leonard's 1914 he went 19-5 with a .96 ERA.

No one in recent memory will have the counting stats that the players in the late 1800's/early 1900's had, as it is a different game today so there's definitely arguments either way. For me, it's Pedro's 2000 season.


Rank Player (age that year) Adjusted ERA+ Year Throws
1. Tim Keefe+ (23) 293 1880 R
2. Pedro Martinez+ (28) 291 2000 R
3. Dutch Leonard (22) 279 1914 L
4. Greg Maddux+ (28) 271 1994 R
5. Greg Maddux+ (29) 260 1995 R
6. Walter Johnson+ (25) 259 1913 R
7. Bob Gibson+ (32) 258 1968 R
8. Mordecai Brown+ (29) 253 1906 R
9. Walter Johnson+ (24) 243 1912 R
Pedro Martinez+ (27) 243 199

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Best ERA+ is a season ever (shown below). Not a perfect indicator, but helps normalize the data across eras (by comparing ERA to others in the same season).

Keefe's 1880 season he only pitched 105 innings, but BP includes pitchers that pitched more innings than the team played games, and the Troy Trojans only played 83 games that season which is why he is on the list.

Pedro's 2000 season tops the list by a decent margin. Leonard's 1914 he went 19-5 with a .96 ERA.

No one in recent memory will have the counting stats that the players in the late 1800's/early 1900's had, as it is a different game today so there's definitely arguments either way. For me, it's Pedro's 2000 season.


Rank Player (age that year) Adjusted ERA+ Year Throws
1. Tim Keefe+ (23) 293 1880 R
2. Pedro Martinez+ (28) 291 2000 R
3. Dutch Leonard (22) 279 1914 L
4. Greg Maddux+ (28) 271 1994 R
5. Greg Maddux+ (29) 260 1995 R
6. Walter Johnson+ (25) 259 1913 R
7. Bob Gibson+ (32) 258 1968 R
8. Mordecai Brown+ (29) 253 1906 R
9. Walter Johnson+ (24) 243 1912 R
Pedro Martinez+ (27) 243 199

ERA+ is a bad measure to use. It assumes that the level of pitching is equal. The pitching in the AL in 2000 was pretty bad. Looking at the top 10, there are no other Hofers anywhere to be found with only Clemens as a decent starting pitcher. In 1968, there were 10 more Hof pitchers in the NL along with Gibson. The league ERA was lower not only because of the higher mound, but because of the high quality of pitchers in the league. Same with Koufax in 1965, 10 other Hof pitchers in the NL.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA+ is a bad measure to use. It assumes that the level of pitching is equal. The pitching in the AL in 2000 was pretty bad. Looking at the top 10, there are no other Hofers anywhere to be found with only Clemens as a decent starting pitcher. In 1968, there were 10 more Hof pitchers in the NL along with Gibson. The league ERA was lower not only because of the higher mound, but because of the high quality of pitchers in the league. Same with Koufax in 1965, 10 other Hof pitchers in the NL.

That's definitely an interesting thought. I'm curious (genuinely... not being sarcastic) how you are separate external factors from the quality of the players.

The reason I say this is because looking at the late 90's and early 00's, I feel like many of the best pitchers in that era are getting the short end of the stick because we compare their ERA and other stats to eras without steroids and other factors.

Just looking at the 2000 Cy Young Award race, you had Tim Hudson, Andy Pettitte and Mike Mussina. Only Mussina will likely make the Hall (and of course there's Pedro), but IMO when taking era into account, all 3 had a reasonable (albeit not overwhelming) case. In the NL that season players getting Cy Young votes include Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and Kevin Brown. The first 3 are already enshrined, and IMO Brown deserved much more serious consideration.

We have the steroid era and we have an era where the mound was higher among other factors, and our basic metrics to compare players (wins, ERA etc) don't consider any difference in eras. Given this, it is not a surprise to me that the 60's had way more HOF pitchers.

I'm just not sure how much of that is tied to the players and how much is tied to the circumstances.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Am I right that the only HOF starting pitchers with a rookie card from 1969 through 1983 are Jack Morris, himself a dubious selection, and Bert Blyleven? If so that's kind of strange, for a 15 year period, no?

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Am I right that the only HOF starting pitchers with a rookie card from 1969 through 1983 are Jack Morris, himself a dubious selection, and Bert Blyleven? If so that's kind of strange, for a 15 year period, no?

I feel like the standards for the HOF (300 wins, low ERA) have not done a great job of being adjusted for era.

Obviously some eras had better pitchers than others, but there are a couple of eras that seem incredibly underrepresented.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

I feel like the standards for the HOF (300 wins, low ERA) have not done a great job of being adjusted for era.

Obviously some eras had better pitchers than others, but there are a couple of eras that seem incredibly underrepresented.

I feel like the 50s and 60s had the best players and into the 70s, but the talent has been on the decline. My reasoning is that at this time baseball was the National pastime and #1 sport in our country. In the 70s, the NFL took over from MLB and a lot of talent was siphoned off. Then in the 80s with Magic, Bird and Jordan the NBA rose up to challenge MLB for #2, siphoning off more talent. Some of that has been off set by foreign players, but not enough. We are seeing a bump in talent in recent years, but I don't think we will ever see the talent level of the post war baby boomer era when baseball was king.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The US population is significantly higher than it was back then, so the overall pool of potential athletes is also significantly higher. I think that combined with the influx of foreign players likely offsets any dilution from more kids focusing on football and basketball in their formative years. I don't see any dilution in the talent level, leaving our nostalgia out of the equation.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Am I right that the only HOF starting pitchers with a rookie card from 1969 through 1983 are Jack Morris, himself a dubious selection, and Bert Blyleven? If so that's kind of strange, for a 15 year period, no?

Actually between 1971 and 1987, there is only one, Jack Morris, who was elected by the veterans committee. He has the highest ERA of any pitcher in the HOF and many feel he doesn't belong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Actually between 1971 and 1987, there is only one, Jack Morris, who was elected by the veterans committee. He has the highest ERA of any pitcher in the HOF and many feel he doesn't belong.

Well, but for steroids, Clemens obviously is in. In any case, any thoughts on why there is such an apparent dearth of pitchers over such a long period?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

That's definitely an interesting thought. I'm curious (genuinely... not being sarcastic) how you are separate external factors from the quality of the players.

The reason I say this is because looking at the late 90's and early 00's, I feel like many of the best pitchers in that era are getting the short end of the stick because we compare their ERA and other stats to eras without steroids and other factors.

Just looking at the 2000 Cy Young Award race, you had Tim Hudson, Andy Pettitte and Mike Mussina. Only Mussina will likely make the Hall (and of course there's Pedro), but IMO when taking era into account, all 3 had a reasonable (albeit not overwhelming) case. In the NL that season players getting Cy Young votes include Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and Kevin Brown. The first 3 are already enshrined, and IMO Brown deserved much more serious consideration.

We have the steroid era and we have an era where the mound was higher among other factors, and our basic metrics to compare players (wins, ERA etc) don't consider any difference in eras. Given this, it is not a surprise to me that the 60's had way more HOF pitchers.

I'm just not sure how much of that is tied to the players and how much is tied to the circumstances.

Well those pitchers had to pitch to Roberto Clemente, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Willie Mccovey, Orlando Cepeda, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Ron Santo, Lou Brock, Willie Stargell, Richie Allen, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Eddie Mathews (1965), Frank Robinson (1965) and Johnny Bench (1968). Even on steroids, there wasn't more talent in the 90s or 2000s.