How would you rank these pitchers?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Marichal, Niekro, Perry (given in alphabetical order).

I think my own ranking would be Marichal, Perry, and Niekro, but a lot really depends on how you credit longevity stats.
In terms of PSA 8 value of their RCs, it's Perry Niekro Marichal, but presumably there are other factors there.

PS I would rate these three behind other guys with 60s RCs -- Carlton Palmer Seaver Ryan -- and ahead of Sutton Jenkins Hunter and Tiant, but it's all good for discussion.

[ajquigs]

My gut reaction, without looking at any numbers, is to agree with your order either for one huge game or if given the opportunity to sign them for five years as they were getting to their peaks.

[Vintagevault13]

Marichal
Niekro
Perry

I love the uniqueness of the knuckleballer in MLB history. Pretty small fraternity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's odd that compared to the huge batch of names mentioned in my first post there are so few great pitchers with RCs in the 50s -- only Ford, Koufax, and Gibson come to mind, I guess you could count Bunning and Drysdale.

[nat]

Niekro is a serious underrated pitcher. "Wins above replacement" is a stat that measures how many wins (based on runs allowed and historical runs-to-wins correlations) a pitcher would be expected to generate for his team, above a random AAA guy. Reasonable hall of fame candidates usually have around 60 (although some of the more questionable hall of famers come in far below that). Niekro has almost 100. And that's not all just from hanging around, he's also 50 wins above average (a stat just like the one above, except that it compares him to an average pitcher instead of a AAA guy). His top two seasons by WAR are 10 and 8.9, it usually takes about 8 to be in the MVP discussion.

Perry was a half-step behind him. 93 WAR and 42 WAA. Basically, Niekro had one more really good year than Perry, although at his best Perry was slightly better. (Tops out at 11 WAR for a season, which is pretty freaking impressive.)

Marichal, great though he was, isn't really in their class. Niekro and Perry pitched about 2000 more innings than Marichal did. The difference is even more dramatic if you pay attention to the extra value that they generated, basically Niekro and Perry had Marichal's career, and then 2/3rds of another border-line hall of fame career on top of it. About 62 WAR for Marichal, FWIW.

As for desirability of baseball cards, I don't really know. Niekro played for some terrible Braves teams, which probably holds down value of his cards. Perry played for lots of teams and isn't really claimed by any one fan base, which probably does the same for his. Marichal spent practically his whole career with the Giants, which has got to help. SMR gives the price of a 1961 Topps Marichal in NM at 750. For the Niekro rookie it's 425 (1965), and for Perry it's 750 (1962). (So maybe I'm off on the Perry thing.)

[begsu1013]

kinda partial to niekro myself:

http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistr....aspx?s=179998

[Rookiemonster]

Marichal
Niekro
Perry

Marichal has the most wins during the 60s .list of some pitchers from the 60s.
Koufax
Gibson
Ford
Carlton
Seaver
Ryan
Jenkins
Niekro
Perry
Cuellar
Katt
Drysdale
Bunning

Not many years played in the 60s for some of of these guys . But it still adds up to compition for cy youngs and league leader marks .

I know I might have missed a few .

[the 'stache]

Marichal
Perry
Niekro

While I realize that just remaining in the Majors as a starter for 22 or 24 years is an accomplishment in and of itself, that doesn't really sway me when the question is "which of these three men was the best pitcher?"

Juan Marichal was the best pitcher. I look at things like Fielding Independent Pitching, strikeout to walk ratio, ERA +, WHIP, shutouts, etc. Marichal is best in all of them. Yes, the other two guys had their career metrics hurt by playing well past their prime, but when you compare their primes, Marichal was still the best.

First, the numbers. Their 10-year peaks:



While Niekro and Perry both had excellent numbers, overall, for their ten year primes, look at Marichal. He averaged 20 wins and 10 losses, a 2.65 ERA, and 194 strike outs a season for a decade.

Marichal has the lowest ERA, the best ERA +, the lowest WHIP by far, the best strikeout-to-walk ratio, and the most shutouts. His FIP is nearly identical to Perry's. Marichal's control was superior. Perry and Niekro hit twice as many batters, and their walk rates are substantially higher.

The stat that's most impressive to me is career shutouts. Niekro started 716 games in his career, and pitched 45 shutouts, or one per 16 (15.91) starts. Perry tossed 53 shutouts in 690 career starts, or one per 13 (13.01) starts. Look at Marichal, comparatively. He threw 52 shutouts in only 457 starts, or one per 9 (8.79) starts.

Then, look at how many times each man led the league in a particular metric.

Niekro in 22 seasons led the league in wins twice, ERA once, strikeouts once, and ERA + once.

Perry in 24 seasons led the league in wins three times, in ERA + once, in shutouts once, and in walks per 9 innings pitched once.

Marichal in 16 seasons led the league in wins twice, in ERA once, in shutouts twice, in ERA + twice, in WHIP twice, in hits per 9 innings once, in walks per 9 innings four times, and in strikeout to walk ratio three times.

I think it's clear Juan Marichal was not only in the class of Gaylord Perry and Phil Niekro, but he was better than either of them.

[steve B]

This is one of the things that makes baseball in general a lot of fun.

I only caught the very end of Marichals career, when he was very average.
I did get to see a bit of Perry and Niekro, and lots of Wakefield, another knuckleballer.

One of the things that makes them hard to compare is pitching style. Perry and pretty much any knuckleball pitcher will have fairly long careers barring injury or lack of desire to continue. It's just not as taxing on the arm as being a hard thrower.

I've grown away from using wins as an important stat for pitchers. There's so much that goes into getting a lot of wins, they have to be good to begin with, but a good pitcher on a team that can't score or a team without much of a bullpen will lose a lot of wins. The same goes for a lot of the traditional stats. Poor fielding behind the pitcher can hurt a lot.

So the three are - for me- very hard to compare.
Marichal played for some really good teams, and to my thinking was a great pitcher. Lots of pitches, and a decent bit of power too. Just the sort of pitcher who will strike out a lot of batters, especially with excellent control.

Perry - The spitter/ splitter/ maybe maybe not and a bunch of other pitches as well but not a great fastball. The sort of pitcher who looks to get a lot of ground balls. He played for some good teams, and some not so good teams.

Niekro - Knuckleball pitchers are so different it's futile to make comparisons. And sometimes their value to the team is in stuff that won't show up well in stats. Add in the inconsistency of the pitch and you get a pitcher who can be amazing one day and shelled the next without doing anything differently. I didn't pay enough attention to Niekro to know for sure, but if he was managed similarly to Wakefield there would have been a few times during the season when the relievers needed a rest and the knuckleball pitcher is called on to give them that whether the pitch is working well or not. Terrible for any stats, but good for the team. I'd guess that with the Braves being pretty bad a lot of the time he was needed to eat up innings more than a regular pitcher. Wakefield did a lot of that, even more if it was just a couple innings to take some work off the middle relievers. And I think once started two games in a row and maybe three in the same week (Maybe one was a very long relief, like 8 innings? I don't recall for sure.)


So overall I'd say it depends.

If I have all three in their prime and need to win one game ?
Marichal followed by either of the others depending on who else is on the team.

If I'm picking guys for a team?
Probably Niekro for the flexibility I'd get. If I had a great infield, I might opt for Perry.


Steve B

[brian1961]

Marichal, by far, especially for peak value. Oh was he feared. With his high kick, he was fun to watch and photograph.

Gaylord Perry was fascinating, because he had outstanding years with three teams as diverse as they come---the Giants, the Indians, and the Padres. With tongue in cheek, Perry was feared, too. It's tough to hit a spit-baller, and who wants to get hit with his slobber, when you're tryin' to clobber!

Growing up in the 60s, Marichal was always thought of as better than Perry or Neikro. Gibson started to get a lot of respect after the '64 Series, and he just kept getting better and better, but then angry Gibby ain't in the discussion.

If you want underrated pitchers, I'll chime in with Mel Stottlemyre and Dean Chance.

Look, I'm not trying to de-rail this fine thread. Keep it goin, guys.

---Brian Powell

[mckinneyj]

> Marichal, by far

I'll echo this... growing up in the 60s and just using the eye test in the NL it was Koufax-Marichal as 1-2 up until Koufax retired and Gibson overtook Marichal. At no time would I have ever ranked Perry or Niekro as one of the top two of their peers.

[begsu1013]

pitching's a head game already.

having some 47 year old float that damn still moving knuckle in on ya is a whole new level.

was fun just watching batters facial expressions.

stats aside, he was just a joy to watch.*




* not that the other's weren't.

[nat]

The point about it depending on what you're asking for is a good one. If it's one game, I won't object to Marichal.

Marichal topped out at 10.3 Wins Above Replacement (WAR), which is very good, comparable to Mike Trout's rookie year. He managed that in 295 innings, which gives him .035 WAR/inning.

Perry's best year was worth 11 WAR, in 1972. He pitched 342 innings that year. And so comes in at .032 wins per inning. At his best, very close to Marichal.

Niekro's best season was 1978, when he managed 10 WAR on the nose, in 334 innings. Comes out to .03 wins per inning. Slightly behind Marichal.

So yes, for one game, Marichal is the right answer. Perry isn't far behind.

For one season, Perry is slightly ahead, but it's pretty close.

But if you want to know who had the best career, that's when Marichal isn't in the same class as Niekro or Perry. Basically, he just didn't pitch enough innings to have had a comparable career. Our loss, a 5000 inning career from Marichal would have been something to see.

Finally, a word of warning about using FIP in this context. Fielding independent statistics are predictive statistics, and they carry more significance (relative to ERA or similar measures) the fewer innings a pitcher has already pitched. FIP assumes that pitchers have no control over what happens to a ball once it's put in play. Most of the time this is a safe assumption: the year-to-year correlation between balls-in-play outcomes is very weak for most pitchers, and it takes a really long time to figure out which pitchers do have an ability to induce weak contact and so affect what happens to balls in play. But when we're talking about pitchers with 5000 innings pitched, it's not a safe assumption any more. After 5000 innings we know pretty well if a pitcher can control what happens on balls in play. For these kinds of discussions a statistic that takes ordinary ERA and adjusts it for context (like ERA+) is a better choice. (ERA+ compensates for the era that players played in, as well as their home park. Since scoring was higher in Colorado in 1999 than in Chavez Ravine in 1968, an ERA of 4.00 will give you a much better ERA+, better than average in fact, in Colorado in 1999 than for someone playing for the Dodgers in 1968.)

By ERA+ Perry and Niekro are basically tied. (Perry has a 2 point lead, which is essentially nothing.) Marichal does have a better ERA+ than the other two, although in far fewer innings. Marichal had an ERA+ or 126 in 3500 innings. Over his first 3500 innings Perry's ERA+ is about 124. So, basically tied. Niekro's, over his first 3500 innings, is also 124. Higher ERA+s are better.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am sticking, so far, with my order, which is Marichal Perry Niekro. Marichal won something like 63 percent of his games, had many Cy Young worthy seasons except that the voters preferred Koufax, and was arguably the best pitcher of the 60s and certainly had the most wins. Niekro was basically a .500 pitcher who was very durable and pitched until he was ancient. Perry is somewhere in between, a guy who had a few really outstanding years (2 Cy Youngs and 1 second) but otherwise was basically a .500 pitcher who stuck around a long time.

[Mark70Z]

I'd go with the following:

1. Marichal
2. Perry
3. Niekro

I think there's a clear #1.

[jason.1969]

Also picking Marichal, Perry, Niekro.

As an aside, I got out my HOF cards from the 60s and early 70s and tried to make two teams, AL vs NL.

The stack of NL pitchers was gigantic...Seaver, Koufax, Drysdale, Ryan, Niekro, Gibson, Perry, Spahn, Jenkins, Sutton, Carlton, ...

The AL stack had Ford, Fingers, Wilhelm, and Palmer.

Any theories why the NL had so many more aces?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[brian1961]

While working my shift, a thought flashed through my memory on Mr. Perry. Two of Gaylord's best years were 1966 and 1972. If memory serves, during BOTH years, Perry had extraordinary seasons going into the All-Star break. I checked SABR and sure enough, my memory did not deceive. In 1966, his SABR feature article said he was 12-1 at the All-Star break and 20-2 on August 20th----WOW! Gaylord was as hot as an old steel playground slide on a 100-degree cloudless July afternoon. Virtually unbeatable.

As for 1972, Gaylord's SABR feature reported that baseball historian extraordinaire Bill James said Gaylord's 1972 season was the best by an American League pitcher since Lefty Grove in 1931! Furthermore, in '72 Gaylord toed the slab long and hard for the fifth place Cleveland Indians, who only scored an average of 3.0 runs per game. Perry was something else.

Then, in each of those years after the break, actually about late August, he seemed to lose something. His great records began crumbling; not to smithereens, just nowhere near what they looked like they were going to be. Too bad. What happened on those occasions? Anyone remember?

Ya got me. Maybe he suffered from an advanced case of dry mouth. Hey guys, that's nothing to spit at, in more ways than one!

----Brian Powell

[Vintagevault13]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Also picking Marichal, Perry, Niekro.

As an aside, I got out my HOF cards from the 60s and early 70s and tried to make two teams, AL vs NL.

The stack of NL pitchers was gigantic...Seaver, Koufax, Drysdale, Ryan, Niekro, Gibson, Perry, Spahn, Jenkins, Sutton, Carlton, ...

The AL stack had Ford, Fingers, Wilhelm, and Palmer.

Any theories why the NL had so many more aces?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

This fact is one of the reasons why I argue that Aaron should get more credit when compared to his AL counterparts. Nothing against Mantle et al, but the pitching was simply much stronger in the NL, especially in the 1960's.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Also picking Marichal, Perry, Niekro.

As an aside, I got out my HOF cards from the 60s and early 70s and tried to make two teams, AL vs NL.

The stack of NL pitchers was gigantic...Seaver, Koufax, Drysdale, Ryan, Niekro, Gibson, Perry, Spahn, Jenkins, Sutton, Carlton, ...

The AL stack had Ford, Fingers, Wilhelm, and Palmer.

Any theories why the NL had so many more aces?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Same deal on hitters. Mays Aaron Clemente Banks McCovey Musial (first few years) Snider (same) Stargell B Williams Brock Mathews Cepeda Rose seems a lot more than. Mantle Kaline Yaz Killebrew and Brooks with F Robinson spilt. Forgot some maybe. On pitchers, AL side, you forgot Catfish.

[the 'stache]

mt