Johnson, Mathewson, or Young? Which one do you think was the best?

[daves_resale_shop]

I say Walter Johnson... Incredible record, and never had the supporting cast that Matty did...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Johnson. I might rate Alexander next, too.

[khkco4bls]

I say John Clarkson

[EvilKing00]

Out if thise 3 id say johnson, but pedro martinez and sandy kofaux would be right there with johnson imo

[Touch'EmAll]

Cy Young was not in the first 5 HOF inductees - Mathewson and Johnson were. But there was a young pitcher in 1915 and 1916 who was 5-1 vs. Walter Johnson in head-to-head games...named Ruth.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Cy Young was not in the first 5 HOF inductees - Mathewson and Johnson were. But there was a young pitcher in 1915 and 1916 who was 5-1 vs. Walter Johnson in head-to-head games...named Ruth.

Yes, Ruth was 5-1 against Johnson in those two years, but I don't know if I would place much of the blame on Johnson. In their one 1915 meeting, Ruth won 4-3. Both pitchers threw complete games. In their first meeting of 1916, Ruth clearly outpitched Johnson, who gave up 5 runs. The next four meetings, however, Johnson was sensational. On June 1st, Ruth and the Sox won 1-0, and the lone run Johnson surrendered was unearned (3 Senator errors). On August 15th, both pitchers threw complete games. Johnson took the loss...allowing one earned run in 12 2/3 IP. On September 9th, Ruth and the Sox won again 2-1. Johnson threw a complete game in the loss. Three days later, Johnson beat Ruth 4-3.

Johnson in going 1-5 against Ruth had a 2.18 ERA, and a 0.985 WHIP. He didn't get any run support.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

Out if thise 3 id say johnson, but pedro martinez and sandy kofaux would be right there with johnson imo

Johnson, he is probably the greatest pitcher of all time.

Koufax's name shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread! Statistically speaking he was a MAJOR disappointment for the first 6 years of his career (the only thing he had ever lead the league in was Wild Pitches), he then found his command had 2 pretty good seasons and then 4 absolutely amazing ones. I have never understood how that gets anyone in the "greatest ever" conversation.

[bnorth]

Never heard of a Johnson or Mathewson award but have heard of a Cy Young so I would give him the nod among those 3. Now the greatest of all time has 7 Cy Young awards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never heard of a Johnson or Mathewson award but have heard of a Cy Young so I would give him the nod among those 3. Now the greatest of all time has 7 Cy Young awards.

One could make a case for Clemens, or Grove, if one did not go with one of the pre-WWI favorites. I can't see Koufax being in the discussion.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never heard of a Johnson or Mathewson award but have heard of a Cy Young so I would give him the nod among those 3. Now the greatest of all time has 7 Cy Young awards.

So if MLB came out with a Doc Gooden award now, that he would make a thread like this 100 years from now?

Cy Young with the length of his career along with the average amount of innings pitched per game, with many complete games should always been the discussion. He just shouldn't bein the discussion because some committee back in the day gave him an award.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never heard of a Johnson or Mathewson award but have heard of a Cy Young so I would give him the nod among those 3. Now the greatest of all time has 7 Cy Young awards.

BeN...
Cy's Has the MoSt WiNs...
BuT He ALSo Has the MoST Losses!

As FiR Roger... He WaS a STuD,
But I CaN'T GeT PaSSeD the Physical displacements...
The HeiGHT of the MouND,
The Characteristics of the BaLLs & BaTs...

IT's JuST a Different Game ALL together!
THeY Were ALL JuST CReaTed To ThRoW
THaT SpHeRe PaST Anyone Who Would
ATTeMPT To HiT'em!

I JuST LoVe THiS GaMe!!!

I WouLD of LoVeD To oF SeeN a GaMe
BacK iN 1910... JoHNSoN vs MaTHewSoN...
JuST AwSoMe!!!

Back WHeN Jake Peavey Was iN HiS PRiMe,
I Saw HiM ProTecT HiS HoMe TurF
Against RoGeR and The YaNKs aT PETCO!
WHaT a Game...

Clemens Had iT ALL ThaT DaY...
AnD Jake GaVe'em HiS BeST !!!

in The EnD, RoGeR Bested Jake 2-1!

I CaN'T WaiT Ta See
WHaT Ta See WHaT The Mets
WiLL BRiNG To The TaBle NeXT YeaR!!!

Harvey, DeGrom, SynderGaard, Mats, & Wheeler!!!
NoT ReaDiN into the HYPe...
JuST WaNNa See Whats GONNa HaPPeN!!!

AnYHoW...

"BiG SiX" STiLL RuLeS iN My BooK!!!

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never heard of a Johnson or Mathewson award but have heard of a Cy Young so I would give him the nod among those 3. Now the greatest of all time has 7 Cy Young awards.

The award was named after Young because the first year it was designated was the year of Cy Young's death, hence the honor of naming it after him.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Johnson, he is probably the greatest pitcher of all time.

Koufax's name shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread! Statistically speaking he was a MAJOR disappointment for the first 6 years of his career (the only thing he had ever lead the league in was Wild Pitches), he then found his command had 2 pretty good seasons and then 4 absolutely amazing ones. I have never understood how that gets anyone in the "greatest ever" conversation.

Sandy Koufax is the greatest pitcher I have ever seen and by a wide margin. I strongly disagree that Koufax was a major disappointment. I think that you don't understand how baseball worked in the 50s. Koufax was a bonus baby. As such, he couldn't pitch in the minors. He was so valuable to the Dodgers that they gave up a roster spot for 2 years to keep him. It wasn't until his 3rd year that he even started pitching meaningful innings. Just think of that as his minor league experience and by the time he hit his stride, the team was winning big.

1962, tied for 1st in NL, would have probably won World Championship except Koufax got hurt and couldn't finish the season.

1963 NL Champs, World Champs, Cy Young, MVP. WS MVP.

1964 Injuries kept him from having full season, but still good enough to get CY Young votes. May have even won NL Cy Young if there was one for each league.

1965 NL Champs, World Champs, Cy Young, 2nd in MVP, WS MVP. Koufax pretty much won the WS with shutouts in game 5 and game 7 on 2 days rest.

1966 NL Champs, CY Young, 2nd in MVP. Then retirement. Who knows what he would have done if he had continued to pitch.

As for the 3 pitchers here, Christy Mathewson got the most votes of the 3 in the original hof voting. Cy Young got the award named after him. Walter Johnson had the better career. If I had to pick one, I would go with Johnson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Koufax had a great 5 year run, as good as any although there are comparable (Grove comes to mind). A great 5 year run does not qualify one for best pitcher of all time, IMO.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by daves_resale_shop

I say Walter Johnson... Incredible record, and never had the supporting cast that Matty did...

I SoMe WHaT Agree...
However, Mr .Johnson didn't Live
Under the Constant "New York Pressure" as DiD Mr. Mathewson!

One of the ReaSoNs WhY I HaVe THiS AVaTaR!
I BeLieVe THaT THeY WeRe Equals ~
BuT iN THe EnD... I GiVe THe NoD Ta MaTTy!!!

2 DiFFeReNT TyPeS oF PiTcHeRs THouGH ~
Sort of Like a Young Greg Maddox vs Randy Johnson
of the NoT So ReCent PaST... Aye!?

I do ReMeMBeR ReaDiN THaT Mr. CoBB
Was Caught SaYiN THaT He
GaVe HiS VoTe Ta MiSTaR Johnson...
And iT WaS ALSo SaiD THaT
iT WaS a GooD ReaSoN WHy Mr. CoBB
Crowded the Plate and Bunted quite often
when FaciN Mr. Johnson!
CrowdiN the Plate to intimidate'em...
BunTiN Cause He Couldn't HiT'em!

iN THe EnD... iTs a Very GooD BaSeBaLL DeBaTe

KeViN... THaNKs FiR the GraND ToPiC Ta ToSS ARouND!!!

[glynparson]

gets my vote.

[the 'stache]

Walter Johnson. If he'd have pitched for a team like the Giants, Johnson might have won 500 games.

Consider Walter Johnson's 1910 and 1911 seasons.

In 1910, Johnson was 25-17 on a Senators team that was 66-85 overall.
In 1911, Johnson was 25-13 on a Senators team that was 64-90 overall.

Over the course of those two seasons, Walter Johnson went 50-30, good for a .625 winning percentage. In the games which Walter Johnson did not record a decision, the Senators were 80-145, a .356 winning percentage.

[Fred]

Great stats to support Johnson. Kind of reminds us of Carlton's '72 season when he was 27-10 on a team that went 59-97.

It would be neat to see if someone could compile a stat that shows the records of the teams for both Matty and Walter through out their careers. That could help in closing the debate about the huge gap in lifetime win% that Matty has over Johnson.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Fred

Great stats to support Johnson. Kind of reminds us of Carlton's '72 season when he was 27-10 on a team that went 59-97.

It would be neat to see if someone could compile a stat that shows the records of the teams for both Matty and Walter through out their careers. That could help in closing the debate about the huge gap in lifetime win% that Matty has over Johnson.

Well, this is hardly an exhaustive study, but it does show how good the New York Giants and Washington Senators were overall during the careers of Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson. Keep in mind that both Mathewson and Johnson, throughout their careers, also appeared in games they did not start. Mathewson pitched in 635 games for the Giants, starting 551. Johnson pitched in 802 games, starting 666. So, when I refer to games that they ultimately factored in the decision (a win or a loss), that decision was not necessarily derrived from a start.



Between 1900 and 1916, the New York Giants went 1,456-1,080, good for a .574 winning percentage during Mathewson's career. Mathewson went 372-188 with the Giants, giving him a .664 winning percentage. In games where Mathewson did not factor in the decision, the Giants were 1,084-892, a .549 winning percentage.

Between 1907 and 1927, the Washington Senators went 1,559-1,609, giving them a .492 winning percentage during Johnson's career. Johnson went 417-279 with the Senators, giving him a .599 winning percentage. In games where Johnson did not factor in the decision, the Senators were 1,142-1,330, a .462 winning percentage.

In games where neither Mathewson or Johnson factored in the decision, the Giants (.549) had a .087 better winning percentage than the Senators (.462). That's 8.7%. Over the course of a 155 game season, that means, on average, the Giants won about 14 (13.5) more games than the Senators. From one perspective, if the Senators had won 8.7% more starts when Walter Johnson played in Washington, Johnson would have won an additional 58 games (666 starts x 0.087 = 57.942).

A few more numbers to bounce around in our brains. I think all of these are accurate, though it's late.

The Giants had a .574 winning percentage in the Mathewson era, compared to a .664 winning percentage for Mathewson himself. Mathewson's personal winning percentage was .090, or 9% better than his team's. Mathewson win-loss record was responsible for a bump of .025, or 2.5% (.574 with Mathewson - .549 without Mathewson) to his team's overall win percentage.

The Senators had a .492 winning percentage in the Johnson era, compared to a .599 winning percentage for Johnson himself. Johnson's personal winning percentage was .107, or 10.7% better, than his team's. Johnson's win-loss record was responsible for a bump of .030, or 3.0% (.492 with Johnson - .462 without Johnson) to his team's overall win percentage.

The hypothesis that Walter Johnson would have won more games had he pitched in New York is a valid one, of course. Trying to accurately forecast just how many more games he might have won, though, is next to impossible. I do feel that Johnson could have been the second pitcher ever to win 500 games though.

Something to think about, anyway.

[TexasLeaguer]

Originally Posted by irishdenny

I SoMe WHaT Agree...
However, Mr .Johnson didn't Live
Under the Constant "New York Pressure" as DiD Mr. Mathewson!

One of the ReaSoNs WhY I HaVe THiS AVaTaR!
I BeLieVe THaT THeY WeRe Equals ~
BuT iN THe EnD... I GiVe THe NoD Ta MaTTy!!!

2 DiFFeReNT TyPeS oF PiTcHeRs THouGH ~
Sort of Like a Young Greg Maddox vs Randy Johnson
of the NoT So ReCent PaST... Aye!?

I do ReMeMBeR ReaDiN THaT Mr. CoBB
Was Caught SaYiN THaT He
GaVe HiS VoTe Ta MiSTaR Johnson...
And iT WaS ALSo SaiD THaT
iT WaS a GooD ReaSoN WHy Mr. CoBB
Crowded the Plate and Bunted quite often
when FaciN Mr. Johnson!
CrowdiN the Plate to intimidate'em...
BunTiN Cause He Couldn't HiT'em!

iN THe EnD... iTs a Very GooD BaSeBaLL DeBaTe

KeViN... THaNKs FiR the GraND ToPiC Ta ToSS ARouND!!!

Denny, why are all your posts in an odd mix of capitals and lowercase? It makes it frustrating to read for me at least, and I usually don't read what you post because of it.

[Fred]

Denny,

Ross has a point. It is somewhat annoying to read your posts with the UC/LC changes going on. I do enjoy reading your posts.

[PolarBear]

I'm a Matty fan, and used to think he was the best but the more I've studied Johnson, the more I realize he was the best pitcher of all time, and it's not really even close. If he had been on a first division team his entire career, he likely would have had 520 wins and a 75% winning percentage.

[glchen]

Cy Young. Leads all pitchers in WAR.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PolarBear

I'm a Matty fan, and used to think he was the best but the more I've studied Johnson, the more I realize he was the best pitcher of all time, and it's not really even close. If he had been on a first division team his entire career, he likely would have had 520 wins and a 75% winning percentage.

No argument here.
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Pitching - 150 (1), Average HOFer ≈ 40

Gray Ink Pitching - 420 (2), Average HOFer ≈ 185

Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 364 (1), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 1 (3038), Average HOFer ≈ 50
Pitching - 82 (2), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Starting Pitcher (1st), 165.6 career WAR/89.5 7yr-peak WAR/127.5 JAWS
Average HOF P (out of 62) = 73.9 career WAR/50.3 7yr-peak WAR/62.1 JAWS

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by TexasLeaguer

Denny, why are all your posts in an odd mix of capitals and lowercase? It makes it frustrating to read for me at least, and I usually don't read what you post because of it.

Exactly, I don't even bother trying to read them anymore.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by TexasLeaguer

Denny, why are all your posts in an odd mix of capitals and lowercase? It makes it frustrating to read for me at least, and I usually don't read what you post because of it.

I actually find it quite amusing.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by TexasLeaguer

Denny, why are all your posts in an odd mix of capitals and lowercase? It makes it frustrating to read for me at least, and I usually don't read what you post because of it.

You guys obviously don't know Denny! Hope ur doin well u ole scondrel! Fir sure!