ESPN Top 100

tod41 · #1 02-18-2022, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Couldn't have said it better.

Many reasons why other people don't get this. Some of the top ones are plenty of bias against more modern players, the fact that he only has 219 wins (which isn't acceptable for career greatness....unless your name is Koufax), and the fact that his impossibly great years didn't produce any individual stats that appear legendary on the surface. Like a 1.12 ERA, 30 wins, etc.

Pedro had a fantastic peak but faded due to injuries. His peak was higher than Seaver, for example, but he was not as dominant for as long as Seaver. He also played on a lot of good teams which helps. He certainly ranks high but not as high as he is placed in my humble opinion.

Shoeless Moe · #2 02-18-2022, 07:01 PM

I think it's kind of interesting how everyone pretty much agrees with Baseball's Greatest Hitters, Pitchers not so much. I think I could throw out a list of the Greatest of All Time 1-10 and someone else could have those reversed, with almost the exact same Pitchers.

Hitters:
Ruth is pretty much always #1.
Then it's Cobb or Mays for #2.
However, I's say Ted Williams easily is right there.
Then ya got Aaron.

So those are pretty much everyone's Top 5. You can try to make cases for DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Wagner, Robinson.....but I don't think they crack the Top 5.

Pitchers though 1-5, good luck getting a consensus.

Let's try.

Let's see your Top Pitchers 1 - 5 as you would rank them.

Mine would be:

1-Randy Johnson
2-Pedro Martinez
3-Roger Clemens
4-Bob Gibson
5-Bob Feller

Shit but now I left out Walter Johnson. and Lefty Grove. and Seaver....and many will have Koufax in there. See it's impossible.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 02-18-2022, 07:08 PM

Just based on numbers which do seem to hold up across eras, I'd have to put Walter Johnson and Young in any top five. On your list I might take Seaver before Gibson. I'd move Pedro down because of his career numbers but I understand the argument.

darwinbulldog · #4 02-18-2022, 08:33 PM

1. WaJo
2. Young
3. Clemens
4. Nichols
5. Alexander

molenick · #5 02-18-2022, 09:28 PM

I think if we made a list that was just based on career value and a list just based on peak value, there would be more (but not full) agreement. But it is true that pitchers seem to be harder to rank than hitters.

But since there is one list, everyone has to decide what they value most. The reason I rank (alphabetically) Alexander, Clemens, Gibson, Grove, R. Johnson, W. Johnson, Maddux, Mathewson, Seaver, and Young higher than Martinez is that they had longer careers and also high peak values. In some cases (not all) both their career and peak values rank higher than Martinez.

Martinez's four highest WARs were 11.7, 9.8, 9.0, 8.0 = 38.5
Grove 11.2, 10.4, 10.4, 9.8 = 41.8
Clemens 11.9, 10.4, 9.4, 8.8 = 40.5
Randy Johnson 10.7, 10.1, 9.1, 8.4 = 38.3
Gibson 11.2, 10.4, 8.9, 7.1 = 37.6
Seaver 10.6, 10.2, 7.8, 7.3 = 35.9
Maddux 9.7, 9.1, 8.5, 7.8 = 35.1.

Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young were in the 40s or 50s and obviously had much longer careers as well.

I used 4 years to get the peak-of-the-peak for each. Seaver and Maddux don't quite match Martinez but for me it's close enough that even a little credit for a long career makes me rank them higher. I rank Koufax below Martinez because his argument is entirely on peak value and his four best years (36.4) were not as good as Martinez's. I rank Spahn below Martinez because in my mind his long career did not offset his four best years "only" being 32.5. I feel the same about Carlton. To me Gibson was the closest call. I could go either way between the two, so I rank them 10 and 10a.

But I see an argument to get Martinez as high as second. First, put him over Gibson, Maddux, and Seaver because of peak vs. career. Then ahead of Clemens because of suspicion of steroids. Then ahead of Alexander, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, and Young because of dead ball stats being skewed (although I think the point of WAR is to try and unskew them a little). Then ahead of Grove because how can a player be better than someone who played 70 years later (that's really the only argument I see for putting Grove below Martinez…he was very similar to Martinez in that he dominated in a hitter's era but he was more dominant and did it for longer than Martinez).

But I can’t get him past Randy Johnson, who was just as dominant, pitched 1300 more innings, and has a higher WAR, WAR7, JAWS, and some other acronyms.

I'm sure I may have missed someone. I did not consider 19th century-only pitchers because it is hard to compare an era when pitchers could pitch over 600 innings and have a WAR of 20.5 (as Pud Galvin did in 1884). But if I did, Nichols would be my choice. I also did not include Negro League pitchers because I don't feel qualified weighing the statistics available with the reputations some players had.

cardsagain74 · #6 02-18-2022, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molenick

I think if we made a list that was just based on career value and a list just based on peak value, there would be more (but not full) agreement. But it is true that pitchers seem to be harder to rank than hitters.

But since there is one list, everyone has to decide what they value most. The reason I rank (alphabetically) Alexander, Clemens, Gibson, Grove, R. Johnson, W. Johnson, Maddux, Mathewson, Seaver, and Young higher than Martinez is that they had longer careers and also high peak values. In some cases (not all) both their career and peak values rank higher than Martinez.

Martinez's four highest WARs were 11.7, 9.8, 9.0, 8.0 = 38.5
Grove 11.2, 10.4, 10.4, 9.8 = 41.8
Clemens 11.9, 10.4, 9.4, 8.8 = 40.5
Randy Johnson 10.7, 10.1, 9.1, 8.4 = 38.3
Gibson 11.2, 10.4, 8.9, 7.1 = 37.6
Seaver 10.6, 10.2, 7.8, 7.3 = 35.9
Maddux 9.7, 9.1, 8.5, 7.8 = 35.1.

Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young were in the 40s or 50s and obviously had much longer careers as well.

I used 4 years to get the peak-of-the-peak for each. Seaver and Maddux don't quite match Martinez but for me it's close enough that even a little credit for a long career makes me rank them higher. I rank Koufax below Martinez because his argument is entirely on peak value and his four best years (36.4) were not as good as Martinez's. I rank Spahn below Martinez because in my mind his long career did not offset his four best years "only" being 32.5. I feel the same about Carlton. To me Gibson was the closest call. I could go either way between the two, so I rank them 10 and 10a.

But I see an argument to get Martinez as high as second. First, put him over Gibson, Maddux, and Seaver because of peak vs. career. Then ahead of Clemens because of suspicion of steroids. Then ahead of Alexander, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, and Young because of dead ball stats being skewed (although I think the point of WAR is to try and unskew them a little). Then ahead of Grove because how can a player be better than someone who played 70 years later (that's really the only argument I see for putting Grove below Martinez�he was very similar to Martinez in that he dominated in a hitter's era but he was more dominant and did it for longer than Martinez).

But I can�t get him past Randy Johnson, who was just as dominant, pitched 1800 more innings, and has a higher WAR, WAR7, JAWS, and some other acronyms.

I'm sure I may have missed someone. I did not consider 19th century-only pitchers because it is hard to compare an era when pitchers could pitch over 600 innings and have a WAR of 20.5 (as Pud Galvin did in 1884). But if I did, Nichols would be my choice. I also did not include Negro League pitchers because I don't feel qualified weighing the statistics available with the reputations some players had.

I love RJ as well, but the acronyms don't show that RJ's career was just as dominant.

Pedro's career WAR: 83.9 in 2827 innings (33.7 IP per)
Randy's career WAR: 101.1 in 4135 innings (40.9 IP per)

Pedro's career ERA+ was 154. Randy's was 135.

Not only was Pedro more dominant, but it's not even that close.

I'm fine with ranking RJ "higher" because he pitched so many more innings though, but I prefer Pedro's 2800 innings which were more elite. The ol' subjective argument

molenick · #7 02-18-2022, 10:52 PM

Yeah, I get that. I didn't want to overdo the acronyms, but I did see that Martinez beats Johnson in WAR/162 6.4 to 5.6, which I think is like your stat but in reverse (?).

In fact, the only ones above him in WAR/162 with more innings as well are Walter Johnson, Grove, Clemens, and Nichols (he's tied with Young at 6.4).

And if you go by WAR7 it is close (Johnson 61.5, Martinez 58.2).

I do lean towards giving some credit for longevity (as long as it is productive) so I guess that's why I rank Johnson higher. The longer careers generally gain counting stats as they go down in rate stats. Otherwise we need to figure out how to get Noodles Hahn and his 6.4 WAR/162 over 2000+ innings into the argument (that's 12th all-time ahead of Alexander, Mathewson, Gibson, Seaver, Maddux, Johnson, and many others).

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ESPN Article on PSA	Danny Smith	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	44	04-17-2021 05:58 PM
WWE Wrestlemania on ESPN	Santo10Fan	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	0	03-20-2020 08:55 PM
ESPN NFL Countdown	CMIZ5290	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	0	09-12-2016 05:17 PM
What did SGC do to ESPN?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	05-02-2007 08:09 PM