Who is the best pitcher of all time?

Hey Guy, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Gary Peters!! You've got to be kidding me. I'll take Sandy any day of the week.

Simply the BEST EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

from the start of 2001 to the end of 2002 this is what Randy Johnson did....in a baseball Hitters park (bank one) and in a steriod era....

pitched 2 full seasons....45-11 record, won 2 Cy young's, he tied the record with 20 k's in a game, he pitched a perfect game, won the world series, and was world series co MVP (though he probably deserved himself alone)...in 2 yrs!....

give some more facts that show more dominance than that....from any pitcher ever!....

That's not much of a challenge. Considering that Curt Schilling put up comparable numbers, not only in the same years but on the same team, Johnson's achievements look a bit less awesome. There are, in fact, plenty of pitchers who have put up similarly impressive stats over a two-year period. A few off the top of my head:

Christy Mathewson 1908-09
Grover Cleveland Alexander 1915-16
Lefty Grove 1930-31
Dizzy Dean 1934-35
Hal Newhouser 1944-45 and 1945-46
Denny McLain 1968-69
Roger Clemens 1986-87
Pedro Martinez 1999-2000

Let me be clear: I didn't say that they put too much emphasis on wins/losses, I said that they can put too much emphasis on wins/losses. Wins and losses still matter because ultimately the pitcher's job is to win games, and wins/losses are still the best measure of a pitcher's performance in that respect.

As for my point regarding Felix Hernandez's unearned runs, it was merely an observation that Hernandez's ERA was helped by Seattle's bad defense. It would take a far more sophisticated analysis than I am able to offer to determine how much Hernandez was helped, but it's something to bear in mind.

and I don't even have to look at their stats,

the ONLY 2 worthy are pedro and clemens...because if hitting was WORSE back in the day, then it's HARDER to pitch today!

Lefty Grove had a 2.54 ERA in 1930 when the batting average for the American League as a whole was .288. In 1934, when Dizzy Dean recorded a 2.66 ERA, the average NL hitter was hitting .279. In contrast, Johnson was pitching at a time when the average NL hitter was hitting at around .260.

In any event, it doesn't really matter if pitching is easier or harder, since pitchers are measured against their contemporaries, not against some invariable yardstick. The pitchers that I listed had great seasons because they were far better than the other pitchers who were active in those seasons. But by all means continue to ignore the stats. It makes your argument sound lots more persuasive.

that's a fine point you made with batting averages...but tell me what was the average of home runs hit in a 9/inning game back in the 30's with koosh balls...compared to pedro's or Johnson's seasons?? when they harden the balls, and move the fences in?

His 21 wins doesn't even put him in the top 500 for single-season win totals.

In any event, there were .63 home runs hit per game in 1930. In 2001, there were 1.12 HRs per game. I'm not sure what that proves. If you're concerned with ERA, the important stat isn't the number of home runs per game but rather the number of runs. In 1930, each team averaged 5.55 runs per game. In 2001, each team averaged 4.78 runs per game. Lefty Grove had an ERA of 2.54 in 1930 when the average ERA in the American League was 4.65. Randy Johnson had a 2.49 ERA in 2001 when the average ERA in the NL was 4.36. Grove was 0.73 run better than Wes Ferrell, the ERA runner-up in the AL. Johnson was o.49 run better than Curt Schilling, the ERA runner-up in the NL. Grove led his league in strikeouts; so did Johnson. Grove led his league in wins; Johnson didn't.

Are you forgetting that teams used a 3 man rotation back then?? so that Cy Young's 30 games in a season will NEVER be broken??

I can and will explain how this is so...

First, there were many more single or double hitters back in the day, but more power stokers today...with in a hitters park (Arizona) and more home run hitting guys, it impacts Johnson's stats...

the short you had a few dominant pitchers back then, but as a whole they were worse pitchers then they are today, and pitchers as a whole are BETTER today, meaning if your comparing pitchers by the standard of their contemporaries then a pitcher stats today, are more valid that 70+ years ago....

was Justin verlander's season and stats not one of the greatest in memory??

If not, why did he win both the cy and MVP?

and 2 if it was a memorable season, where does his 23 wins rank in terms of top 500 ever??

In any event, there were .63 home runs hit per game in 1930. In 2001, there were 1.12 HRs per game. I'm not sure what that proves. If you're concerned with ERA, the important stat isn't the number of home runs per game but rather the number of runs. In 1930, each team averaged 5.55 runs per game. In 2001, each team averaged 4.78 runs per game. Lefty Grove had an ERA of 2.54 in 1930 when the average ERA in the American League was 4.65. Randy Johnson had a 2.49 ERA in 2001 when the average ERA in the NL was 4.36. Grove was 0.73 run better than Wes Ferrell, the ERA runner-up in the AL. Johnson was o.49 run better than Curt Schilling, the ERA runner-up in the NL. Grove led his league in strikeouts; so did Johnson. Grove led his league in wins; Johnson didn't.

Well, that just doesn't make any sense, and not just in a statistically verifiable or logical sort of way, but also in an English-grammar sort of a way. There were only sixteen major league teams in 1930, and each team carried around ten pitchers, meaning that there were only about 160 major-league pitching jobs in 1930. Compare that with 2001, where there were thirty teams carrying around twelve pitchers each, or approximately 360 major-league pitching jobs. Just considering the dilution of talent, it's difficult to imagine how the best 160 pitchers of 1930 were somehow worse, on average, than the best 360 pitchers of 2001. But then none of that matters anyway, because there's no point in comparing players from different eras -- the only valid measurement is how players compared with the guys who played at the same time.

But then none of that matters anyway, because there's no point in comparing players from different eras -- the only valid measurement is how players compared with the guys who played at the same time.

So I will say again, Please reread the facts you listed above, which shows that it is stiffer and harder to perform as well today, as a pitcher as it was back in the 30's

You dodged my question altogether, SO I will reword it another way, if Justin Verlander had a great season, in which 7 players have EVER done...then by simple understandings means it was "close" to one of the 7 most dominant by a pitcher ever! (least award wise it was) and I say close, because there are variables that go into it such as awards not being given out back years ago) But in terms of when awards came into play, then it was! (if you disagree, then go complain to the voters who gave him the cy young and MVP, not me) So if it was close to one of the 7 greatest since awards have been around, then what does that say about your argument of randy's 21 wins, not making the top 500, and verlander's 441st...is rather a weak argument of "how great, and dominant a pitcher, and or season was"

May I remind you, that it was YOU who brought up guys from the 30's in comparison to Randy Johnson's stats, when "I claimed" he was the MOST dominant ever....So if that is "really how you feel'' then I would be asking yourself, why lefty groves stats have ANY] bearing to Randy's??

No, when you said that Randy Johnson's two-year span of 2001-02 was the most dominant ever, you brought up the comparison between Johnson and every other pitcher. After all, you can't say that he was the most dominant ever unless you're comparing him to all the other less-dominant pitchers. When I mentioned Grove (among others), I was merely naming a few of the pitchers that you failed to identify. Don't kid yourself, though, into thinking that you weren't making a comparison.

Lefty Grove had an ERA of 2.54 in 1930 when the average ERA in the American League was 4.65. Randy Johnson had a 2.49 ERA in 2001 when the average ERA in the NL was 4.36. Grove was 0.73 run better than Wes Ferrell, the ERA runner-up in the AL. Johnson was o.49 run better than Curt Schilling, the ERA runner-up in the NL.

Well, that just doesn't make any sense, and not just in a statistically verifiable or logical sort of way, but also in an English-grammar sort of a way. There were only sixteen major league teams in 1930, and each team carried around ten pitchers, meaning that there were only about 160 major-league pitching jobs in 1930. Compare that with 2001, where there were thirty teams carrying around twelve pitchers each, or approximately 360 major-league pitching jobs. Just considering the dilution of talent, it's difficult to imagine how the best 160 pitchers of 1930 were somehow worse, on average, than the best 360 pitchers of 2001. But then none of that matters anyway, because there's no point in comparing players from different eras -- the only valid measurement is how players compared with the guys who played at the same time.