Who is the best pitcher of all time?

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

As far As Randy not or being as Dominant as Verlander...I will say this, if Verlander, wins the CY young again next year, wins 22 or more with around 8 losses or less, throws either one more no Hitter, or (for sure) a perfect game, strikes out 20+ in one game, and is At least, A world series CO-MVP. then I will SAY that verlanders stats in a 2 year span were MORE dominant than Randy's....

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Well, not being Joe or nothing, I'd posit that you could consider the higher ERA in today's era (ha!) (as if you can really compare these things...) means it's harder to be a pitcher now... OR you can interpret it as meaning that the average pitcher is not as good as they were then.

To me, it's apples and oranges and a lot of yelling, but if you want to go down that road...

It MIGHT be more telling if you could break out the statistics of, say, the top 50 ERA pitchers or the top 50 winning percentage pitchers from a few years in each era and just compare their statistics, but that would be a hell of a chore. Anyone got a friend at Elias?

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Then, the correct response would have been (in reference to me) there is NO POINT in comparing other players to Randy's, and I would have agreed, and restated my views...

So your position is that Randy Johnson was the most dominant Randy Johnson ever? I can't disagree with that.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Secondly,

What does this?
...
And these Bold statements....
...
Have ANYTHING to do with this?? (in regards to Pitchers being worse or not worse??)

The first quoted portion has nothing to do with your argument that pitchers today are better than pitchers in 1930. You hadn't made that argument yet when I offered that statement.

The second quote is pretty self-explanatory. There were far fewer pitchers in the 1930s than in the 2000s. If the talent levels remained relatively constant, then choosing the 160 best pitchers from that pool would yield a better average pitcher than choosing the 360 best pitchers.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

(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?)

It doesn't make more sense the fourth time around than it did the first time.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

[/b] Think about it, How does the above Bold texts "Not Prove" what I said?? ) If the average Era was Higher back then, and the leaders (Lefty Grove) had a HIGHER era than pitchers who lead in today's game, and there is "more substantial proof" such as 160 pitchers back then, and as many as 360 or so today, how is this not relighable evidence, that "suggests" it is in fact "harder to excel at pitching" in today's game then it was many era's ago??

Higher ERA in the 1930s doesn't necessarily mean that the pitchers were worse, it could mean that the hitters were better. In any event, that's not an argument that you want to be making, because the ERAs in the 2000s were much, much higher than the ERAs in, say, the 1910s, yet you argue that Randy Johnson was better than guys like Christy Matthewson and Pete Alexander. So that's probably not a road you want to go down.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

As far As Randy not or being as Dominant as Verlander...I will say this, if Verlander, wins the CY young again next year, wins 22 or more with around 8 losses or less, throws either one more no Hitter, or (for sure) a perfect game, strikes out 20+ in one game, and is At least, A world series CO-MVP. then I will SAY that verlanders stats in a 2 year span were MORE dominant than Randy's....

I see. So would you agree that a pitcher who won the MVP award two years in a row would be a more dominant pitcher than Randy Johnson was in 2001-02?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

No, I would Not...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Why not? That's something Johnson never did.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

but look at ALL the other things he DID do in his d0minance. If your asking me whether I would say a Pitcher was more dominant than Randy's 2 years with winning just 2 MVP's then my answer is no...

If you give me some other Dominant accomplishments they did in a 2 year span in accordance to winning 2 MVP's then I would consider it....but on the fact of winning 2 MVP's?... then, No

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

What more do you need? Wouldn't winning the MVP two years running mean, by definition, that the pitcher is the most dominant pitcher over those two years?

As for your additional requirements (world series MVP, no-hitter, etc.), you're just making Johnson's performance in 2001-02 into the definition of "dominant," which is really a form of question-begging. In other words, you're saying that Johnson in 2001-02 was the most dominant pitcher in the history of baseball, and you're defining "dominant" to mean "having a two-year record identical to Randy Johnson's in 2001-02." That's cheating.

In any event, I'm not sure why pitching a no-hitter is a better sign of "dominance" than winning the MVP award. There have been 272 n0-hitters thrown in major league baseball, whereas the MVP award has only been given out 24 times to pitchers. It is, in short, about ten times easier for a pitcher to throw a no-hitter than to win the MVP. As for the world series MVP, that has been given out to such luminaries as Bob Turley, Frank Viola, and the immortal Jose Rijo. It just means that a player had a hot streak over a span of about seven games.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I am not denying the fact that winning 2 MVP's would in fact be very impressive in terms of a pitcher and dominance...I am saying that (to me personally) Randy's 2001 to 2002 season(s) clearly shows dominance, in almost every pitching achievement kind of way...So if you list players who won 2 MVP's and some of the accomplishments they did in those 2 years, than I will say (in my opinion) whether it was as dominant or not, based on pitching...but if your going to say that 2 MVP's Alone, compared to Randy's 2001 to 2002 season(s) with conjuntion to Pitching achievements, then my answer is still no...

Quote:

In any event, I'm not sure why pitching a no-hitter is a better sign of "dominance" than winning the MVP award. There have been 272 n0-hitters thrown in major league baseball, whereas the MVP award has only been given out 24 times to pitchers. It is, in short, about ten times easier for a pitcher to throw a no-hitter than to win the MVP. As for the world series MVP, that has been given out to such luminaries as Bob Turley, Frank Viola, and the immortal Jose Rijo. It just means that a player had a hot streak over a span of about seven games.

And it seems like you trying to "take away" from what Randy did....How much harder is it to throw a Perfect game than an MVP to a pitcher, because that is what Randy did...and second, think of the way he won the World series MVP...he did not win it as a slouch....He stopped and shut down the yankees at one of the strongest Modern day era's that has ever been. With the yankess as 4 time champs, (I hate to bring this up, but to me it is relavent) and right around 9-11...and so therefor, I personally think that the truth is somewhere in the middle of your view and mine....

If you list who you think is the most dominant, I will gladly listen...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I am not denying the fact that winning 2 MVP's would in fact be very impressive in terms of a pitcher and dominance...I am saying that (to me personally) Randy's 2001 to 2002 season(s) clearly shows dominance, in almost every pitching achievement kind of way...So if you list players who won 2 MVP's and some of the accomplishments they did in those 2 years, than I will say (in my opinion) whether it was as dominant or not, based on pitching...but if your going to say that 2 MVP's Alone, compared to Randy's 2001 to 2002 season(s) with conjuntion to Pitching achievements, then my answer is still no...

Well, here's what you said about Verlander's MVP award:

Quote:

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!

So, in other words, if a pitcher wins the MVP award, he is, by definition, one of the most dominant pitchers ever. That fact alone should mean that a pitcher who wins the MVP award two years in a row is, by definition, the most dominant pitcher ever over a two-year span, wouldn't you agree?

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

And it seems like you trying to "take away" from what Randy did....

Not at all. I think Johnson was an excellent pitcher in 2001-02 and deserved the Cy Young award in at least 2002 (Schilling was arguably a better pitcher in 2001). But throwing no-hitters or winning the world series MVP awards are relatively minor achievements in the grand scheme of things. And in any event, Johnson didn't throw a no-hitter in 2001-02, so I'm not sure why you even tossed that in there.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

How much harder is it to throw a Perfect game than an MVP to a pitcher, because that is what Randy did...

Yeah, in 2004, when he went 16-14.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

and second, think of the way he won the World series MVP...he did not win it as a slouch....He stopped and shut down the yankees at one of the strongest Modern day era's that has ever been. With the yankess as 4 time champs, (I hate to bring this up, but to me it is relavent) and right around 9-11...and so therefor, I personally think that the truth is somewhere in the middle of your view and mine....

No, none of that 9/11 stuff is relevant -- if it was, New York would have won. And Johnson wasn't even the D'Backs' number one starter in the series, which gives you a sense of how dominant his manager thought he was.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

If you list who you think is the most dominant, I will gladly listen...

I've already done that and no you won't.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Yes I will! please post them again, and I will look at the pitchers you present....

1 Reply

I'd get a signed document first joe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSXMT0NrB4

and make sure it's notarized...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Yes I will! please post them again, and I will look at the pitchers you present....

I listed them here.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I meant who did you think was the MOST dominant ever and why? Not the pitchers with comparible numbers to Randy....

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Lefty Grove, 1930-31.

Two-year record of 59-9 (.868 winning percentage).

Led the AL in wins, strikeouts, and ERA both years.

Had adjusted ERA+ of 185 in 1930 and 220 in 1931, the latter being in the top twenty results of all-time.

His 2.54 ERA in 1930 was 2.11 runs better than the league average and 0.77 better than the next-best pitcher, Wes Ferrell.

His 2.06 ERA in 1931 was 2.32 runs better than the league average and 0.61 better than the next-best pitcher, Lefty Gomez.

His WAR in both years was above 9. The next-best pitcher in both years was below 7.

The league batting averages during those two years were .288 and .279.

In 1931, Babe Ruth hit 46 home runs, drove in 163 runs, and hit .373. Lou Gehrig drove in 184 runs (still the AL single-season record) and batted .341. Al Simmons hit .390. And Lefty Grove was named the American League MVP.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

apparently Your knowledge of baseball is deeper than mine...I will agree with that!!! Wink

0 Replies

Who is the best pitcher of all time?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know