Randy Johnson 135.
Greg Maddux 132.
Tom Seaver 127.
Nolan Ryan 112.
Not even in the same ballpark. ;)
-
10
-
Career WAR.
Seaver 106.0
Maddux 104.8
Randy 103.5.
Niekro 97.0.
Blyeven 96.1.
Perry 93.0.
Pedro 86.1.
Carleton 84.1,
Ryan 83.6.
00 -
Flagpole wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
You mention his 324 wins but not his 292 losses. Christy Mathewson is not losing 292times. Ryan had no-hitters but nothing else. 292 losses. Terrible stat.
Good grief, Sally. I mentioned he played on horrible teams. He still had a very good career ERA. The only modern-day pitcher with more wins and a better ERA than Ryan (who wasn't a cheater) is Greg Maddux. Ryan had a better ERA than Steve Carlton. On a good team, he would have rivaled Maddux in wins and percentage.
You can tell who the boomers are on this thread. LOL
Analytics and advanced stats? Who needs 'em. Just go by the "eye test."
00 -
eeeesh wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
Maybe you should go back to doing pilates with other obese women. Leave the baseball discussion who really know baseball.
If you're arguing over how good a pitcher is based on their winning percentage then you don't really know baseball.
Currentky, DeGrom is proof of this.
00 -
beisbol wrote:
You can tell who the boomers are on this thread. LOL
Analytics and advanced stats? Who needs 'em. Just go by the "eye test."
Boomer alert!!
If and when we get down to picking a 2nd relief pitcher after Rivera, I vote for Gossage. I have no idea about his relevant metrics, but I grew up watching him and I’d have him on my team over Eck, Hoffman, Fingers. He can go 2-3 innings and succeed coming in with men on base and he was a true bad ass on the mound.
20 -
eeeesh wrote:
If you're arguing over how good a pitcher is based on their winning percentage then you don't really know baseball.
Yeah, but the number of no-hitters or hits per 9 innings are even less important.
The goal of a pitcher is to allow the fewest earned runs, not allowing the fewest hits (or even the fewest baserunners.)
10 -
eeeesh wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
Maybe you should go back to doing pilates with other obese women. Leave the baseball discussion who really know baseball.
If you're arguing over how good a pitcher is based on their winning percentage then you don't really know baseball.
Go to Don Drysdale at 0.557 and scroll down. Tell me how many of those pitchers worse than Don Drysdale's winning percentage are in the Hall of Fame.
00 -
HappyJack wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
would you select? Each player is like 20. You get to pick the first 3 players. Who are your picks?
Ted Williams, Satchel Paige and Babe Ruth in that order.
HAHAHAH BABE RUTH!? He'd get lit up with today's talent. He was good for his era, leave it at that.
02 -
Barbie Burbank wrote:
eeeesh wrote:
If you're arguing over how good a pitcher is based on their winning percentage then you don't really know baseball.
Go to Don Drysdale at 0.557 and scroll down. Tell me how many of those pitchers worse than Don Drysdale's winning percentage are in the Hall of Fame.
Why would I do that?
10 -
it is time wrote:
HappyJack wrote:
Ted Williams, Satchel Paige and Babe Ruth in that order.
HAHAHAH BABE RUTH!? He'd get lit up with today's talent. He was good for his era, leave it at that.
Bob Feller was "good for his era." But he would get lit up today with today's talent. Except Bob Feller pitched 102 MPH almost 80 years ago. Lance McCullers Jr. pitched for the Astros a couple of days ago. He pitched about 91 MPH. Don't outright dismiss the players from yesteryear.
21 -
Barbie Burbank wrote:
eeeesh wrote:
If you're arguing over how good a pitcher is based on their winning percentage then you don't really know baseball.
Go to Don Drysdale at 0.557 and scroll down. Tell me how many of those pitchers worse than Don Drysdale's winning percentage are in the Hall of Fame.
The top guy on your list isn't even in the HOF. That's how meaningless the stat is.
20 -
prognog wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
Go to Don Drysdale at 0.557 and scroll down. Tell me how many of those pitchers worse than Don Drysdale's winning percentage are in the Hall of Fame.
The top guy on your list isn't even in the HOF. That's how meaningless the stat is.Ma
Start at 0.557 and go down. See how many guys you recognize. Then go up from 0.557. You will see Ruth and Maddux and other Hall of Famers. Going down you see nobodies.
00 -
prognog wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
Go to Don Drysdale at 0.557 and scroll down. Tell me how many of those pitchers worse than Don Drysdale's winning percentage are in the Hall of Fame.
The top guy on your list isn't even in the HOF. That's how meaningless the stat is.
Lol. Barbie is helpless in sports discussions.
00 -
A. Moran wrote:
Barbie Burbank wrote:
would you select? Each player is like 20. You get to pick the first 3 players. Who are your picks?
Take pitchers. Walter Johnson? Give me a break. Clemens, Randy, Pedro..
Is there any debate that 3 starters is they way to go? We can debate which ones but if you are rolling out prime Pedro, randy, and say maddux, you are just need to dredge up an average offense to be there.
00 -
fkkfkfkfkf wrote:
A. Moran wrote:
Take pitchers. Walter Johnson? Give me a break. Clemens, Randy, Pedro..
Is there any debate that 3 starters is they way to go? We can debate which ones but if you are rolling out prime Pedro, randy, and say maddux, you are just need to dredge up an average offense to be there.
I agree, but I chose Pedro, Randy, and Koufax- 2 lefties and a righty.
00 -
coach wrote:
I agree, but I chose Pedro, Randy, and Koufax- 2 lefties and a righty.
With Koufax, you get six productive seasons from age 25 to 30. Pedro was also highly productive during that stretch except for 2001 when he pitched only 116 innings.
Randy Johnson was a mostly mediocre pitcher in his 20s. By the time he reaches his peak at age 31, Koufax is already retired, and Pedro starts to decline.
10 -
fkkfkfkfkf wrote:
A. Moran wrote:
Take pitchers. Walter Johnson? Give me a break. Clemens, Randy, Pedro..
Is there any debate that 3 starters is they way to go? We can debate which ones but if you are rolling out prime Pedro, randy, and say maddux, you are just need to dredge up an average offense to be there.
Of course there is room for debate. Pitchers are much more injury prone than position players. Hard to assume all will be at the top of their games at the same time, even if they were relatively healthy in their actual careers.
The OP also said you get them at the start of their careers, not their primes. Mike Trout had a 10 WAR season at age 20; Randy Johnson didn’t cross 10 WAR for his career until he was 29. Gonna be tough telling your fans to wait 9 years if his development is that slow again.00 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
coach wrote:
I agree, but I chose Pedro, Randy, and Koufax- 2 lefties and a righty.
With Koufax, you get six productive seasons from age 25 to 30. Pedro was also highly productive during that stretch except for 2001 when he pitched only 116 innings.
Randy Johnson was a mostly mediocre pitcher in his 20s. By the time he reaches his peak at age 31, Koufax is already retired, and Pedro starts to decline.
I didnt consider ages, even though the OP stated it. I just took who I believed are the 2 most dominant lefties and the most dominant righty. I guess I should have analyzed it like you did. Still I'd want 2 lefties and 1 righty.
00 -
Bonds, Mays, Clemens
20 -
Koufax, Mays, Ichiro
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.