There may have been different rules back then, but it was still baseball.
Originally Posted by bagwell368
What if a player from back then just decided than none of these performances should count because its from ~60ft out?
He is the career leader in br WAR for pitchers. By alot.
Personally I put alot of stock in peak value rather than longevity, but a case can certainly be made for Young.
When I was growing up you couldn't even get stats before 1901 because the game was considered irregular and inferior to what came later.
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Cy Young is the leader in WAR because he was able to first throw from 50' and then throw in the 80-85 MPH range, which extended longevity by a ton. His top 3 IP years were from 50' (453, 423, 422) - in my town 8 year olds pitch from 45'. There are pitchers in High School today that threw harder then Young ever did. How can he be translated to today?
He also earned his WAR against a wholly inferior group of athletes to what was available later. No minorities, population of the US was what then? 35 million?
Let's parse Young's BR "WAR" from best down:
1892: 453 IP (anyone done that since 1893? Answer: No) 12.6 WAR
1901: 371 IP - 11.2 WAR (inferior league to NL)
1895: 10.6 WAR - he's got the distance, but look at the competition.
1893: 10.4 WAR in 422 IP (what's that today 5.0 WAR)? another 50' fraud.
1894: 9.0 WAR 408 IP (yeah he's throwing real hard....)
1902: 6.9 WAR - inferior league problem again
1896: 8.8 in 414 (4.3 today?) assuming he could throw much harder?
1908: hey finally 299 IP at age 41 for an 8.2 throwing hard enough for BP today.
Bill James doesn't have Young 1st - I believe it's 5th. James is too nice IMO.
I've got actual stats that show the change in the game over time, I'm going to do the pitcher list and all the other positions I did before, and Young won't likely crack the top 15 anymore.
That Award should be called the Walter Johnson award, he was a far greater pitcher then Young. His 411 wins is the most sanctioned in history. He was good (not great) in the live ball era too.
Nobody was better than Pedro in his prime.
How is Seaver not even listed as an option? lmao!
Pulling out an old thread...
Koufax as #1 is wrong, he's about #15. His career length is just too short. Among the "peak" short career guys, Pedro is now King.
Pedro is not a top 3 pitcher of all time IMO
Right. Doesn't have the innings. Has everything else.
Originally Posted by LASportsFan1996
Here top 20 rWAR list of guys that at least pitched some live ball era, or all live ball:
Koufax is way down at #79 (including all pitchers).
Funny that so many people complain that Schilling, Mussina, and Glavine are not elite and don't deserve to get in. All 3 above the average HOF pitcher. 42 HOF'ers have less rWAR than Glavine FYI
Originally Posted by bobbyc024
Sorry, 80 something MPH from 50' being so easy he could throw 453 IP in a 149 game season in 1892 obviously indicates that there is almost no commonality with the baseball of today, or even of 1952.
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Somewhere in this thread I shredded his big years due to various reasons such as incredibly weak leagues or the pitching distance.
In the NFL they often split the eras in 1970. Basketball also gets split from new to old at the time the ABA merged into the NBA.
A pitcher like Walter Johnson who had decent success in the live ball era, can be taken seriously, but all the dead ball guys? They must IMO be put into a separate category because the game has changed too much. Cy Young at his best couldn't succeed in AA ball today, and might have problems in D1 actually.
My idea of the best pitchers of all time means the most dominant.
No Tom Seaver? :mad:
Seaver at his best>>>>>>Ryan at his best and it isn't even close.
About 4-5 times this has been noted in the thread. Clearly the case.
Originally Posted by nymetsrule