rocket roger, no doubt
Gover Clever Alexander
rocket roger, no doubt
OK, let's talk facts. I really would like to hear what you think.
What I would like you to do is to go look at the most innings per year listings. http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...P_season.shtml
Look at the top 103 years listed. #1 is 680 IP -- #103 is 466.1). So? All of them are 1893 or earlier. Before 1893 the distance from rubber to plate was 50', they moved it to 60' 6". Can we agree that single change had a huge effect?
Since 1952 only Robin Roberts and knucke ballers have thrown 330 or more IP in a season. Curious. Let's look at the top 5 IP guys in 10 year increments:
1898 - NL:
1908 - AL:
1918 - AL:
1928 - AL (down trend due to live ball):
1938 - AL
1948 - AL:
1958 - AL:
1968 (the upblip in the trend line, high mounds, big strike zones, easier to pitch, and it is temporary)
2007 - AL
This is what I extrapolate: Since the late 80's the trend has been towards 5 man rotations and pitch counts. So that is a marked effect in '98 and '07 stats, but what about 1898-1918 and 1928-1988 when men were men and pitched CG's?
I see a steady shallow decline as the game has gotten harder and more populated with power hitters.
If you care to look at WJ and Alexander who are by the two greatest pitchers to pitch a lot in both eras you'll see the IP went well down as did the ERA+. Was it age? Or was it the conditions got harder. Having two guys with the same results who seemed to be ageless is certainly a plus for my argument.
So what you have is faith. You have faith that Cy could master the live ball era, and the increasingly small strike zone, thin handled bats, juiced sluggers, and everyone playing Earl Weaver or rotoball.
I can read the stats, and I would much rather go with a current or near current pitcher because I KNOW he can master this game today, and nobody knows what Cy would do today - at best he's real great - but at worst, or medium?
Last edited by bagwell368; 08-15-2008 at 04:45 PM.
It's sadly ironic. Ryan and Koufax have 28 votes between them, and Maddux, Clemens, Gibson, Randy, and Pedro (among the moderns I saw) have a total of 9.
It is a fact, not an opinion from both the records AND the eye that those 5 pitchers had more total career value then the other two. Even given Pedro's shortage of innings compared to Ryan isn't an issue. Give him replacement comps to make up the shortfall in innings, he's still better then Ryan, never mind on rate stats.
Talking peak value (best 3 or 5 in a row, best 5 any order) Koufax for sure deserves mention with the others. But Ryan and his aspirin commercials and circus like nature of his work seem to draw all the "gee whiz" folks. Just ironic.
BTW, a real quick handy way to figure career value is to take career IP and multiply by career ERA+. This works well in dead vs dead ball guys or live vs live ball guys - mixing the two makes the dead ball guys - esp those better ones from 1880/90's all look like HoF aces.
Last edited by bagwell368; 08-15-2008 at 06:55 PM.
Walter Johnson, I think he gets lost in the shuffle of these kinds of debates too often
nolan ryan/cy young/sandy kofax/bobby gibson
lol, small kid got tripped by a tuba player
kofax and ryan are the BEST
Ryan is a joke. In no way can anyone prove that he's any better then about #27 all time, and that's largely on longevity. This latest crop of Maddux, Randy, Clemens, Pedro (who dwarfs Koufax) are much better. Schilling and Smoltz did more in less innings.
Ryan is a myth, and as such is interesting and all, but as a ball player he is easily overshadowed by many. Two of these will end up outstripping Ryan as well - CC, Santana, Webb, Peavy, and Lincecum.
No Bob Feller on the list......interesting.