The US population is significantly higher than it was back then, so the overall pool of potential athletes is also significantly higher. I think that combined with the influx of foreign players likely offsets any dilution from more kids focusing on football and basketball in their formative years. I don't see any dilution in the talent level, leaving our nostalgia out of the equation.

I don't understand penalizing a guy because he dominated in 1997, not 1907. Dominant is dominant, no matter the era.

Do you really think any of the elite pitchers of the past 20 or 30 years couldn't "complete what he starts" if they pitched in the early 1900s? The players back then did it because that was how managers managed.

Best Pircher.
 

What I’m saying is as great as Seaver, Gibson, Koufax, Palmer, Marichal (just to mention a few great 60s/70s pitchers) were, imagine if their mentality was “I can go into overdrive for the first 7 innings because I don’t need to get the final 3-6 outs”. True, it’s not Pedro’s fault he was pulled either due to a pitch count or closer. BUT, if you honestly think Pedro could have threw 95-97mph CONSIDTENTLY for 250+ innings per season over a 7-10 year period with his fragile frame you are greatly fooling yoursel. There was a reason the Red Sox carefully monitored his workload/innings. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

Pedro in 2000 would be my pick as well. His impressive stats have already been mentioned, but the one that sticks out the most to me is that Clemens finished second in ERA that year, with an average more than twice as high as Pedro's.

That is because when guys in this era are being paid $10,20,30 million dollars a year, they are rightfully viewed as investments.

Players don't just get rolled out there in this era with a torn rotator cuff like a Smoky Joe Wood while the player and the team wonder what's wrong. Perhaps if Smoky Joe Wood pitched in this era, he would not have had to become an outfielder.

Whitey Ford's innings were relatively low for a star pitcher, was that because he was used a bit more judiciously or was it just injuries?

Casey Stengel definitely used Whitey less than he could have. I'm not sure why he did so, but it wasn't because Whitey was hurt. Maybe Casey thought he was fragile. But the first year after Casey was fired Ralph Houk turned him loose, and Whitey went 25 - 4 and won the Cy Young award.

I think you are ignoring that MLB has expanded to account for this. You had 400 or 500 roster spots to fill in the 50s and 60s. When you add the 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams and 32 NFL teams you have almost 2900 players in those leagues. There is no way that increase in US population and foreign players cover that increase.

You have a lot of players who would have played baseball that are not even considering it now. Instead they choose to concentrate on another sport and play it all year round. In the past they would have played baseball in the spring/summer and be open to it as a career. Just look at how few blacks there are in MLB. Only about 8%. I don't see how you can say there isn't less talent. HOF voters certainly agree that there is a lot less talent at pitcher.

How about the monster
 

In 1964 Dick Raditz went 16-9 with a 2.29 era. Doesn't jump off the page. Until you realize he did this in relief. Pitching in 79 games 157 innings 181 strikeouts and 29 saves. You may find better stats but find me a season that had more of an impact on the team

Yes, exactly right. This is one of the seasons I alluded to in my initial post. He also had a complete game with less than 80 pitches! Unbelievable how good he was.....He was maybe even better in 1995, 19-2 with an era of around 1.50.....

Best Pitcher
 

Peter - One thing my dad told me was that Casey Stengel rarely pitched Ford at Fenway Park. Ford had a few really tough starts at Fenway and Stengel eventually found ways to skip his spot in the rotation when the Yanks traveled to Boston.

Without a doubt, I remember I HAD to watch when he was pitching..

Another vote for Guidry in 78 but Gooden in 85 was very close if not better. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO YOU THINK HAD THE BETTER SEASON OF THE TWO.

Guidry

25-3
1.74 era
9 shutouts
16 complete games
248 strikeouts
Began the season with a streak of 13 games won in a row.
On 4 occasions he pitched 3 complete games in a row.
On 4 occasions he had 2 shutouts in a row.
In all but 1 start he pitched 6 innings or more.

1-0 in alcs 1 earned run in 8 innings
1-0 in w.s. 1 earned run in 9 innings.



Gooden

24-4
1.53 era
8 shutouts
16 complete games
268 strikeouts
A streak of 14 games won in a row.
In all but 1 start he pitched 6 innings or more.


Both pretty impressive.

How about Roy Face in 1959?

The 19th c. pitcher were pitching 500 innings a year. If you're doing that, you can be half as "good" of a pitcher as today's aces, and contribute the same number of wins to your team. So I'll nominate Pud Galvin's 1884: 636 innings with a 1.99 ERA (or 159 ERA+ if you like normalized stats).

For live-ball, how about Dwight Gooden's in 1985. 276 innings at a 229 ERA+.

Funny, neither could Koufax.

Arrieta wasn't even the best pitcher in the league in 2015. Zack Greinke had a better season. Greinke led the league in ERA+ and WHIP while finishing with an ERA of 1.66. The highest ERA Greinke had after a start at ANY POINT in 2015 was 1.97. Arrieta gets credit for being unhittable in August and September but... his ERA sat at 3.40 on June 17.

Bottom line: Greinke was great all year. Arrieta was great 1/2 - 2/3 of the year.

If I had to pick one season, I'd probably go with Bob Gibson's 1968. He went the entire year without being knocked out of a game. Think about that. Lifted for a PH, sure, but never knocked out of a game.

If not Gibson, I'd go with one of Pedro's seasons. When *8* guys put up an OPS of 1.000 or higher, you know the league is bombing the ball. And Pedro still gave up just 1.74 runs a game.

On a side note, way too much emphasis on wins in this conversation. Surely we recognize by now just how overrated that stat is?

Pedro's 2000 was pretty easily the best of the past 120 years when just looking at the season he had in relation to the rest of the league that year.

Arguments can and should be made regarding number of innings pitched, games completed, teams in the league, increase of player pool, introduction of the "home run at any time" (thus pitcher can't take pitches or batters "off"), etc.

But in terms of ERA+. it's not that close.

Surprised I haven't seen Dutch Leonard's 1914 season. #2 all time ERA+ for the past 120 years. Freakish season he had.

Gooden was amazing but John Tudor went 21-8 (went 20-2 I think after a poor start), threw 10 shutouts, led the league in WHIP, had an ERA of 1.93, and didn't get a single 1st place vote. Tough time to have your career year when Gooden throws an all time top 10 season.

Can tell that you're biased based on your avatar lol. I agree with you though. Incredible season for sure. The craziest thing to me on these dead ball era pitchers is the number of innings pitched. Basically pitching 50 complete games in a season. Absolutely insane no matter what era they were in.