Johnson, Mathewson, or Young? Which one do you think was the best?
 

When you think of all time greats, these three names always come up. Who do you think was the best, and why? W. Johnson, C. Mathewson, or Cy Young?

Walter Johnson
 

I say Walter Johnson... Incredible record, and never had the supporting cast that Matty did...

Johnson. I might rate Alexander next, too.

I say John Clarkson

Out if thise 3 id say johnson, but pedro martinez and sandy kofaux would be right there with johnson imo

Hmmm
 

Cy Young was not in the first 5 HOF inductees - Mathewson and Johnson were. But there was a young pitcher in 1915 and 1916 who was 5-1 vs. Walter Johnson in head-to-head games...named Ruth.

Johnson, he is probably the greatest pitcher of all time.

Koufax's name shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread! Statistically speaking he was a MAJOR disappointment for the first 6 years of his career (the only thing he had ever lead the league in was Wild Pitches), he then found his command had 2 pretty good seasons and then 4 absolutely amazing ones. I have never understood how that gets anyone in the "greatest ever" conversation.

Never heard of a Johnson or Mathewson award but have heard of a Cy Young so I would give him the nod among those 3. Now the greatest of all time has 7 Cy Young awards.

One could make a case for Clemens, or Grove, if one did not go with one of the pre-WWI favorites. I can't see Koufax being in the discussion.

So if MLB came out with a Doc Gooden award now, that he would make a thread like this 100 years from now?

Cy Young with the length of his career along with the average amount of innings pitched per game, with many complete games should always been the discussion. He just shouldn't bein the discussion because some committee back in the day gave him an award.

For more Modern players (forgetting about potential Steroid usage here mind you) the greatest would have to include some combination of Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Tom Seaver, and Greg Maddux with a few other names as potential candidates.

Pedro is the best I ever saw. For a short period he may have been the best ever. But over an entire career I don't think anyone compares to WaJo. The consistency and longevity of a Cy Young combined with the stuff of Nolan Ryan. Lethal combination.

Tom C

I would take anyone of the 3, but if forced to choose one it would be Mr. Johnson.

I agree that you could easily add Alexander to the group.

Of the 3 posed by Kevin in the OP, I'd go with Johnson. Mathewson really shined when it counted most, the postseason, but Johnson never had the same opportunity due to being on weaker teams. Plus, if Ty Cobb says that Johnson had the most powerful arm in baseball, well... I'll just take Cobb's word for it.

And if the discussion expands into the best ever, it should definitely include a Mr. Leroy Robert "Satchel" Paige.

Walter Johnson's 1912 and 1913 seasons have to go down in history as potentially the greatest 2 consecutive seasons (relative to competition) in history, especially when not counting records of guys playing prior to 1890 (when winning 50 games was a real possibility!)

Great input guys. Again, I was interested in opinions on these three guys. Obviously, there have been many great ones since then. I just always thought that these three were the originals for the standard off great pitchers of all time...My thoughts are the argument between Johnson and Matty, just my take...

Agree and well said.

Here are some comparable stats....

Mathewson 373-188, ERA 2.12, Innings pitched 4788
Johnson 417-279, ERA 2.17, Innings pitched 5914

Alexander 373-208. 2.56, 5190 IP. But don't forget he pitched through the 20s when ERAs were much higher than the deadball era. And remarkably, he didn't first pitch until he was 24 -- and he missed a year for WWI.

What about...
 

Have there ever been any statistical extrapolation semi-educated best guesstimates of Wins/Losses or other career stats for Satchell Paige?

I would include Bob Gibson and Nolan Ryan among the greatest modern pitchers. Pre-war shout-outs should also go to Carl Hubbell, 3-Finger Brown, and James Creighton. Bob Feller was pre-war and post-war, but he's definitely one of the best.

I would rank Walter Johnson as the greatest of all-time, but could make an argument for Ruth. If I were picking teams in a sandlot game, I'd rather have Ruth than Johnson at pitcher.

I was trying to figure out what the heck pitchers other than Johnson, Mathewson and Young had to do with the topic question.

Well, the pitching award they give out is named after Cy Young. I don't see a Walter Johnson award or Christy Mathewson award being handed out. Oddly enough, of the three he's the one that didn't make it into the HOF as an original inductee in 1936. HOF vote%: Matty = 90.7%, Johnson = 83.6% and Young at 76.1% in 1937 - what a tough crowd...

However, I'd probably have to pick between Walter and Christy as the overall best of the three.

Walter does hold the record for lifetime shutouts (110) by a pretty large margin over the next guy (Matty is third at 79).

Matty had a better lifetime ERA and WHIP than Johnson (barely) and of the three he had a much better lifetime win%.

I like 'em all.... so, of the three, which has the highest price T206 portrait?

I'll take Walter Johnson

I think ty cobb said he was the toughest pitcher he faced.... And the kicker...

He has the best looking card in the t206 set.

The Johnson portrait.

I'll take Walter Johnson

I think ty cobb said he was the toughest pitcher he faced.... And the kicker...

He has the best looking card in the t206 set.

The Johnson portrait.

My humble but accurate opinion :)

Obviously all 3 are ATG's. However, just imagine if WaJo had a decent team behind him.

110 shutouts. :eek:
38 1-0 wins.
65 losses by shutouts with 26 of them 1-0 scores.

It's quite possible Johnson could have bested Young in wins if he had played for a good team.

I'd say Johnson is the best pitcher of the three. I'd also say his portrait is the best card of the three and for my money one of the 2 or 3 best looking cards ever printed in any set ever. Although Young's portrait is also quite nice.



John Leso

I pick mathewson he won when it mattered the most in the world series.

I'd pick the Big Train for busting up all those boards on his pappy's barn practicing his fast ball. WJ all the way.

It's always been a mystery as to why the award was given Cy Young's name, since few people in 1956 would have named him the best pitcher of all time. As has been pointed out here, he didn't even make the first HOF cut, whereas Walter and Matty did. I'd guess it was because he had just died when they created the award, and Ford Frick thought it would be a nice honor. But it's never really made sense. As for the greatest pitcher, that's impossible to say, since there are about 10 or so for whom a substantial case can be made. But if I had one game to play, and could pick from all the greats in history, I would be very happy to see Walter Johnson on the mound, at around 25 years old, ready to start throwing those smoke balls in one after the other. Cobb said they "hissed with danger," and Sam Crawford told how "they had a 'swish' to them as they passed by you." Yeah, I'll take that guy.

If my math is correct, here's the number of times each of these Big 3 led his respective league in the following key stats:

Wins: WaJo-6, Cy-5, Matty-4

Win-Loss %: WaJo-2, Cy-2, Matty-1

Complete games: WaJo-6, Cy-3, Matty-2

Shutouts: WaJo-7, Cy-7, Matty-4

Innings pitched: WaJo-5, Cy-2, Matty-1

Strike outs: WaJo-12, Matty-5, Cy-2

WHIP: Cy-7, WaJo-6, Matty-4

ERA: WaJo-5, Matty-5, Cy-2

Nuf ced - it's WaJo without a doubt!!
Val

Who really knows? I dislike all-time discussions because the game has evolved and changed in so many ways. Johnson played in an era where pitching and defense was king. He didn't face a segment of the greatest ballplayers, nor was physical conditioning regimens or advanced scouting among hitters prevalent. Could he have adjusted....who knows? However, among his contemporaries I'll take him.

Wajo and Matty are 1/2 and Young isn't a top 5 in my book. I put Rose in the same category as Young: both were really good players, but their stats were accumulated based on the fact that they played forever.

Hey Hank, no bias there huh.... :p

When you read about the things the players of that era would say, then Walter definitely had the high octane stuff. Matty had the screwball and Cy Young had a lot of wins but he also had the benefit of pitching in the 1890s.

Walter's a pretty good choice!

You can't go wrong with him, so I can exercise my bias with clear conscience! And there really are 10-15 guys who have such amazing numbers that they have to be considered serious candidates for the title. Ultimately, though, the attempt to compare across generations is a fools errand.

I'm a Matty guy and I still have to say Wajo.

I SoMe WHaT Agree...
However, Mr .Johnson didn't Live
Under the Constant "New York Pressure" as DiD Mr. Mathewson!

One of the ReaSoNs WhY I HaVe THiS AVaTaR!
I BeLieVe THaT THeY WeRe Equals ~
BuT iN THe EnD... I GiVe THe NoD Ta MaTTy!!!

2 DiFFeReNT TyPeS oF PiTcHeRs THouGH ~
Sort of Like a Young Greg Maddox vs Randy Johnson
of the NoT So ReCent PaST... Aye!?

I do ReMeMBeR ReaDiN THaT Mr. CoBB
Was Caught SaYiN THaT He
GaVe HiS VoTe Ta MiSTaR Johnson...
And iT WaS ALSo SaiD THaT
iT WaS a GooD ReaSoN WHy Mr. CoBB
Crowded the Plate and Bunted quite often
when FaciN Mr. Johnson!
CrowdiN the Plate to intimidate'em...
BunTiN Cause He Couldn't HiT'em!

iN THe EnD... iTs a Very GooD BaSeBaLL DeBaTe ;)

KeViN... THaNKs FiR the GraND ToPiC Ta ToSS ARouND!!!

WaJo
 

gets my vote.

Walter Johnson. If he'd have pitched for a team like the Giants, Johnson might have won 500 games.

Consider Walter Johnson's 1910 and 1911 seasons.

In 1910, Johnson was 25-17 on a Senators team that was 66-85 overall.
In 1911, Johnson was 25-13 on a Senators team that was 64-90 overall.

Over the course of those two seasons, Walter Johnson went 50-30, good for a .625 winning percentage. In the games which Walter Johnson did not record a decision, the Senators were 80-145, a .356 winning percentage.

Who's the best?
 

I likewise vote for Johnson, especially based on his WAR and JAWS stats that clearly outdistance the rest of the pack. However, had Matty and Johnson pitched in todays game, I truly believe Matty would have been the better of the two pitchers due to his uncanny ability to throw 3 pitches for strikes. Walter Johnson was the hardest thrower of his time (with all due respect to Joe Wood), and primarily used his blazing fastball to overmatch hitters. While his secondary pitches were somewhat formidable, they could not compare to Matty's incredible fade away (screwball) and curve. Matty likewise threw hard, and considering he could pinpoint 3 world class pitches "on a dime", it makes sense that he would be the better candidate to dominate the hitters of today who feast on 95 mph fastballs. Most pitches today throw gas and it is the hurler that commands one or two of their secondary pitches that reign supreme. Some classic examples are Pedro Martinez (change, curve), Kershaw (curve, slider), Clemens (splitter), and Maddux (change). Of course this is all speculation, but it certainly appears that baseballs finest pitchers have to have a spectacular secondary pitch to dominate. Regards, JoeT

Great stats to support Johnson. Kind of reminds us of Carlton's '72 season when he was 27-10 on a team that went 59-97.

It would be neat to see if someone could compile a stat that shows the records of the teams for both Matty and Walter through out their careers. That could help in closing the debate about the huge gap in lifetime win% that Matty has over Johnson.

Sandy Koufax is the greatest pitcher I have ever seen and by a wide margin. I strongly disagree that Koufax was a major disappointment. I think that you don't understand how baseball worked in the 50s. Koufax was a bonus baby. As such, he couldn't pitch in the minors. He was so valuable to the Dodgers that they gave up a roster spot for 2 years to keep him. It wasn't until his 3rd year that he even started pitching meaningful innings. Just think of that as his minor league experience and by the time he hit his stride, the team was winning big.

1962, tied for 1st in NL, would have probably won World Championship except Koufax got hurt and couldn't finish the season.

1963 NL Champs, World Champs, Cy Young, MVP. WS MVP.

1964 Injuries kept him from having full season, but still good enough to get CY Young votes. May have even won NL Cy Young if there was one for each league.

1965 NL Champs, World Champs, Cy Young, 2nd in MVP, WS MVP. Koufax pretty much won the WS with shutouts in game 5 and game 7 on 2 days rest.

1966 NL Champs, CY Young, 2nd in MVP. Then retirement. Who knows what he would have done if he had continued to pitch.

As for the 3 pitchers here, Christy Mathewson got the most votes of the 3 in the original hof voting. Cy Young got the award named after him. Walter Johnson had the better career. If I had to pick one, I would go with Johnson.

Koufax had a great 5 year run, as good as any although there are comparable (Grove comes to mind). A great 5 year run does not qualify one for best pitcher of all time, IMO.

Cy won 500 games; no one else is close. He has my vote.

BeN...
Cy's Has the MoSt WiNs...
BuT He ALSo Has the MoST Losses!

As FiR Roger... He WaS a STuD,
But I CaN'T GeT PaSSeD the Physical displacements...
The HeiGHT of the MouND,
The Characteristics of the BaLLs & BaTs...

IT's JuST a Different Game ALL together!
THeY Were ALL JuST CReaTed To ThRoW
THaT SpHeRe PaST Anyone Who Would
ATTeMPT To HiT'em!

I JuST LoVe THiS GaMe!!!

I WouLD of LoVeD To oF SeeN a GaMe
BacK iN 1910... JoHNSoN vs MaTHewSoN...
JuST AwSoMe!!!

Back WHeN Jake Peavey Was iN HiS PRiMe,
I Saw HiM ProTecT HiS HoMe TurF
Against RoGeR and The YaNKs aT PETCO!
WHaT a Game...

Clemens Had iT ALL ThaT DaY...
AnD Jake GaVe'em HiS BeST !!!

in The EnD, RoGeR Bested Jake 2-1!

I CaN'T WaiT Ta See
WHaT Ta See WHaT The Mets
WiLL BRiNG To The TaBle NeXT YeaR!!!

Harvey, DeGrom, SynderGaard, Mats, & Wheeler!!!
NoT ReaDiN into the HYPe...
JuST WaNNa See Whats GONNa HaPPeN!!!

AnYHoW...

"BiG SiX" STiLL RuLeS iN My BooK!!!

Old time stats
 

I'm impressed that it was page 4 before someone mentioned WAR. This discussion has been based on Wins, Losses, CG etc. Few Sabrmetricians in the crowd. Refreshing.

My vote is for Johnson. Weak team during times when A's, both Sox squads, then Yanks were dominant. Supposedly did not throw inside for fear of hitting someone.

Johnson, then Alexander
 

Because of his supporting cast (rather lack thereof) I would rate Walter Johnson as the greatest of all-time with Grover Cleveland Alexander second. Again, supporting cast would easily give Ol' Pete the edge over Mathewson, in my book. Cy Young would certainly be among the top five but the quality of baseball in Young's early years was not on par with later decades. Lefty Grove would also rank among my top five although Grove brings me to one of my favorite pitchers not in the Hall of Fame: Wes Ferrell.

After Grove's glory days, though still possessing plenty of life in his left arm, he teamed with Ferrell for three full seasons and part of another - Wes being traded to Washington (a club inferior to Boston) part way through 1937. In those four seasons, Ferrell's won-lost log was 73-53 while Grove's stood at 62-41 for a ballclub that was basically .500 (or a bit below for Ferrell when counting his '37 season with the Senators). Not only did Ferrell best Grove in wins those four seasons but his bat usually outpaced his Hall of Fame teammate by more than 100 points (usually doubling Grove's numbers) and probably accounting for much of the difference in their records.

Great topic Kevin. Surprised there isn't many NY fans pushing for Matty here. Though the Boston ones seem to be making hair brain theories as usual. WAJO no contest. If Johnson pitched on the Giants instead of Matty who knows how many more wins he would have had.

Pedro ???????? Token the refer I see.

I think that is what he is saying.

I'd bring up Kofax way before Pedro that's just comical. I know that "Wins" is somewhat difficult to justify a pitchers greatness but 219 for Pedro. Not quite sure I would have voted for him then again I'm openly biased about that DB.

Thanks Josh...My vote would indeed go for Matty....

Little known fact..
I hit a home run off peavy in high school..

:)

Quite the feet! Peavy pre-surgery was a BEAST!

Denny, why are all your posts in an odd mix of capitals and lowercase? It makes it frustrating to read for me at least, and I usually don't read what you post because of it.

Denny,

Ross has a point. It is somewhat annoying to read your posts with the UC/LC changes going on. I do enjoy reading your posts.

I'm a Matty fan, and used to think he was the best but the more I've studied Johnson, the more I realize he was the best pitcher of all time, and it's not really even close. If he had been on a first division team his entire career, he likely would have had 520 wins and a 75% winning percentage.

Exactly, I don't even bother trying to read them anymore.

Cy Young. Leads all pitchers in WAR.

No argument here.
Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Pitching - 150 (1), Average HOFer ≈ 40

Gray Ink Pitching - 420 (2), Average HOFer ≈ 185

Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 364 (1), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 1 (3038), Average HOFer ≈ 50
Pitching - 82 (2), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Starting Pitcher (1st), 165.6 career WAR/89.5 7yr-peak WAR/127.5 JAWS
Average HOF P (out of 62) = 73.9 career WAR/50.3 7yr-peak WAR/62.1 JAWS

I actually find it quite amusing.

You guys obviously don't know Denny! Hope ur doin well u ole scondrel! Fir sure!

Yes, Ruth was 5-1 against Johnson in those two years, but I don't know if I would place much of the blame on Johnson. In their one 1915 meeting, Ruth won 4-3. Both pitchers threw complete games. In their first meeting of 1916, Ruth clearly outpitched Johnson, who gave up 5 runs. The next four meetings, however, Johnson was sensational. On June 1st, Ruth and the Sox won 1-0, and the lone run Johnson surrendered was unearned (3 Senator errors). On August 15th, both pitchers threw complete games. Johnson took the loss...allowing one earned run in 12 2/3 IP. On September 9th, Ruth and the Sox won again 2-1. Johnson threw a complete game in the loss. Three days later, Johnson beat Ruth 4-3.

Johnson in going 1-5 against Ruth had a 2.18 ERA, and a 0.985 WHIP. He didn't get any run support.

What mystery? He held/holds the wins record. That's why the award is named after him.

Knocking Pedro for having 219 wins when he has 54 more than Sandy? Pedro's career ERA+ was 154. Sandy's was 131. Pedro had FIVE seasons with an ERA+ of 200 or higher, with his best being 291. Sandy had none. Sandy's best would be (barely) Pedro's sixth-best. Sandy also benefited greatly from pitching in Dodger Stadium in the 60s, perhaps the greatest pitcher's park of all-time. His career road ERA was 3.04.

Koufax was an amazing pitcher. But Pedro was better.

Well, this is hardly an exhaustive study, but it does show how good the New York Giants and Washington Senators were overall during the careers of Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson. Keep in mind that both Mathewson and Johnson, throughout their careers, also appeared in games they did not start. Mathewson pitched in 635 games for the Giants, starting 551. Johnson pitched in 802 games, starting 666. So, when I refer to games that they ultimately factored in the decision (a win or a loss), that decision was not necessarily derrived from a start.

http://imageshack.com/a/img908/1066/oIAITC.jpghttp://imageshack.com/a/img910/5181/s4a35E.jpg

Between 1900 and 1916, the New York Giants went 1,456-1,080, good for a .574 winning percentage during Mathewson's career. Mathewson went 372-188 with the Giants, giving him a .664 winning percentage. In games where Mathewson did not factor in the decision, the Giants were 1,084-892, a .549 winning percentage.

Between 1907 and 1927, the Washington Senators went 1,559-1,609, giving them a .492 winning percentage during Johnson's career. Johnson went 417-279 with the Senators, giving him a .599 winning percentage. In games where Johnson did not factor in the decision, the Senators were 1,142-1,330, a .462 winning percentage.

In games where neither Mathewson or Johnson factored in the decision, the Giants (.549) had a .087 better winning percentage than the Senators (.462). That's 8.7%. Over the course of a 155 game season, that means, on average, the Giants won about 14 (13.5) more games than the Senators. From one perspective, if the Senators had won 8.7% more starts when Walter Johnson played in Washington, Johnson would have won an additional 58 games (666 starts x 0.087 = 57.942).

A few more numbers to bounce around in our brains. I think all of these are accurate, though it's late.

The Giants had a .574 winning percentage in the Mathewson era, compared to a .664 winning percentage for Mathewson himself. Mathewson's personal winning percentage was .090, or 9% better than his team's. Mathewson win-loss record was responsible for a bump of .025, or 2.5% (.574 with Mathewson - .549 without Mathewson) to his team's overall win percentage.

The Senators had a .492 winning percentage in the Johnson era, compared to a .599 winning percentage for Johnson himself. Johnson's personal winning percentage was .107, or 10.7% better, than his team's. Johnson's win-loss record was responsible for a bump of .030, or 3.0% (.492 with Johnson - .462 without Johnson) to his team's overall win percentage.

The hypothesis that Walter Johnson would have won more games had he pitched in New York is a valid one, of course. Trying to accurately forecast just how many more games he might have won, though, is next to impossible. I do feel that Johnson could have been the second pitcher ever to win 500 games though.

Something to think about, anyway.

All that tells us that pitching in the AL sucked when Pedro was with Boston. Koufax pitched against Spahn, Gibson, Niekro, Marichal, Perry, Bunning, Jenkins, Carlton all hofers plus teammates Drysdale and Sutton.

Koufax's last 4 seasons ERA were 1.88, 1.74, 2.04, 1.73. Pedro only had two seasons in that range. Koufax won 25, 26 and 27 games in a season, Pedro's best was 23. Koufax pitched 11, 7, 8 and 5 shutouts, Pedro's best was 4. Koufax pitched 4 no hitters including a perfect game over 5 seasons. Koufax struck out 382 in a season, Pedro's best was 313. Koufax top 2 in MVP voting 3 times, Pedro 1. Koufax 2 WS MVP, Pedro 0. Koufax WS ERA .095. Pedro postseason ERA 3.46, WS ERA 3.71.

ERA+ is an overrated stat. It is too dependant on peers. Koufax was very tough to hit. His ERA would have been just as good during the steroid era. Hard hit balls against him were generally HRs, even without doping. Most players couldn't make solid contact. His road era was higher but Dodger Stadium was a fair park compared to tiny parks in many other NL cities.

I have trouble reading Denny's posts as well. I find Denny quite entertaining, but find it impossible to read his posts anymore because of the mixture of upper/lower case letters. His writing structure fits that of a poem, however when I start reading.....it is not a poem....just a confusing mixture of letters and shapes and symbols haha.

As an Orioles fan, I just want to toss out this little tidbit. The Baltimore Orioles have never been to a World Series without Jim Palmer on their staff.

Or that might tell us that pitching was king during that generation and there was a reason why rules had to be changed to restore the balance. The fact that Pedro Martinez thrived in the bandbox parks of the A.L. East with roided up batters and the DH is incredible. It's a testament to how great he was as a pitcher, not how terrible pitching was during that era. I can only imagine how 1990s A.L. pitchers like Martinez, Johnson and Mussina would have performed in those massive 1960s ballparks with a free out included!

The substance is more meaningful than the delivery, though I enjoy the delivery too. If possible, I would take every single person on this board being Denny (hi Denny), as then we would have the friendliest board on the internet. Some might not be able to read it :), but it would be the friendliest. And for the record, no one has ever been banned for being too nice. Denny is safe.

and back to topic, Johnson's numbers seem to put him at the top.....but there is a CY Young award for a reason.

Other than Maddux, I never saw any pitcher who got more batters to swing at balls off the plate than Pedro. Or who got more balls called as strikes.

Who's the greatest pitcher?
 

Cy Young is obviously an immortal pitcher with his 511 wins one of baseballs "unbreakable" records. However, his 2.63 lifetime ERA isn't remotely close to Matty's 2.13 and Johnson's 2.17 with both of these hurlers allowing a 1/2 run less than Young per nine innings. Young also amassed virtually half his victories in the 19th century, with 3 of those seasons pitching from 57 feet ( as opposed to 60.5 ft). Young's ERA exceeded 3.00 NINE TIMES during his 22 year "dead ball" era career including 5 seasons in a row during the 1890s. Matty only exceeded 3.00 once before his final season (discounting 3 games in his first season), and before 1920, Johnson had ZERO seasons above the 3.00 mark! Simply stated, Johnson and Matty were tougher to hit than Young and were the better pitchers.

Regarding Koufax, while I am a huge fan of his incredible 4-year run, it is believed by most that the Dodger Stadium rubber was nearly 20 inches high; 5 inches or 33% higher than the standard 15 inch mound during that era!!! That constitutes a ridiculous advantage for a pitcher to create a better downhill plane on nearly all of their pitches. Trying to hit his curveball at Dodger Stadium must have been like trying to eat soup wuth a fork! No wonder his road ERA exceeded 3.00, and this must be taken into account when determining his standing among all-time pitchers.

:D You took that quote from Willie Stargell.

Of the three mentioned in the original post, my vote goes to Walter.
.
.

Runs per game were actually quite high in the 1890's; 2-3 runs per game (combined) higher than the dead ball era...and if Young pitched 3 seasons from 57 feet so did his opponents.

Second that. Have never met Denny in real-life but he's an old-timer on the board and has always, and I mean always, been a friendly, upbeat, no drama poster. To me his typography is a reflection of his passion for our hobby and his merry personality - I have absolutely no problem with it. (I have a much harder time wading through others' cringeworthy butchering of the mother tongue with the misspellings and impaired grammar and tortured syntax and the rest, which reminds me has anyone seen Barry Sloate lately?) Leon is correct: if everyone here was half as nice as Denny this place would be a friggin' love-in.

yes, height of mound!
 

Vintageclout brings up a point I have made before - the height of pitchers mound rubber - big huge advantage! I wonder how many no-hitters Ryan would have if he had pitched a decade earlier, whew!

Your definately right.

Smarty pants lawyer with yer fancy book-learnin'. Didn't they teach you no spelling at Harvard? It's write!

Johnson is credited with 417 wins. No one pitched in more 1-0 games.
He lost 26 games in which he allowed 1 run and that's not counting the
the 0-0 tie game against Jack Quinn when he allowed just two hits in 12
innings. With better run support, I think he wins 500. While Christy's
Plaque says, "Matty was the master of them all", the Big Train gets my vote.

The Greatest
 

Yes Peter! One of my favorite pitching quotes. Another favorite is Reggie Jackson's assessment of Tom Seaver right before Game 1 of the 1973 World Series to a reporter and I quote....."Tom Seaver is so good that blind people come out to the park to HEAR him pitch"!

The Greatest
 

God...imagine 6'10" Randy Johnson pitching off a 15" to 20" high rubber!!!

Yeah that was brilliant too. Another great tribute to a pitcher (I believe it's real) is when Norm Cash, the last batter up against Ryan in one of his no-hitters, came to the plate with a broom handle and told the catcher and umpire it would do him just as much good as a bat.

Then there is the immortal assessment of Lefty Grove, though by a writer not a player -- he could throw a lambchop past a wolf.

And speaking of Johnson, supposedly an anonymous batter complained to the umpire about called strike three, saying, it sounded low to me.