I dunno guys, I guess I'm just contrary, and I agree that Johnson was the greatest pitcher of all time, but . . . I don't see the whole "if he hadn't been on such wretched teams" argument.
I figure the Senators' W/L record while he was on the team (August 2, 1907 through 1927) at 1531-1559 - that's .49546.
After that horrible 1907 season, where he was with them for only two months, they had 10 winning and 10 losing seasons during his time there (and 3 of the losing seasons were 76-77, 75-78, and 74-79). From 1908-1927 they finished first twice and last once. They finished 1-4 in the standings 11 times, 5-8 9 times.
Also, the 1-0 games: should we give him wins in all 26 that he lost? How many 1-0 games did he win anyway?
I'm not saying the Senators teams were great but they weren't horrible - just middle-of-the-road. I don't see you get many more wins for Johnson unless you put him on a team that played .600 ball for 20 years (in other words, the Yankees after 1920).
For comparison I looked up the W/L records of Cy Young's teams between 1890-1911 (in partial seasons including the team's record only while he was there) and I got 1582-1426, .526. I figure Pete Alexander's teams at 1470-1314, .528. Definitely better teams but not by a huge margin.
How does this translate to wins?
If you take the 3090 games (1531-1559) the Nats played when Johnson was with them and give them a .525 Winning PCT instead of the real .49546, that would be 1622 wins instead of 1531. That's a "win shortfall" of 91 wins over the 20+ seasons. During his career Johnson won 27% of the team's wins (417 of 1531). 27% of the 91-win shortfall would be 24 or 25 extra wins, just over one game a year. That's not nothing, but doesn't transform his stature (after all, he's already the best ever).
Tim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey2296
Could he have won 4.5 games a year instead of lost? Seems plausible with a good team behind him.
|