Who would you want on the mound T206 era in clutch game?

[Kenny Cole]

I think the problem with nominating WaJo is that his post-season didn't come until late in his career and, while it was good, it wasn't great. And the post-season is pretty well where it is in terms of being clutch. Doesn't matter if you win 30 and finish 30 behind IMO. I imagine he probably would have been great if he had been in the post-season earlier, but he wasn't, so his clutch greatness in that arena simply isn't demonstrable. The fact that the other guys were is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I think the problem with nominating WaJo is that his post-season didn't come until late in his career and, while it was good, it wasn't great. And the post-season is pretty well where it is in terms of being clutch. Doesn't matter if you win 30 and finish 30 behind IMO. I imagine he probably would have been great if he had been in the post-season earlier, but he wasn't, so his clutch greatness in that arena simply isn't demonstrable. The fact that the other guys were is.

It's a pretty fair inference based on his being, easily, the best and most dominating pitcher ever.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a pretty fair inference based on his being, easily, the best and most dominating pitcher ever.

See Clayton Kershaw. Great pitcher? Yes. Great post season pitcher? Not in my book. He seems to routinely get his ass torn off.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

See Clayton Kershaw. Great pitcher? Yes. Great post season pitcher? Not in my book. He seems to routinely get his ass torn off.

Yep, one highly unusual example.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yep, one highly unusual example.

Not true. There is a large percentage of great pitchers who were worse in the postseason. You can't just assume that Johnson would have excelled on the big stage. Matty, we know did with a .97 era and 4 shutouts in 11 games.

As far as who people at the time would have picked. The closest we have is the first hall of fame vote. Matty recieved more votes than Wajo. I believe that the reason was Matty's postseason performance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not true. There is a large percentage of great pitchers who were worse in the postseason. You can't just assume that Johnson would have excelled on the big stage. Matty, we know did with a .97 era and 4 shutouts in 11 games.

As far as who people at the time would have picked. The closest we have is the first hall of fame vote. Matty recieved more votes than Wajo. I believe that the reason was Matty's postseason performance.

Name one other pitcher with anywhere close to a Kershaw-like disparity between regular and post season. I certainly did not mean to suggest he was a unique example merely by virtue of being "worse" post-season.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Name one other pitcher with anywhere close to a Kershaw-like disparity between regular and post season. I certainly did not mean to suggest he was a unique example merely by virtue of being "worse" post-season.

You should expect a pitcher to be "worse" in the postseason than the regular season. He is pitching every game against good teams instead of a mixture of good and bad teams.

Kershaw may be the worst, but Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson all were worse in the postseason than regular season, just to pick a few. When picking for one game, I want the guy who has done it, Matty, over the one we don't know, Wajo. Johnson may have been great if given the opportunity to pitch World Series in his prime, but Matty was great in the World Series. Some players choke under pressure, such as Kershaw, others perform better. Matty was one who pitched better in the spotlight.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not true. There is a large percentage of great pitchers who were worse in the postseason. You can't just assume that Johnson would have excelled on the big stage. Matty, we know did with a .97 era and 4 shutouts in 11 games.

As far as who people at the time would have picked. The closest we have is the first hall of fame vote. Matty recieved more votes than Wajo. I believe that the reason was Matty's postseason performance.

Greg Maddox is another post season example of underperformer.

As for HOF votes, maybe playing in New York nuanced the vote?

[Yoda]

Perhaps a vote for 'Ole Pete', G. C. Alexander. He certainly had one famous performance (reputedly with the world's worst hangover) against the Yankees and their famous Murderers' Row.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a pretty fair inference based on his being, easily, the best and most dominating pitcher ever.

Yep, have to agree....

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I think the problem with nominating WaJo is that his post-season didn't come until late in his career and, while it was good, it wasn't great. And the post-season is pretty well where it is in terms of being clutch. Doesn't matter if you win 30 and finish 30 behind IMO. I imagine he probably would have been great if he had been in the post-season earlier, but he wasn't, so his clutch greatness in that arena simply isn't demonstrable. The fact that the other guys were is.

Johnson's world series games, in his 18th and 19th seasons:
1924, game 1: Loses 4-3 in 12 innings, 165 pitches, only runs in regulation are two home runs into temporary bleachers in left field, otherwise a shutout win.
1924, game 5: Loses 6-2, 13 hits, behind 3-2 into last inning.
1924, game 7: With one day's rest, comes in to a 3-3 tie in the 9th, holds the powerful Giants (8 HOF hitters) scoreless for four innings, possibly the great "clutch" pitching performance of all time.
1925, game 1: 4-1 win, 5 hits over Pirates team with .316 season BA.
1925, game 4: 4-0 win, 6 hit shutout.
1925, game 7: Loses 9-7, 15 hits, 5 Pirate runs in last two innings of famous "rain game," possibly the worst conditions any major league game has ever been played in.
A mixed bag, as has been said, but not even close to showing that he wasn't a "clutch" pitcher. What would he have done in the world series in his dominant decade of 1910-1919?

[Wite3]

I would probably take Johnson if the game is on the line...a close second and third would be Grove and Alexander.

[brian1961]

Big Ed Walsh.