Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

His peak has nothing to do with that. It's just about the problem with llining up who was the "best" based only on lifetime WAR total.

Would you say that Phil Niekro should be considered a better pitcher than Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez? Or twice as good as Ron Guidry?

Niekro being twice as valuable as Guidry, sounds about right. Guidry had a short peak, short career. Niekro was effective for an almost absurd amount of time. I wouldn't take him over Gibson, but Pedro also had a very short career (short term peak only, I would probably take Pedro as #1 all time but he's nowhere near my #1 for a career because his career was so short). Niekro hurled twice as many innings as Pedro. Was Pedro twice as good as Niekro? His dominance was such that I could see a good argument either way.

Gibson hurled 1,600 innings less than Niekro, so I don't think it's unreasonable to trade some length for less dominant effectiveness. Again, I can see it either way. Every pitching judgement here is a trade off between dominance vs. more effective seasons.

Niekro, Gibson and Pedro are close in career WAR, but none of them are close in Innings. If anything, this seems to show it does reward career dominance and not just length, as Pedro with half the career service time is just a tad below Niekro.

I'm not a fan of WAR, but when the discussion is all time, career statistics like WAR are not unfair to use.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

Niekro, Gibson and Pedro are close in career WAR, but none of them are close in Innings. If anything, this seems to show it does reward career dominance and not just length, as Pedro with half the career service time is just a tad below Niekro.

It only "rewards" Pedro's career dominance (when it comes to HOF quality pitchers like him/Koufax/Guidry who had a short career). And only to a certain extent, because Niekro's is still noticeably higher.

Pedro 2827 IP 83.9 WAR
Gibson 3884 IP 89.2 WAR
Niekro 5404 IP 95.9 WAR

Mostly just shows how unthinkably great Pedro was. rather than career WAR being always being a close enough metric of greatness when the career length/dominance dichotomy shows up. The main disagreement here is that when it comes to who was the "best", you put more weight on the career length side of that, while I do the same with the dominance side. And as you've mentioned, that balance is somewhat subjective as long as someone doesn't go too far one way or the other.

As far as Pedro goes, the above is not surprising though. Have always thought that he is the most talented and effective pitcher the game has ever seen.

[darwinbulldog]

Grove(s)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

It only "rewards" Pedro's career dominance (when it comes to HOF quality pitchers like him/Koufax/Guidry who had a short career). And only to a certain extent, because Niekro's is still noticeably higher.

Pedro 2827 IP 83.9 WAR
Gibson 3884 IP 89.2 WAR
Niekro 5404 IP 95.9 WAR

Mostly just shows how unthinkably great Pedro was. rather than career WAR being always being a close enough metric of greatness when the career length/dominance dichotomy shows up. The main disagreement here is that when it comes to who was the "best", you put more weight on the career length side of that, while I do the same with the dominance side. And as you've mentioned, that balance is somewhat subjective as long as someone doesn't go too far one way or the other.

As far as Pedro goes, the above is not surprising though. Have always thought that he is the most talented and effective pitcher the game has ever seen.

Pedro was the best peak of my lifetime, I think, but I would pick Maddux, Johnson and Clemens over him of his direct contemporaries anyways.

There are reasonable different values one can make on peak vs. career, but I don't think it matters that much to the question here. Grove's peak is the equal of Sandy's, AND he has a much, much longer peak and career. Kershaw's peak is superior, I think, as well. It's not like Sandy is unique and unbeatably the best peak lefty and we are picking a guy like Niekro over him. We are picking other dominant pitchers that also pitched twice as long as he did.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pedro was the best peak of my lifetime, I think, but I would pick Maddux, Johnson and Clemens over him of his direct contemporaries anyways.

I would definitely take Clemens. Clemens averaged more WAR per year (5.78 vs 5.05 for Pedro, ignoring Pedro's 2-game first season) while pitching 7 more seasons (24 vs 17, again ignoring 1992 for Pedro). And his best WAR year (1997 - 11.9) was better than Pedro's (2000 - 11.7). And, finally, Clemens averaged 205 IP for 24 years, while Pedro averaged 165 for 17.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would definitely take Clemens. Clemens averaged more WAR per year (5.78 vs 5.05 for Pedro, ignoring Pedro's 2-game first season) while pitching 7 more seasons (24 vs 17, again ignoring 1992 for Pedro). And his best WAR year (1997 - 11.9) was better than Pedro's (2000 - 11.7). And, finally, Clemens averaged 205 IP for 24 years, while Pedro averaged 165 for 17.

Pedro in 2000, when he led the league with a 1.74 ERA and Clemens was second at 3.70 is the most dominating single season I have ever seen from a starter.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would definitely take Clemens. Clemens averaged more WAR per year (5.78 vs 5.05 for Pedro, ignoring Pedro's 2-game first season) while pitching 7 more seasons (24 vs 17, again ignoring 1992 for Pedro). And his best WAR year (1997 - 11.9) was better than Pedro's (2000 - 11.7). And, finally, Clemens averaged 205 IP for 24 years, while Pedro averaged 165 for 17.

But if you're using WAR, looking at it per innings pitched (rather than per season) is the best indicator. And Pedro bests all those guys there.

Clemens' overall career is highly underappreciated though, and may very well be the best of all time (ignoring the steroids, obviously). But in additoin to that, I think he's also overlooked because he probably doesn't have that signature hallmark stat or moment.

No bloody sock, no all time strikeout king crown or standout lifetime ERA numbers (again, people need to look at ERA+ a lot more). He was just exceptional, but not the best, at pretty much everything. But that's not as exciting as Nolan Ryan throwing 108 mph.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

But if you're using WAR, looking at it per innings pitched (rather than per season) is the best indicator. And Pedro bests all those guys there.

Thing is, innings pitched is a skill. Throwing 40 extra innings every year - and 7 extra seasons - is a monstrous gap to overcome. If all we care about is WAR per inning then you end up with some closer getting ranked highly.

I do agree with the guy above saying Pedro's 1.74 vs Roger's 3.70 for ERA might be the most amazing pitching accomplishment ever.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Thing is, innings pitched is a skill. Throwing 40 extra innings every year - and 7 extra seasons - is a monstrous gap to overcome. If all we care about is WAR per inning then you end up with some closer getting ranked highly.

I do agree with the guy above saying Pedro's 1.74 vs Roger's 3.70 for ERA might be the most amazing pitching accomplishment ever.

Closers wouldn't have to be included in any comparison of starting pitchers at all. I don't know where that even came from. Naturally WAR/inning is a similar ratio concept to someone's ERA, and it's not like anyone would dismiss ERA as a factor for ranking starting pitchers (nor should they, just because it's a ratio that can be applied to any pitcher). You just dismiss relievers' participation in that discussion.

The rest is once again the dominance or talent vs longevity and durability argument that's somewhat subjective. I'm fine with people preferring Johnson, Maddux, or Clemens to Pedro because of it (or even considering them "better", though I'd disagree).

But that doesn't mean that Pedro still can't be considered the most talented or effective pitcher of them all. Especially if you value outs and winning more than innings as a "skill"

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

But if you're using WAR, looking at it per innings pitched (rather than per season) is the best indicator. And Pedro bests all those guys there.

Clemens' overall career is highly underappreciated though, and may very well be the best of all time (ignoring the steroids, obviously). But in additoin to that, I think he's also overlooked because he probably doesn't have that signature hallmark stat or moment.

No bloody sock, no all time strikeout king crown or standout lifetime ERA numbers (again, people need to look at ERA+ a lot more). He was just exceptional, but not the best, at pretty much everything. But that's not as exciting as Nolan Ryan throwing 108 mph.

Let’s hit the nail on the head here - Roger Clemens career AFTER Boston was “saved” by steroids - case closed! Anyone trying to dispute that fact is outright fooling themselves. His obvious steroid use when he went to Toronto immediately resulted in 2 consecutive pitching triple crowns & he undoubtedly continued using PEDs the remainder of his career. Like many others including Bonds, a total “cheater” w/zero integrity and tainted career numbers. I do believe his performance in Boston was good enough to earn him HOF stature, but his rank on an all-time list will forever be clouded w/ambiguity due to his post-Boston excessive steroid use. An outright lier (that congressional hearing was a joke - “I think my friend Mr. Pettitte Mis-remembered????”); a cheat; & a fraud.