ESPN Top 100

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

I stand corrected, nat. I'm not familiar with war/pa, I'll have to check it out. I don't care for this espn list either, but it makes for fun conversation. I could argue Trout has only been the 2nd best player on a losing team his whole career. Pujols, Ohtani.

There is no way on earth Pujols on the Angels was remotely close to Trout. No one seriously disputes Trout has been the best player in baseball since he came up in 2011.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is no way on earth Pujols on the Angels was remotely close to Trout. No one seriously disputes Trout has been the best player in baseball since he came up in 2011.

I agree Trout was better on the Angels. Life time it will be Pujols and the numbers really won't be that close. In my opinion anyway.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree Trout was better on the Angels. Life time it will be Pujols and the numbers really won't be that close. In my opinion anyway.

Pujols on St. Louis was MASSIVE. A phenomenon. The second half of his career he was average to mediocre and hitting behind Trout pumped up his counting numbers.

[53toppscollector]

Not sure I understand the people saying Pedro Martinez is way too high.

He was the most dominant pitcher of his era. From '97-03, the peak of the steroid era, he went 118-36, with a 2.20 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 213 ERA+, and 5.59 K/BB ratio. I mean, those numbers are outrageous.

He ended up with 3,000+ strikeouts despite throwing only 2800 career innings. Injuries limited him after age 32, and he retired younger than some guys will now. But his numbers are absurd, in maybe the most offensively dominated era of baseball history.

I place more value on peak/performance than I do on counting stats, though some can argue that longevity is a skill. 10th best winning percentage ever, 8th best WHIP ever, 13th in H/9, 11th in K/9, 12th in K/BB, and 6th in ERA+

The game has changed recently and tilted back toward pitchers to some degree, which might make his accomplishments seem not as great, but I think when you adjust for era/context, hes arguably the most dominant pitcher ever, maybe behind only WaJo. But then you get into trying to compare their eras, which is really a fool's errand.

[Peter_Spaeth]

No doubt he had that amazing dominant period, although interestingly, in WAR7, he ranks … wait for it.... 21st. 5th though in adjusted WAR7 which I think doesn't require consecutive seasons. To me, you have to take the whole career into consideration too, and I just can't see putting him above Young, Alexander, Mathewson, Grove, Seaver, etc.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by 53toppscollector

Not sure I understand the people saying Pedro Martinez is way too high.

He was the most dominant pitcher of his era. From '97-03, the peak of the steroid era, he went 118-36, with a 2.20 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 213 ERA+, and 5.59 K/BB ratio. I mean, those numbers are outrageous.

He ended up with 3,000+ strikeouts despite throwing only 2800 career innings. Injuries limited him after age 32, and he retired younger than some guys will now. But his numbers are absurd, in maybe the most offensively dominated era of baseball history.

I place more value on peak/performance than I do on counting stats, though some can argue that longevity is a skill. 10th best winning percentage ever, 8th best WHIP ever, 13th in H/9, 11th in K/9, 12th in K/BB, and 6th in ERA+

The game has changed recently and tilted back toward pitchers to some degree, which might make his accomplishments seem not as great, but I think when you adjust for era/context, hes arguably the most dominant pitcher ever, maybe behind only WaJo. But then you get into trying to compare their eras, which is really a fool's errand.

Couldn't have said it better.

Many reasons why other people don't get this. Some of the top ones are plenty of bias against more modern players, the fact that he only has 219 wins (which isn't acceptable for career greatness....unless your name is Koufax), and the fact that his impossibly great years didn't produce any individual stats that appear legendary on the surface. Like a 1.12 ERA, 30 wins, etc.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Couldn't have said it better.

Many reasons why other people don't get this. Some of the top ones are plenty of bias against more modern players, the fact that he only has 219 wins (which isn't acceptable for career greatness....unless your name is Koufax), and the fact that his impossibly great years didn't produce any individual stats that appear legendary on the surface. Like a 1.12 ERA, 30 wins, etc.

Pedro had a fantastic peak but faded due to injuries. His peak was higher than Seaver, for example, but he was not as dominant for as long as Seaver. He also played on a lot of good teams which helps. He certainly ranks high but not as high as he is placed in my humble opinion.

[Shoeless Moe]

I think it's kind of interesting how everyone pretty much agrees with Baseball's Greatest Hitters, Pitchers not so much. I think I could throw out a list of the Greatest of All Time 1-10 and someone else could have those reversed, with almost the exact same Pitchers.

Hitters:
Ruth is pretty much always #1.
Then it's Cobb or Mays for #2.
However, I's say Ted Williams easily is right there.
Then ya got Aaron.

So those are pretty much everyone's Top 5. You can try to make cases for DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Wagner, Robinson.....but I don't think they crack the Top 5.

Pitchers though 1-5, good luck getting a consensus.

Let's try.

Let's see your Top Pitchers 1 - 5 as you would rank them.

Mine would be:

1-Randy Johnson
2-Pedro Martinez
3-Roger Clemens
4-Bob Gibson
5-Bob Feller

Shit but now I left out Walter Johnson. and Lefty Grove. and Seaver....and many will have Koufax in there. See it's impossible.