ESPN Top 100

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just based on numbers which do seem to hold up across eras, I'd have to put Walter Johnson and Young in any top five. On your list I might take Seaver before Gibson. I'd move Pedro down because of his career numbers but I understand the argument.

[darwinbulldog]

1. WaJo
2. Young
3. Clemens
4. Nichols
5. Alexander

[molenick]

I think if we made a list that was just based on career value and a list just based on peak value, there would be more (but not full) agreement. But it is true that pitchers seem to be harder to rank than hitters.

But since there is one list, everyone has to decide what they value most. The reason I rank (alphabetically) Alexander, Clemens, Gibson, Grove, R. Johnson, W. Johnson, Maddux, Mathewson, Seaver, and Young higher than Martinez is that they had longer careers and also high peak values. In some cases (not all) both their career and peak values rank higher than Martinez.

Martinez's four highest WARs were 11.7, 9.8, 9.0, 8.0 = 38.5
Grove 11.2, 10.4, 10.4, 9.8 = 41.8
Clemens 11.9, 10.4, 9.4, 8.8 = 40.5
Randy Johnson 10.7, 10.1, 9.1, 8.4 = 38.3
Gibson 11.2, 10.4, 8.9, 7.1 = 37.6
Seaver 10.6, 10.2, 7.8, 7.3 = 35.9
Maddux 9.7, 9.1, 8.5, 7.8 = 35.1.

Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, and Young were in the 40s or 50s and obviously had much longer careers as well.

I used 4 years to get the peak-of-the-peak for each. Seaver and Maddux don't quite match Martinez but for me it's close enough that even a little credit for a long career makes me rank them higher. I rank Koufax below Martinez because his argument is entirely on peak value and his four best years (36.4) were not as good as Martinez's. I rank Spahn below Martinez because in my mind his long career did not offset his four best years "only" being 32.5. I feel the same about Carlton. To me Gibson was the closest call. I could go either way between the two, so I rank them 10 and 10a.

But I see an argument to get Martinez as high as second. First, put him over Gibson, Maddux, and Seaver because of peak vs. career. Then ahead of Clemens because of suspicion of steroids. Then ahead of Alexander, Walter Johnson, Mathewson, and Young because of dead ball stats being skewed (although I think the point of WAR is to try and unskew them a little). Then ahead of Grove because how can a player be better than someone who played 70 years later (that's really the only argument I see for putting Grove below Martinez…he was very similar to Martinez in that he dominated in a hitter's era but he was more dominant and did it for longer than Martinez).

But I can’t get him past Randy Johnson, who was just as dominant, pitched 1300 more innings, and has a higher WAR, WAR7, JAWS, and some other acronyms.

I'm sure I may have missed someone. I did not consider 19th century-only pitchers because it is hard to compare an era when pitchers could pitch over 600 innings and have a WAR of 20.5 (as Pud Galvin did in 1884). But if I did, Nichols would be my choice. I also did not include Negro League pitchers because I don't feel qualified weighing the statistics available with the reputations some players had.