O/T Best Starting pitcher of all time.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

That doesn't make any sense to me...if you give up one run over 9 innings, but still lose 1-0 that doesn't qualify as a great pitching performance, but if you win the game 9-8 that qualifies??

In 1996 Roger Pavlik was 15-8 with a 5.18 ERA...do you believe that's a better season than Nolan Ryan's 1987 season?

It doesn't make sense that the only thing a pitcher needs to do is give up less runs than his team scores?

[cfc1909]

Nichols had a 10 year span that in each season he won more than 20 games and 7 seasons he won more than 30 games. I believe he has more 30 win seasons than any other pitcher in the history of the game. 9 of the 10 years he won more than 25 games-I would think that is pretty dominant in any era

[cliftons8]

I really like Matty, but voted for Johnson. If you listen or read The Glory of Their Times, all of those guys talk about Walter Johnson as the greatest. I know there has been 50 years since that book was written, but his numbers say alot.
For a single season Hoss Radbourn had "Fifty Nine in 84"

[Tabe]

Lots of great replies.

Bob Gibson, 1968 - Never ONCE knocked out of a game that year. Only times he was lifted were for pinch hitters. How incredible is that?

Pedro Martinez - Pedro's lack of durability kills his shot at greatest of all-time but his 2000 might be the best single year ever. 0.737 WHIP, 11.8K/9, and an ERA of 1.74 - when the next best ERA was 3.70! He was TWO RUNS BETTER than every other pitcher in the league. That's just unreal. Pedro's WHIP was the best of all-time. His ERA+ was the best in the post-1893 era.

For a career, I would probably go with Walter Johnson or Roger Clemens. Clemens was boosted by steroids, no question - but he was also pitching against roided up monsters. .658 win%, 6 20-win seasons, 7 Cy Young awards (should be 8), an MVP, and so on.

Tabe

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Brendan

It doesn't make sense that the only thing a pitcher needs to do is give up less runs than his team scores?

So in a game you need to win you'd start 1996 Roger Pavlik over 1987 Nolan Ryan? Wins are nice, but they do not even begin to tell the story of how effective a pitcher is.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

So in a game you need to win you'd start 1996 Roger Pavlik over 1987 Nolan Ryan? Wins are nice, but they do not even begin to tell the story of how effective a pitcher is.

+1

Wins should just be a part of the equation; to ignore the other components isn't logical.

[Hankphenom]

You know where my vote went, but there should be more votes for Satchel Paige and Bob Feller.
Hank Thomas

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

So in a game you need to win you'd start 1996 Roger Pavlik over 1987 Nolan Ryan? Wins are nice, but they do not even begin to tell the story of how effective a pitcher is.

If Roger Pavlik will give me a win and Ryan won't then I'll take Pavlik all day long.

Originally Posted by Robextend

+1

Wins should just be a part of the equation; to ignore the other components isn't logical.

So you'd rather your favortie team has the league's lowest ERA than win the World Series? To think that anything but winning games is important isn't logical. Giving up only one run may be impressive, but when it comes down to it all that matters is winning the game.

Rotisserie baseball has ruined how people look at stats. If you play for a team which doesn't score many runs, your ERA is going to be lower than if you played for a team which scores a lot of runs. This is true in most cases.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Brendan

If Roger Pavlik will give me a win and Ryan won't then I'll take Pavlik all day long.

So you'd rather your favortie team has the league's lowest ERA than win the World Series? To think that anything but winning games is important isn't logical. Giving up only one run may be impressive, but when it comes down to it all that matters is winning the game.

Rotisserie baseball has ruined how people look at stats. If you play for a team which doesn't score many runs, your ERA is going to be lower than if you played for a team which scores a lot of runs. This is true in most cases.

I think you are missing the point. The point is that if Roger Pavlik and Nolan Ryan got the same run support, Nolan Ryan would have many more wins.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brendan

So you'd rather your favortie team has the league's lowest ERA than win the World Series? To think that anything but winning games is important isn't logical. Giving up only one run may be impressive, but when it comes down to it all that matters is winning the game.

And that's why TEAMS are measured by wins but players are judged by their individual stats.

Do you seriously want Ray Oyler as your starting shortstop because his team won a World Series? Or Miguel Tejada, whose teams never even won a postseason series?

Tabe

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by Tabe

And that's why TEAMS are measured by wins but players are judged by their individual stats.

Do you seriously want Ray Oyler as your starting shortstop because his team won a World Series? Or Miguel Tejada, whose teams never even won a postseason series?

Tabe

You're suggesting I believe that if A.J. Burnett gets a loss, it's CC Sabathia's fault. Of course not. But when a pitcher pitches, it's his job to win the game, whatever the circumstances are. I don't care if your ERA is two- if you can't consistently give up less runs then the other team scores then you aren't a good pitcher. Each day a pitcher goes out there his goal is to get a win for his team. Not pitch a shutout. Not keep his WHIP under 1. Sure, he wouldn't mind getting a shutout, but he knows as long as he keeps the other team under their score he's fine.

Sure, we can speculate that if a certain pitcher got more run support he would have gotten more wins. Thing is, he didn't. There's no way to know something that didn't happen.

By the way, right now I'd take Ray Oyler over Miguel Tejeda. (I know he's deceased)

edited to add- I'm talking about starting pitchers- not position players and relief pitchers.