http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1558124.html (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1558124.html)
An interesting take on Rocket's greatness.
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/030527.html (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/030527.html)
I prefer this article. This guy pretty much sums up the feelings about Clemens in the Boston area. It would be nice if his arm fell off and he'd be stuck on 299.
A follow-up no-no for Nolan.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1559625.html (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1559625.html)
So I guess Brett Saberhagen is a much better pitcher than Nolan.
The real question is: How do you decide who is great?
Is it awards? Statistics? Longevity? 20K games? No hitters?
For every argument you give, I can give two counter-arguments.
The main reason I like Nolan is he's done something I've never seen (maybe never will) He was so dominant for so many years. I guess you can say Clemens is dominant now, but I don't see his dominance as I did with Ryan.
Quote from: vgp100 on 05/28/03, 10:06:07 AM
So I guess Brett Saberhagen is a much better pitcher than Nolan.
The real question is: How do you decide who is great?
Is it awards? Statistics? Longevity? 20K games? No hitters?
For every argument you give, I can give two counter-arguments.
The main reason I like Nolan is he's done something I've never seen (maybe never will) He was so dominant for so many years. I guess you can say Clemens is dominant now, but I don't see his dominance as I did with Ryan.
Personally I like to look at two things: the player's best few seasons, and their overall career. Clemens beats Nolan (among others) in both of these categories. He had 6 Cy Young seasons to Ryan's zero, so Clemens' peak is higher (over a full season). Also Clemens' career number will be better than Ryan's in the most important category, ERA (or ERA+).
That's what a pitcher is suppose to do, prevent runs, not strike out batters. Ryan was unparralleled in respect to striking out hitters. However he was only above average in the most important category, preventing runs. That's why Clemens, IMHO, was better. He was better in respect to what he was suppose to do, not a secondary stat that helps to accomplish that goal.
Ryan wasn't dominant for so many seasons. Ryan was dominant for many games. A very many games. In a seasonal context Ryan for the most part was good, never great or dominant.
Mike
I'm going to take some semblance of the middle ground here. While there's no denying that Ryan's longevity was impressive, he never attained the level of dominance that Clemens did for such a long period of time. If you'll recall, despite the couple of no-nos he had with the Rangers at the end of his career, Ryan was at best a number two or three starter his last four or five years, and he had a lot of mediocre years in the 80's as well. Clemens was average for maybe two years in the mid-90's, and that's it. His dominance hasn't let up, even as he's gotten older.
On the other hand, I think Clemens is a total jerk, and I root against him every time he pitches. It's absolutely killing me to be arguing in favor of him, but I'm one of those heartless types who thrives on the facts.
Well, I'm looking at the numbers right now and their career ERA's are pretty similar. Clemens-3.15 Nolan 3.19. Clemens is better there--but not drastically different. Nolan only had two years with an ERA over 4: his first and last seasons.
Complete games: Roger 116 Nolan 222 Roger had only two with the Yankees.
I'm not going to tell you that Nolan is so much better than Clemens. All I'm saying is it's not black and white who's the better pitcher. And this Rob Neyer asshole is saying that Nolan is a pretty good pitcher is just trying to make a name for himself. Not taking anything away from Roger's career, but the things that Nolan Ryan did were amazing and makes him one of the elite of all time.
Old man Clemens hates Sh*t!
Sure Nolan had a 3.19 career ERA, but the league average ERA for the parks he played in is 3.57. Clemens 3.15 ERA is much more impressive when the league average ERA for the parks he played in is 4.49.
So each had the same ERA, but during Clemens' time teams scored one more run per game. That gives Roger an overwhelming edge.
Mike
http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ryanno01.shtml)
I'm not buying that. Three runs a game is three runs a game no matter when you do it. Besides, about a third of Nolan's career was at the same time Roger pitched.
I've done some research on the Clemens had better seasons argument. Let's compare Clemens' 6 best seasons (where he won his 6 Cy Young Awards, since that makes him better, right?) against Nolan Ryan's 6 best statistical seasons. I did wins, losses, k's, complete games, shut-outs, and era in that order.
Clemens
1986 (24-4, 238, 10, 1, 2.48)
1987 (20-9, 256, 18, 7, 2.97)
1991 (18-10, 241, 13, 4, 2.62)
1997 (21-7, 292, 9, 3, 2.05)
1998 (20-6, 271, 5, 3, 2.65)
2001 (20-3, 213, 0, 0, 3.51)
Ryan
1972 (19-16, 329, 20, 9, 2.28)
1973 (21-16, 383, 26. 4, 2.87)
1974 (22-16, 367, 26, 3, 2.89)
1976 (17-18, 327, 22, 7, 3.36)
1977 (19-16, 341, 14,4, 2.77)
1989 (16-10, 301, 6, 2, 3.20)
The reason Ryan had so many more losses is because he went the distance basically twice as much as Clemens. Plus, look at the era. If Ryan didn't pitch a shutout or close to it, he wasn't gonna win with the Angels. I was questioning myself before seeing these numbers, but now I say Ryan is so much more dominant than Clemens! Not even a debate to me. Look at how many of those categories for Ryan are actually better than Clemens. The only flaw is the losses
Quote from: vgp100 on 05/28/03, 02:53:41 PM
I'm not buying that. Three runs a game is three runs a game no matter when you do it. Besides, about a third of Nolan's career was at the same time Roger pitched.
Sure and a $1.00 in 1972 is still a dollar today. ::)
When comparing ERA, rememeber in 1972 the AL league batting average was .239! In 1986 it was a respectable .262. In 1972 the team with the most home runs was 134. In 1986, every AL team but 2 hit more (most was 196). In '72, The team with the most runs scored 4.13 a game, in '86 again only 2 teams scored less.
You can't compare straight across eras, because the game was not the same. In the '70s the game was heavily weighed towards the pitchers. If your team gave up four runs a game in 1972 would have the worst pitching staff in the league. If your team gave up four runs a game in 1986, you would have the best pitching.
Clemens ERA may not look impressive next to some of the pitchers of the '70s, but when you remember those 6 years he led the league in ERA, and Ryan never did, it becomes apparent who is better.
Mike
Quote from: ericdavisfan on 05/28/03, 04:09:34 PM
Clemens
1986 (24-4, 238, 10, 1, 2.48)
Ryan
1972 (19-16, 329, 20, 9, 2.28)
The reason Ryan had so many more losses is because he went the distance basically twice as much as Clemens.
That's just not true. In '72 Ryan lost 16 times, because 9 times he failed to even reach the 6th inning. That is 23% of his starts. Clemens failed to reach the 6th only 3 times or 9%. In fact Ryan failled to make it to the 4th inning 6 times, where Clemens only did it once. Why was he taken out after 1.2 inning? Because it was October and the Red Sox scored 4 runs in the bottom of the first, and they wanted to rest him for the playoffs.
So take away that game, and Clemens reached the 4th inning in 100% of his starts, and the 6th in 94% of his starts. Ryan is 85% and 77%. Remember the offensive advantage the 1986 AL has over the 1972 AL, and then ask yourself, who had a better year?
If you had one game to choose a pitcher for one game, would you take someone who has a 1/4 shot of getting knocked out before the 6th against .239 hitters? I wouldn't.
Mike
Marquis,
while I respect what you've said and acknowledge that you've done some impressive research, I also note that you are comparing Clemens' pinnicle season (no debate on this necessary) to what was probably Ryan's 3rd or 4th best season. In order to compare a Clemens season to a Ryan season, it would have to be determined which season is most comparable to the other. 86 and 72 aren't the comparable seasons here. I'm saying that across the board, a typical Ryan top 6 season is far more impressive than a typical Clemens Cy Young Award season. I think that this is a great debate and I think that both pitchers are absolutely amongst the greatest of all-time. It's just my opinion that Ryan was the more dominant of two VERY dominant pitchers.
One topic that I'm surprised that nobody has brought up is Nolan Ryan's great curve ball that complimented his fireball. Clemens has a variety of fastballs, but Ryan earned extra strikeouts because he could flame a 100 mph fastball past someone, or buckle someone's knees with that swooping curveball.
Quote from: ericdavisfan on 05/28/03, 07:52:47 PM
Marquis,
while I respect what you've said and acknowledge that you've done some impressive research, I also note that you are comparing Clemens' pinnicle season (no debate on this necessary) to what was probably Ryan's 3rd or 4th best season.
1986 can be anywhere from Clemens' 3rd to 5th best season. It's certainly not his best. His best is probably either 1990 (21-6 1.96!) or 1997 (21-7 2.05!). I would say that his 1998 season (20-6 2.65) is better, and his 1992 (18-11 2.41) might have just been as good.
Quite honestly I don't see how 1972 is Ryan's 3rd best season. It's his lowest non-strike ERA, by more than a half point! But even if it's Ryan's 3rd best season, it also Clemens. So the comparison is fair.
Ryan pitched in some of the best pitcher eras & pitchers parks & never got lower than a 2.28, where Clemens did it twice. Once in a hitter's park (Fenway), the other during an offensive explosion. In 1997 the league averaged 5 runs per game, and Clemens' ERA is 2.05!
In 1990 Clemens had
2 games where he gave up 4 or more Earned Runs. Find me a year where Ryan has anywhere near that level of domination:
ANA
'72 9 times
'73 11 times
'74 12 times
'77 9 times
HOU
'83 7 times
'91 6 times
I mean it's no contest. Ryan was never dominating over a whole season. The reason he never won a Cy Young is the same reason he never won an ERA title: he was too inconsistant from one start to the next.
Mike
p.s. I think I've spoken enough on this topic. I don't think I'm going to change anyone's opinion, nor do I think anyone is going to change mine. For the record I'm not a Ryan-hater or anything like that. Actually I was a huge fan of his back in the 80s when things like Strat-O-Matic, and MicroLeague Baseball were out. He was a great pitcher for those leagues. I was always disappointed to read his boxscores & see those bad 3IP 5ER 7BB games. I remember the day he kicked Ventura's ass. I remember him striking out Rickey Henderson for his 7th no-no. I have more fond memories of Nolan Ryan than Clemens. I just happen to think Clemens is a better pitcher & I happen to enjoy sports debates. ;)
MicroLeague baseball! I used to love that game back when I was a kid, though I can't remember what system I had it on. I think the Commodore 64... Favorite team was the 69 Mets, Ron Svboda was the shit...
In our later years (high school) we started playing Tony Larussa baseball rather heavily. That game was a stat paradise, we used to draft all-time teams and enter in all the stats. It was all about drafting Ty Cobb with the first pick and loading up on old-time pitchers who had a great year - Ed Walsh, Addie Joss were the big ones...
can you give me the keyboard shortcuts to play rbi rom?
i need stuff like how to advance a runner, etc.....
Depends on the emulator, but the left CTRL and ALT keys are what work for FCE ultra. Be sure to hit "F3" when playing in a window because the ALT key will select a menu item...
If you need any more info, start your own topic with a followup question. I already hijacked this thread with my microleague talk and now we're really veering off!
PS - Welcome
It has to be Clemens' finest season, as it was the one where he won the MVP award. If it is argued that it doesn't matter, then the whole argument that Clemens' Cy Young Awards give him the advantage over Ryan is out the window. If Clemens' had anywhere from 2-4 better seasons than the one when he won MVP and Cy Young, then he should have won the MVP in those years as well...hands down especially since they were better seasons as you argued. In 97 and 98, Clemens was far more valuable to his team in Toronto than he was to the 86 team in Boston.
Clemens had a supporting cast that included Bruce Hurst (who was an all-star that year if memory serves), Jim Rice (also an all-star that year), Dwight Evans, and Wade Boggs (who hit .363 that year and made the all-star team as well), and don't forget that Don Baylor knocked 31 homers that year.
Clemens' two years in Toronto gave him Juan Guzman, Pat Hentgen, Benito Santiago, Ed Sprague, a very young Shawn Green and Jose Cruz Jr. and very old Joe Carter and Ruben Sierra (these are the best names I could find! And let's not forget the memorable return of Dave Steib AND Tony Fernandez in 1998! Jose Canseco and Shawn Green were productive in 98, but outside of Clemens, they had no one. Wouldn't he have been more valuable to those two teams than the one in Boston?
Granted, Toronto finished last in 1997, but a respectable 3rd in 98 behind that dominant Yankees team and the Red Sox. Could he not have been the MVP that year if it was one of his 2 finest seasons EVER?
Quote from: MarquisEXB on 05/28/03, 07:18:48 PM
If you had one game to choose a pitcher for one game, would you take someone who has a 1/4 shot of getting knocked out before the 6th against .239 hitters? I wouldn't.
Mike
I would take the guy who throws 100+ mph smoke, has a great curve ball, strikes out 300 guys a year, and is capable of throwing a no-hitter on any given night at any age! But that's just my opinion
Uhhhh...I have no idea how I messed up that whole quote thing, but my response is not suppose to be in the quote box. My apologies for being a computer idiot in most situations :-\
Quote
There is a quote tag, ED - bottom right, second from the left. Click that up so you can see the tags, then copy/paste some text from below into it. Give her a shot...
Somehow I managed to make it worse :P "I was just checking the speck on the rota......I'm retarded." I'll stop trying to "fix" it before I bring on the apocalypse or something!
Quote from: ericdavisfan on 05/29/03, 09:08:58 AM
It has to be Clemens' finest season, as it was the one where he won the MVP award. If it is argued that it doesn't matter, then the whole argument that Clemens' Cy Young Awards give him the advantage over Ryan is out the window. If Clemens' had anywhere from 2-4 better seasons than the one when he won MVP and Cy Young, then he should have won the MVP in those years as well...hands down especially since they were better seasons as you argued. In 97 and 98, Clemens was far more valuable to his team in Toronto than he was to the 86 team in Boston.
His MVP season doesn't have to be his best, and if it wasn't it doesn't discount 6 Cy Youngs. Easy logic - in 1986 there weren't any good hitters viable for the MVP, but there were in '90 and '97.
In 1997 a young hitter named Ken Griffey Jr. hit 56 HRs, had 147RBIs. In 1990 Rickey Henderson hit 28HRs & stole 65 bases, while hitting .325.
In 1986, the best 3 HR hitters were: Jesse Barfeild, Dave Kingman, and Gary Gaetti. None of them hit more than .300, or led the league in RBIs. Hardly a true MVP candidate there.
Mike
Clemens is much better than Ryan. MUCH BETTER!!! Here is an interesting article about this topic...
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1559625.html
I couldn't find one baseball sports writer that would back ryan over clemens. Not one.
Quote from: sucka free on 05/29/03, 02:01:07 PM
I couldn't find one baseball sports writer that would back ryan over clemens. Not one.
Rob Neyer is an ass--so are most sportswriters.
lol
I'm not going to put forth any statistical analysis on this topic, however I will say that I'm with Marquis and Sucka, Clemens was and is the better pitcher and probably the best pitcher of All-Time. Yes, even better than Gibson, Koufax, Walter Johnson et al... You have to look at the era at which they pitched. Gibson and Koufax, for example, played in a pitchers paradise, where the mound was 6 inches higher, the parks were much bigger, players weren't a strong or as athletic, the balls weren't wound as much (juiced), the bats weren't as strong, there was no such thing as creatinine etc... What Clemens has done in the era of the hitting explosion is nothing but exceptional. If RJ can stay healthy long enough as can get to 300 wins he may be the best of all-time since he has the dominace edge over anybody.
I love the cross-era debates. I still contend that if Wilt Chamberlain played today, he wouldn't be half the player he was. He would be Raef LaFrentz-esque. He would get dominated by players like Shaq and Duncan and Hakeem (when he played). And Jordan or Kobe or Iverson would run absolute rings around the older players. Sports have just changed so much that I can't see how any sports PLAYERS were better in the olden days.
Quote from: Vitb6 on 05/30/03, 10:41:55 PMI love the cross-era debates. I still contend that if Wilt Chamberlain played today, he wouldn't be half the player he was. He would be Raef LaFrentz-esque. He would get dominated by players like Shaq and Duncan and Hakeem (when he played). And Jordan or Kobe or Iverson would run absolute rings around the older players. Sports have just changed so much that I can't see how any sports PLAYERS were better in the olden days.
Question regarding this logic: If Chamberlain, who was a multi sport athelete, was born in today's time would he be a dominant player? I have to answer yes. If we could build a time warp & transport a 25 year old Wilt to today, he would be undersized & unathletic. But if we went back in time & transported a baby Wilt Chamberlain, he would have the advantage of modern training & medicine. I can't help to think that today's athletes are better because they have the advantage of modern technology, not that they are genetically superior. Genetics take millions of years to make changes. So Wilt who was a superior player in his time, would be a superior person in this time with modern training techniques. He might have grown to 7'0", or more. He would probably be a K.G. type player.
Mike
QuoteIf Chamberlain, who was a multi sport athelete, was born in today's time would he be a dominant player? I have to answer yes. If we could build a time warp & transport a 25 year old Wilt to today, he would be undersized & unathletic. But if we went back in time & transported a baby Wilt Chamberlain, he would have the advantage of modern training & medicine. I can't help to think that today's athletes are better because they have the advantage of modern technology, not that they are genetically superior. Genetics take millions of years to make changes. So Wilt who was a superior player in his time, would be a superior person in this time with modern training techniques. He might have grown to 7'0", or more. He would probably be a K.G. type player.
Ummmm, I guess that the operative word is BORN, however that isn't what I was implying. Of course genetics havn't changed in 30-40 years however, there are people that believe Wilt would still be the same dominant player today that he was back in his day. I say those people are crazy to believe that.
On a side note. And I shit you not- I was driving to work today listening to, THE SCORE: SPORTS RADIO 670, and the topic they were talking about was if you had one game to play who would you want on the mound. One of the hosts said Clemens and the other said Ryan! So they were debating it. The dude that said Ryan was getting his ass handed to him. The mere fact that Nolan Ryan's career winning % is barely above .500 puts him very far on the list of a pitcher I would want pitching 1 game for me. The dude changed his mind to Bob Gibson very quickly BTW.
Then they had Jim Palmer as a guest on the show and asked him, Ryan or Clemens. Without hesitation Palmer said Ryan and then backed it up by saying that Clemens is the best pitcher of all-time. They then started taking calls about the best of all-time where Clemens got the majority of the votes by a landslide: however other players like Gibson, Koufax, Fellers, Spahn, Maddux, RJ were also nominated. I found this very ironic that the day after this thread was up, they were talking about it on the Chicago sports radio show. Also consider that Ryan played the majority of his career, not only in a pitchers era, but also in the NL where there is NO DH!!! Clemens was not only the dominant pitcher of his era, he's pitched in the hitting era and in a league with the DH. That is pretty impressive.
According to stats guru Bill James, the best ever is Lefy Grove...and I'm inclined to agree>
Career 300-141 for a .680 winning percentage. He led teh league in ERA 9 TIMES, K's 7 times (his first seven years), and wins 4 times. There were NO Cy Young awards back then, but if you look at his seasons you couldeasily sugest he might have won 5 or 6. An by the way, there's this other lefty ...Randy Johnson, who you could make teh argument is better than Clemens and they are contemporaries.
Clemens: 299 W, 154 L, 3985 K's, 4137 inn., 3.16 ERA, 1.18 whip.
Johnson: 225 W, 108L, 3777 K's, 3031 inn., 3.09, 1.18.
Another interesting note about Grove is that due to the circumstances of the time he was left in the minors for at least 3 years more than he should have. So his numbers would have been even better.
Grove like Clemens, pitched in one of the best hitter's eras. In 1936, the AL averaged 5.67 runs per game, and hit .289 as a league. Five of eight average 5.8 or more runs per game. The best team the Yankees, scored an eye-popping 6.87 runs per game, with the White Sox (6.01) and Detroit (5.98) behind them. In that year Grove put up a 2.81 era. The next guy was 3.44. Grove's ERA+ (era compared to the league's hitting & park adjusted) is 148 (meaning he was 48% better than the league average), which is slightly better than Clemens 142.
Although Grove wasn't in the discussion, because it's about who was the best in the nes rom. Grove does appear in the arcade rom, so it's not that far off.
Bill James, the genuis that he is, does change his mind frequently. (To me that's a sign of true genius, since he is always open to new ideas). James rates Grove the best pitcher in his '86 baseball abstract. In his new book the new Historical Baseball Abstract, James rates Walter Johnson #1 & Grove #2. FYI Clemens is #11 & Ryan 24. In Clemens' bio he says that "he may deserve to rank him higher... there is actually a very good argument that he is the greatest pitcher who ever lived."
Also to bring this long winded post full circle, Rob Neyer worked for James as a researcher.
Mike
Quote from: bibleboy94030 on 06/01/03, 02:58:42 PMAn by the way, there's this other lefty ...Randy Johnson, who you could make teh argument is better than Clemens and they are contemporaries.
Clemens: 299 W, 154 L, 3985 K's, 4137 inn., 3.16 ERA, 1.18 whip.
Johnson: 225 W, 108L, 3777 K's, 3031 inn., 3.09, 1.18.
I don't see how Johnson could be argued as better. The ERA & whip are the same, but Clemens has a thousand more innings. Another way to put it is add half of Koufax's career to Randy Johnson & you've got Clemens. Clemens is only a year older than Randy, so it doesn't seem like Johnson will overtake Clemens any time soon.
MARQUIS...impressed by your baseball knowledge. How about I refine my statement: RJ was possibly the BEST EVER over a 6 year span, esp. when you consider the offensive explosion in modern baseball. But Clemens, actually isnt that far behing in the main catgories:
RJ: 120-42, 2037 K's with ERA's of: 2.28, 3.28, 2.48, 2.64, 2.49, 2.32.
Clemens:118-52, 1465 K's with ERA's of: 2.48, 2.97, 2.93, 3.13, 2.62, 2.14.
So MAYBE Clemens is the best...you can make that argument. (I own an Arcade version so I do have Grove available, but RJ is on neither version).
Anyway, its very hard to copmare guys from diff. eras, and if I had to pick the best PITCHER of our era, it would have to be MADDUX, hands down. To do what he has done is amazing...looks at his ERA's: 2.18, 2.36, 1.56, 1.63, 2.72, 2.20, 2.22...NOT to mention his crazy low whips: 1.10, 1.05, .90, .81, 1.03, .95, .98. THATS JUST SICK!
Ray
PS Are you friends with Rob Neyer, or did he write the original story?
Absolutely Johnson was better those 6 years. Clemens has the edge the 12 seasons before it! ;)
Actually you have a point with Maddux. Talk about a 6 year stretch, I'll take Maddux's '93-'98! Wow, I never knew he was that dominant.
I don't know Rob Neyer, but I've been reading his column (& books) for a few years now. Baseball dynasties is certainly interesting, if you're into heavy statistical analysis. In any case your post got me thinking, and I wrote Rob an email about how he dismissed Maddux so easily. Honestly I've convinced myself that Maddux is slightly better, because he has a better peak.
Mike