Clemens Best Ever?

[ericdavisfan]

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

[Gantry]

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...

[ericdavisfan]

Somehow I managed to make it worse  "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!  

[MarquisEXB]

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

[sucka free]

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.  

[vgp100]

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.

[sucka free]

lol

[Vitb6]

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.

[MarquisEXB]

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.

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

[Vitb6]

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.

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.  

[bibleboy94030]

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.

[MarquisEXB]

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

[MarquisEXB]

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.

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.

[bibleboy94030]

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?

[MarquisEXB]

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