This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And he was awful those years...
Its Maddox, Clemens.... and everyone else.Koya said:
agreed
Had clemens not gone on the juice, he wouldnt be mentioned anywhere close. His career would have mirrored the guy that he was always compared with early on - Dwight Gooden. Clemens was dominating young, and had a LONG stretch of uber meh... suddenly in his thirties he "got it going" again? Please. Hence, Clemens is out of the discussion.Even if you discount his assistance from roids, Clemens was never as dominating as Pedro was during their respective extended peaks (hell, no pitcher this side of Koufax or imo Lefty Grove had such an extended period of dominance).
if you were drafting, and knew their careers would turn out exactly as they have, which would you take? I'd take Maddux. As a GM, you want that consistent excellence and the ability to lead/teach a staff. I never saw Pedro in that light. though you couldn't really go wrong with any of the 3.full disclosure, i lived in Atlanta from 91-99, so i may be a bit biased.
Interesting way to put it. I might take Randy Johnson actually because as great as Maddux was, perhaps there was reason his teams, great as they were, only one the big one once. In terms of consistency, yes, Maddux would win. But while consistency is great, Id rather 5 uber years that REALLY help win a world series, another 5 that go a LONG way and then whatever vs 10 that give you a pretty darn good shot and then another 5-10 that help out. If that makes sense.Then again, I have always been a high risk high reward guy.
iirc, each of the 3 only has one World Series ring, and only Maddux made it to the WS more than once (3x).as for dominance, i guess you look at ERA+ (if you prefer a different one, would be glad to look it up, because i'm not a fan of era+). Of the 3, here's how their seasons would rank...
I agree you can't go wrong. I guess what might push others slightly ahead of Maddux is for ALL the dominance, he couldnt help will that team to at least one more ring? This was a dynasty in the making he was on - they had offense, some defense, and pitching up down and around. Even so, that group got only one ring. I have the feeling that had Pedro or Randy Johnson been on those teams in place of Maddux, their ability to just dominate and shut down in an overpowering way would have given another title... I suppose you could argue that the team would not have had however many consecutive seasons of success in a row... and that might be it.I would rather win 4, 3, even 2 world series and have an off year once every so often because Pedro was hurt or something than know you make the playoffs EVERY year, but somehow your top pitcher can't will you to another ring one way or another.oso diablo said:
Maddox won 4 Cy Youngs in a row. He was the best pitcher in the national league for close to 10 years. Add in that he was very good-great another 5 years and in his later years he was still good. He's not credited with being dominant because though he got strike outs he was never a power pitcher - but I think a 78 pitch complete game is pretty damn dominant. The guy was never injured either. Neither RJ or Pedro are anywhere close to him in the greatest pitcher debates, and if you're going to remove Clemens than he's hands down the best pitcher of his generation.
You can argue he is the best of this generation... but saying Pedro is "no where close to him" when Pedro was in fact, more dominating than he was (and again, maddux with all that dominance on a GREAT GREAT team for a decade+ won one freakin' ring?) does not help your case.Now, you have solid points in regard to not being injured and his extended period of excellence... I simply content that pedro might not have had as many innings, or as extended a peak, but at his best was, by far, the most dominating pitcher I have ever witnessed. And he did so in the American league in a major pitchers park for a good period. Maddux's top seasons were fantastic. Pedro's were unreal... and really not appreciated by many imo.
The biggest reason was the bullpen. It certainly was not Maddux's fault they didn't win more than once, which seems to be what you are implying...
The championship argument makes even less sense in baseball than it does in football, where its fairly absurd. Pedro and Maddox have fairly similar playoff records and Maddox was just as dominating as Pedro at his peak. The difference was that Pedro overpowered hitters, and Maddox baffled them. But Maddox pitched longer at peak performance and longer in general. Maddox has separated himself from the field with the exception of Clemens, for Christ's sake he's got 355 wins.
Agreed. Just for pure peak value, I'd agree that Pedro and Randy Johnson are also in the debate. But the number of innings Maddux gave his teams, combined with the quality of those innings (ERA) is what separates him. Add in his superior glove and bat, and you have the clear cut greatest pitcher of his generation.
I would normally agree with you on the Championship arguement in baseball. But, for a PITCHER, on a DOMINATING team, a pitcher who was far less productive in the post season than he was in the regular season, I think it is very apt.We are splitting hairs amongst all time greats. I can tell you this, put Bob Gibson in his place, and the Braves have 3, maybe 4 championships... I think that may have been the case with Randy Johnson as well. But Maddux never correlated his dominance into the post season and was a reason FOR the Braves coming up short to a degree, not an example of a shining star that the team couldnt help lift.
Ironic that you post this when Maddux pitched better in the postseason than either Johnson or Pedro. If you replaced him with Gibson or Johnson, are you giving those guys the same run support and bullpens Maddux had?
I looked up the numbers - indeed Maddux did have a lower ERA, and in regard to Randy a better W-L though Pedro has a better W-L. Tough to tell from just those numbers and perhaps I am mistaken here and just going off of what I recall.
Yes, he had the best ERA, and he also had the most wins and added a save to boot. Not only that, look at the innings pitched - Maddux 198, Johnson 121, and Pedro only 79.3.That includes 38 IP in the World Series for Maddux in 5 starts, in which he posted a 2.09 ERA, yet only went 2-3. That's what I was alluding to with regard to run support and bullpens. Meanwhile, Johnson pitched only 17.1 World Series innings and Pedro only pitched 7, although both pitched brilliantly.I looked up the numbers - indeed Maddux did have a lower ERA, and in regard to Randy a better W-L though Pedro has a better W-L. Tough to tell from just those numbers and perhaps I am mistaken here and just going off of what I recall.
Are we really using wins and losses as a measuring stick?I looked up the numbers - indeed Maddux did have a lower ERA, and in regard to Randy a better W-L though Pedro has a better W-L. Tough to tell from just those numbers and perhaps I am mistaken here and just going off of what I recall.
While it may mean little without context, in the end, pitching (like quarterbacking to a degree) is about winning. It is not the measuring stick, but I certainly wouldnt ignore it, especially for a starting pitcher.Thunderlips said:Are we really using wins and losses as a measuring stick?Koya said:I looked up the numbers - indeed Maddux did have a lower ERA, and in regard to Randy a better W-L though Pedro has a better W-L. Tough to tell from just those numbers and perhaps I am mistaken here and just going off of what I recall.Just Win Baby said:
