eagles2007
Footballguy
Knowing what we know about Roger now, does that change your opinion of history?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Greg Maddux vs. Roger Clemens (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter eagles2007
- Start date
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
So because Pedro had better individual years he's a better pitcher than Clemens or Maddux across the era?
No. Those guys will be considered the best of this era in ten, 50, and 100 years from now and Pedro will be the great pitcher that couldn't stay healthy. He's the Rude Waddell of the Steroid era.
No. Those guys will be considered the best of this era in ten, 50, and 100 years from now and Pedro will be the great pitcher that couldn't stay healthy. He's the Rude Waddell of the Steroid era.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
W WHIP K ERA+ Cy YoungMaddux 347 1.14 3273 134 4Roger 354 1.17 4672 143 7Pedro 209 1.03 3030 161 3Randy 284 1.16 4616 138 5
They are all going to the HOF bur Clemens is clearly the best pitcher of his era and one of the best pitchers ever (not the best though). I don't think you can say that about the others although Maddux will likely be considered a top ten ever guy by historians.
They are all going to the HOF bur Clemens is clearly the best pitcher of his era and one of the best pitchers ever (not the best though). I don't think you can say that about the others although Maddux will likely be considered a top ten ever guy by historians.
IMO, I'd take Pedro in his prime over either of those two.5 best years in ERA+ (full seasons)edro 291, 243, 219, 210, 202 = 1165Maddux 271, 262, 189, 187, 166 = 1075Clemens 226, 221, 213, 175, 169 = 1004
Jefferson the Caregiver
Rebel Without A Pause
Roger is not the best pitcher of era, when you take into account everything after '97 is suspect. Those 354 wins are just padded stats.Roger's last three years with the Red Sox, 1994, 1995 and 1996 were sub par to his previous, he was trending down. We saw a nice spike in ERA, Wins and WHIP when he went to Toronto and met McNamee. When over half of the guy's career is suspect, I don't think you can start labelling him the best pitcher of his generation.I don't think this guy is going to be automatic first ballot. A lot of writers are going to take a stand here, it should be interesting.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Here's the deal, I'm not the only one who has said this and a lot of guys yesterday including guys like Gammons said he was the best pitcher of his era. Many have called him the greatest pitcher of all time! If you think someone else is better fine with me, but they aren't by the numbers. This goes back to the Bonds argument all over again and I'm not going to do this again with people who won't bend on the issue. How do you know that 80 percent of the pichers in baseball didn't use steroids? Seriously. Do you know? Do you have your own list? Is Pedro on there? Also what exactly do we know about Clemens steroid taking outside of this one witness? What if he was lying? Serious question.
NY/NJMFDIVER
Footballguy
You guys are REALLY selling short the accomplishment of being well into the 300's win wise. We had basically not seen that done post world war too, it was a bench mark that most guys hit and then retired thereafter. I'm not going to say Maddux is what he was, but he's remained a very capable starting pitcher. Clemens was more or less fried once he started juicing, I don't doubt he could have squeaked past 300, but he would have never soared past it without the juice.
Regarding Randy and Pedro, they were too inconsistent and had too many down years to be seriously considered in this debate. Maddux, for post to post performance, is really a remarkable achiever, and its rather fashionable to call wins "lucky", which of course they are in some regard, but I refuse to believe you get lucky 340 plus times. Durability is part of the equation, and putting it all together, I would put Maddux at the king of the hill.
One last point, inevitably someone will bring up the "big game" aspect, but whats funny is, none of these guys have spotless records. I would suppose Randy Johnson has the most success, so long as he was lining up against the Yankees in the postseason, but I don't think any one of these guys was that far superior to the other to include that argument. If we are going to the "one pitcher to win one game" argument, give me Smoltz for the record.
Regarding Randy and Pedro, they were too inconsistent and had too many down years to be seriously considered in this debate. Maddux, for post to post performance, is really a remarkable achiever, and its rather fashionable to call wins "lucky", which of course they are in some regard, but I refuse to believe you get lucky 340 plus times. Durability is part of the equation, and putting it all together, I would put Maddux at the king of the hill.
One last point, inevitably someone will bring up the "big game" aspect, but whats funny is, none of these guys have spotless records. I would suppose Randy Johnson has the most success, so long as he was lining up against the Yankees in the postseason, but I don't think any one of these guys was that far superior to the other to include that argument. If we are going to the "one pitcher to win one game" argument, give me Smoltz for the record.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Clemens is the best pitcher of this era and a top 3 all time in the history of the game. No question.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Poll:What color do you like more?-Red-GreenYour answer: I'll take blue and brown over either of them.
shadyridr
Footballguy
The poll asks:Poll:What color do you like more?
-Red
-Green
Your answer: I'll take blue and brown over either of them.
I dont think either are. You'd have a point if the poll asked who the Better pitcher was or if you changed your fake poll to say What color do you like best? But then your fake answer wouldnt make any sense
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
So blue?The poll asks:Poll:What color do you like more?
-Red
-Green
Your answer: I'll take blue and brown over either of them.I dont think either are. You'd have a point if the poll asked who the Better pitcher was or if you changed your fake poll to say What color do you like best? But then your fake answer wouldnt make any sense
NY/NJMFDIVER
Footballguy
Not my argument, but I just wanted to jump in. I think to put this in context, and what got Bonds in so much trouble, is that there is not a galaxy of contemporaries that Clemens or Bonds is competing with for this ethereal designation as "the greatest" or "one of the greatest", etc. The small field includes certainly Maddux, and reasonably Randy and Pedro. Medicine and training is in constant evolution, and I don't doubt we would have seen an uptick in performance for older players as training improved, but in regard to other pitchers, lets say Maddux perhaps fits the profile better of a guy who didn't juice. His stuff and velocity fell off into his 40's, he was not a Cy Young winner or even contender, as Clemens was in his 40's. Basically we have the entire human history of pitching running contrary to what Clemens did, with small exceptions like Ryan or Satchel Paige. And hell, Nolan, who knows, but there has never been a real reason to suspect him, and while he never had the best command, Clemens basically did things we never saw. So you can assume he was a total freak with amazing genes and a tremendous work ethic(both of which I'm sure he enjoyed) or you can assume it was steriods that made this possible. Ditto Bonds, but his achievement is almost more singularly remarkable. If you ranked the ten best offensive seasons post the age of 35, I would think Bonds would have had 5 of them. He did things we never saw at an age of players we never thought this possible, so the same argument exists. Good genes, good training and good fortune or good drugs?
Its basically a 12 year olds argument we are playing out here, but if you are going to weigh Barry Bonds versus Willie Mays, I would think the drug factor is not something could divorce from the equation, as you could not with Clemens versus Steve Carlton. One was clearly a leg up that is at best an ethical question and at worst a legal one.
In regard to the "did other players do it" stuff, plaininly in my mind I would assume they did. But this debate is about the ones where some fairly strong evidence exists that they did this. Do you think Pete Rose is the only guy in uniform to bet on baseball since 1919? I personally don't, but he's the only one to get pinched, and when you're pinched you pay the price.
If Clemens is clean, if this holds up in a slander, libel or whatever lawsuit is deemed appropriate, I hope he wins major damages from MLB. Plenty of legal experts seem to think he has an outstanding case, and I hate to think of the guy needing to go out of pocket into litigation, but while he might not have played in the mud, he certainly was close enough to get dirty, and I don't have total sympathy. And neither you nor I are stupid(maybe I'm being presumptious in my case, but go with me). You KNOW he did the juice. There are too many dots connecting, but I'm sort of going on the second hand, and I'm hoping to read the Clemens stuff in particular tomorrow morning, so my opinion is subject to evolve.
If the drugs are not germaine to the argument, then what competitive advantage is in regard to building these arguments? Is any cheating that results in popping the stats justified and admissiable in deciding who is the greatest? There is a line somewhere, and as near as I can tell, this as a good a line as any. Its not something that happened in the context of the game that could be punished between the lines like a corked bat or a scuffed ball.
Its unfortunate we are in a situation where its "guilty before proven innocent", and because of that, I think its imperative that Selig not punish these guys. They have not had their due process, and on their day in court, all might bear out that they were wrong. Were I Selig, I would establish a structure where players who are now outside of baseball could appeal their inclusion if they so desire, and I would encourage any players wrongly named to go out and clear it. If Clemens didn't do it, I will listen to what he has to say. But the fact is, I expect less than 5 percent of these guys to take any serious action to refute what was said, because everything points it being true. If anything, I would expect to see more of what you mentioned, where Clemens will bring down other guys he pitched with on the juice to bring light to the scope and breadth of the using.
The issue of steroid should not come into the debate over who is the better pitcher. You may disagree with HOW he became a great pitcher, but on the field the stats speak for themselves.
I can understand how people might pick Maddux over Clemens - I lived in Atlanta during their glory years - 1991-2001. But the choice should be made on the stats, and not because you think Maddux is a nicer person, or he is not tied into the steroid scandal.
Those issues might come into play when it comes time to vote on the HOF, but in terms of who was the better pitcher it is a much more objective opinion.
I voted for Clemens, but I think both pitcher belong in the conversation of top pitchers of all time. I don't think anyone else from this era will be considered a top-10 pitcher.
I can understand how people might pick Maddux over Clemens - I lived in Atlanta during their glory years - 1991-2001. But the choice should be made on the stats, and not because you think Maddux is a nicer person, or he is not tied into the steroid scandal.
Those issues might come into play when it comes time to vote on the HOF, but in terms of who was the better pitcher it is a much more objective opinion.
I voted for Clemens, but I think both pitcher belong in the conversation of top pitchers of all time. I don't think anyone else from this era will be considered a top-10 pitcher.
NY/NJMFDIVER
Footballguy
These debates are not in a vaccum and always about context. Thats kind of the point of arguing, stats are not entirely definative. How can you not weight MLB players pre WW2 versus players who played in the golden era versus guys who played in the expansion era? When you restrict a quarter or so of the best baseball players based on race, for instance, you don't separate that?
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The stats will show that Clemens pitched LONGER THAN Pedro, but their peripheral stats will show that Pedro pitched better overall when he pitched.
Of the guys mentioned here, here are their numbers . . .
Pedro
2.80 ERA (100th all time)
.693 Winning % (3rd)
1.03 WHIP (3rd)
6.89 H/9 (5th)
10.2 K/9 (3rd)
4.28 K/BB (3rd)
161 ERA+ (1st)
Rocket
3.14 ERA (Not in Top 100)
.658 Winning % (21st)
1.173 WHIP (86th)
7.66 H/9 (44th)
8.55 K/9 (14th)
2.96 K/BB (31st)
143 ERA+ (9th)
Maddux
3.11 ERA (Not in Top 100)
.619 Winning % (68th)
1.141 WHIP (46th)
8.45 H/9 (21st)
6.12 K/9 (Not in Top 100)
3.38 K/BB (15th)
134 ERA+ (24th)
Big Unit
3.22 (Not in Top 100)
.654 Winning % (24th)
1.164 WHIP (76th)
7.16 H/9 (12th)
10.78 K/9 (1st)
3.25 K/BB (20th)
138 ERA+ (17th)
Of the guys mentioned here, here are their numbers . . .
Pedro
2.80 ERA (100th all time)
.693 Winning % (3rd)
1.03 WHIP (3rd)
6.89 H/9 (5th)
10.2 K/9 (3rd)
4.28 K/BB (3rd)
161 ERA+ (1st)
Rocket
3.14 ERA (Not in Top 100)
.658 Winning % (21st)
1.173 WHIP (86th)
7.66 H/9 (44th)
8.55 K/9 (14th)
2.96 K/BB (31st)
143 ERA+ (9th)
Maddux
3.11 ERA (Not in Top 100)
.619 Winning % (68th)
1.141 WHIP (46th)
8.45 H/9 (21st)
6.12 K/9 (Not in Top 100)
3.38 K/BB (15th)
134 ERA+ (24th)
Big Unit
3.22 (Not in Top 100)
.654 Winning % (24th)
1.164 WHIP (76th)
7.16 H/9 (12th)
10.78 K/9 (1st)
3.25 K/BB (20th)
138 ERA+ (17th)
boom king
Footballguy
VERY
I don't think you do. (Which is not to say that a reasonable person must separate the issues). But the question here is compare player A to player B - each played in the same ERA, and faced the same basic quality of opponents. You can make some adjustments for the different leagues, but for teh most part when you decide who is the better player, you back it up with some statistical evidence. YOu don't simply say - I saw so and so pitch and he had the best delivery I ever saw, so he must be the best pitcher of his era. Or, Player A had the sweetest swing I saw in teh last 10 years, he must be the best hitter.Again, I can see people making an argument that Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens. But, not simply because Clemens allegedly used steroids. The steroids may have helped Clemens be a better pitcher, but they do not detract from the objective question of who was better pitcher. HOF? Different criteria - I think drug usage will be a factor. And there is no question that as of today, Maddux is a first ballot HOFer. Clemens may not be so lucky.I do think this ultimately helps Bonds and maybe McGwire in their HOF bids.
Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll
Footballguy
Yep.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I concur..Clemons career is a sham now.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Damn good stuff in there.NY/NJMFDIVER said:
dparker713
Footballguy
The evidence Ive seen so far against Clemens is shakey, so Im not about to pass judgement on him yet. Based on their careers, I think Roger is clearly the better pitcher than Maddox. As for Pedro, he just didnt pitch enough games to merit consideration. Longevity has always been a major factor in determining the greatest players in baseball, and he just doesnt have any. Pedro is more akin to Koufax than Walter Johnson.
Right now, Im highly suspecious of Clemens, but Im not about to throw him under the bus yet. After all, at this point there seems to be 1 more witness to Roger doing steroids than Maddox.
Right now, Im highly suspecious of Clemens, but Im not about to throw him under the bus yet. After all, at this point there seems to be 1 more witness to Roger doing steroids than Maddox.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Yes.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
So, back to the question: Maddux or Clemens?
the moops
Footballguy
No, he's still a doosh
Last edited by a moderator:
eagles2007
Footballguy
For those citing Clemens' numbers, aren't they at least somewhat affected by the fact that he was (probably) on something? It would be hard to convince me that without the juice he accumulates the stats he does.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I'm still not ready to concede that Pedro will not be thought of in the same light (or better) than Clemens, Maddux, or Johnson as his career is not over. Here are some of the stats for all these guys through age 35. Everyne else included here went on to pitched many more seasons than Martinez has to date.
Pedro: 209-93, 2673 IP, 3030 Ks
Maddux: 257-146, 3551 IP, 2523 Ks
Clemens: 233-124, 3275 IP, 3153 Ks
Johnson: 160-88, 2248 IP, 2693 Ks
Glavine: 224-132, 3120 IP, 1927 Ks
The fact of the matter is we have no idea what Pedro will do from this point forward. It seems reasonable to expect that he is fraile and will faulter, but we don't know that. Another thing to consider is that he is now in the NATIONAL League, which not coincidentally is where all the other pitchers on this list were when they were able to pitch into their 40s (for the most part). And as we all know, the NL has been way more favorable to pitching totals than the AL has.
On the flip side, Pedro's prior success is certainly not a harbinger of future success, so there's nothing that says he will continue to be productive heading forward. But IMO it is not totally out of the question that if he were to pitch as long as these other pitchers (admittedly a HUGE if), that his totals would get him into the consideration as one of the best of all time. As I already pointed out, his peripheral numbers are off the chart and if he approaches the career totals of these other players I don't see how he could not be included in the conversaion of best of an era.
Pedro: 209-93, 2673 IP, 3030 Ks
Maddux: 257-146, 3551 IP, 2523 Ks
Clemens: 233-124, 3275 IP, 3153 Ks
Johnson: 160-88, 2248 IP, 2693 Ks
Glavine: 224-132, 3120 IP, 1927 Ks
The fact of the matter is we have no idea what Pedro will do from this point forward. It seems reasonable to expect that he is fraile and will faulter, but we don't know that. Another thing to consider is that he is now in the NATIONAL League, which not coincidentally is where all the other pitchers on this list were when they were able to pitch into their 40s (for the most part). And as we all know, the NL has been way more favorable to pitching totals than the AL has.
On the flip side, Pedro's prior success is certainly not a harbinger of future success, so there's nothing that says he will continue to be productive heading forward. But IMO it is not totally out of the question that if he were to pitch as long as these other pitchers (admittedly a HUGE if), that his totals would get him into the consideration as one of the best of all time. As I already pointed out, his peripheral numbers are off the chart and if he approaches the career totals of these other players I don't see how he could not be included in the conversaion of best of an era.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
No.Greg Maddux.
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
Roger Clemens no longer exists. Sorry, you'll have to change your answer.
wilked
Footballguy
Extremely
phthalatemagic
Footballguy
High confidence level?Extremely
NY/NJMFDIVER
Footballguy
glad to see Maddux running away with this one!
NY/NJMFDIVER
Footballguy
Awesome, never saw that before!
Similar threads
