Rank The Best Modern Day Pitchers

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Bert Blyleven Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

vs.

Roger Clemens Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

David Cone Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

Kevin Brown Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

John Smoltz Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

It's all about who's better. Clemens, of course, could have been much higher, although much of his value was based on the fact that he didn't decline naturally over his 40's. So, you know, a few 5.00 ERA seasons in his 40's and his career probably isn't as good as Blyleven's.

Clemens only won 1 of his 7 cy youngs in his 40's though. Again, if you use the steroids argument, I won't make a peep. But if you are not using the steroids argument, you have to go solely on merit / stats. Bert isn't even in the same ball park as Clemens in those catagories. Clemens pitched IN THE STEROID era, and had a better ERA.
Clemens 162 game average season- 17-9, 3.12 era, 236 IP / 224 so, 1.173 WHIP.
Bert 162 game average season- 14-12, 3.31 era, 245 IP / 183 so, 1.198. Again, keep in mind, during Bert's prime, it was not the steroid era like in Clemens prime, meaning his numbers should be less than those of Clemens.

I'm not going to dock Clemens past what he actually was, which is one of the ten best pitchers of the modern era, and maybe top five, plus he won multiple Cy Youngs, but always was a little overrated. One thing I can't dispute is that a great Clemens season was much better than a great Blyleven season, but the median season from either was pretty comparable. For a guy who surely would have been in the HOF, Clemens had a lot of mediocre seasons over his 30's (93, 95, the Yankee years). That's what catches my eye.

But if you use Clemens in his 30's as a bar, what about Bert?
Bert had a 3.911 era average over his 30's
Roger had a 3.598 era average over his 30's...almost a half a run better era.
also
Bert during his 30's had 123 wins (or 12.3 wins per season) and 97 losses (or 9.7 losses per season)
Roger during his 30's had 141 wins (or 14.1 wins per season) and 79 losses (or 7.9 losses per season)
So to compare their thirties, there is no comparison. Roger was 14.1 - 7.9 with a 3.598 era, while Bert was 12.3 - 9.7 with a 3.911 era.

Is there actual statistical evidence to support your argument, or is it all opinion?