Rank The Best Modern Day Pitchers

[BringBackJoeT]

Tim Wakefield. And not because I'm a Red Sox fan (I'm not). This is purely a longevity vote. For the 17th consecutive year, the dude has a job as a starting pitcher. That's amazing.

Also, wouldn't Hersheiser qualify in this time period?

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Tim Wakefield. And not because I'm a Red Sox fan (I'm not). This is purely a longevity vote. For the 17th consecutive year, the dude has a job as a starting pitcher. That's amazing.

Also, wouldn't Hersheiser qualify in this time period?

Tim Wakefield W 185/ L 160 4.32 era 1948 SO's. He's got longevity but that's about it. Not a HOF. A good mlb pitcher, but not in elite status.

OH pitched until 2000 w/ 204 wins/ 150 losses, 3.48 era, 2014 SO's

Not amongst the elite in my opinion. Great pitcher though.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by redsk1

Tim Wakefield W 185/ L 160 4.32 era 1948 SO's. He's got longevity but that's about it. Not a HOF. A good mlb pitcher, but not in elite status.
OH pitched until 2000 w/ 204 wins/ 150 losses, 3.48 era, 2014 SO's

Not amongst the elite in my opinion. Great pitcher though.

No question. I actually agree. It just struck me that the guy has been a starter almost throughout the entire time range we're talking about. But yes, during this time period, he's generally been just good enough to keep a job.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Tim Wakefield. And not because I'm a Red Sox fan (I'm not). This is purely a longevity vote. For the 17th consecutive year, the dude has a job as a starting pitcher. That's amazing.

Also, wouldn't Hersheiser qualify in this time period?

You want longevity, try Jamie Moyer

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Tim Wakefield. And not because I'm a Red Sox fan (I'm not). This is purely a longevity vote. For the 17th consecutive year, the dude has a job as a starting pitcher. That's amazing.

Also, wouldn't Hersheiser qualify in this time period?

Well, I am from Boston, and a huge Sox fan, but Wakefield shouldn't even be whispered in this thread. The man has had 7 losing seasons! He's had an era of 4.5 or higher 9 times (if you include thus far this year). He's had an era of 5 or higher 4 times! He certainly has a rubber arm, but you have to ask yourself, when was he ever a #1 pitcher for his own team? How about #2 pitcher? He's been a 3rd starter or worse his entire career. He's dependable, yes, but no way does he deserve any "best" moniker unless you are referring to his knuckleball ability.
Or how about best pitcher with a 76 MPH fastball. LOL.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Tim Wakefield. And not because I'm a Red Sox fan (I'm not). This is purely a longevity vote. For the 17th consecutive year, the dude has a job as a starting pitcher. That's amazing.

Also, wouldn't Hersheiser qualify in this time period?

Not tough to stay healthy when you throw 60 MPH...he's mediocre.

[jsarno]

There is no question that Roger Clemens was the best, or 2nd best pitcher of this era if you don't equate steroids...however, his steroids abuse totally negates his stats in my mind, just like Bonds. (no schilling cause of his suspected steroids abuse as well...although no concrete convictions...if any of the players on this list are suspected or accused, they drop off the list)

So here is my list,
1- Pedro Martinez (hands down)
2- Randy Johnson
3- Greg Maddux
4- John Smoltz
5- Johan Santana (will end up #2 on this list after career is over)
6- David Cone
7- Kevin Brown
8- Roy Halladay
9- Bret Saberhagen
10- Tom Glavine

I did not include any relievers cause they need their own thread. You can't compare closers to starters...just a totally different breed.

[GTripp0012]

I don't know if there will ever be a Maddux again. Ever. If it were not for Greg Maddux, I probably would not like baseball.

1. Greg Maddux - He's the face of the modern era. At least, the steroid-free modern era.

2. Pedro Martinez - My greatest wish for Zack Greinke is that his career looks something like Pedro's when it's all said and done. In his prime, no one has ever been better.

3. Randy Johnson - I don't think people realize just how good Randy Johnson has been. Curt Schilling was having some of his best years, and he was unquestionably his team's No. 2 starter.

4. Bert Blyleven - I know for sure that people don't realize how good he was. I'm counting him as part of the modern era since he's still HOF eligible.

5. Johan Santana - Over the last five years, no one in the game has been better.

6. Roy Halladay - Should have gotten the AL Cy Young last year over Cliff Lee. While Lee was more valuable by the pitch, Roy's amazing durability, inning eating ability, and strikeout consistency would have given him my vote. Five years from now, he's still going to be an annual Cy Young threat.

7. Tom Glavine - His remarkable durability often gets lost in reasons why the Braves were so good for so long, and even John Smoltz missed much of this decade and found himself in relief. Glavine has his perception a little bit by hanging on too long, but he's an absolute lock for the HOF, which Smoltz is not.

8. Roger Clemens - The other face of the era, for different reasons, Clemens was no better than the seventh or eight best pitcher, but was dominating in his prime, and did it for a long time.

9. Bret Saberhagen - In the late eighties, he was Pedro before there was a Pedro.

10. Mike Mussina - Numbers say: better than Schilling.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't know if there will ever be a Maddux again. Ever. If it were not for Greg Maddux, I probably would not like baseball.

1. Greg Maddux - He's the face of the modern era. At least, the steroid-free modern era.

2. Pedro Martinez - My greatest wish for Zack Greinke is that his career looks something like Pedro's when it's all said and done. In his prime, no one has ever been better.

3. Randy Johnson - I don't think people realize just how good Randy Johnson has been. Curt Schilling was having some of his best years, and he was unquestionably his team's No. 2 starter.

4. Bert Blyleven - I know for sure that people don't realize how good he was. I'm counting him as part of the modern era since he's still HOF eligible.

5. Johan Santana - Over the last five years, no one in the game has been better.

6. Roy Halladay - Should have gotten the AL Cy Young last year over Cliff Lee. While Lee was more valuable by the pitch, Roy's amazing durability, inning eating ability, and strikeout consistency would have given him my vote. Five years from now, he's still going to be an annual Cy Young threat.

7. Tom Glavine - His remarkable durability often gets lost in reasons why the Braves were so good for so long, and even John Smoltz missed much of this decade and found himself in relief. Glavine has his perception a little bit by hanging on too long, but he's an absolute lock for the HOF, which Smoltz is not.

8. Roger Clemens - The other face of the era, for different reasons, Clemens was no better than the seventh or eight best pitcher, but was dominating in his prime, and did it for a long time.

9. Bret Saberhagen - In the late eighties, he was Pedro before there was a Pedro.

10. Mike Mussina - Numbers say: better than Schilling.

Bert is overrated in a lot of minds, and underrated in a lot of others. In my mind he's overrated due to his .534 winning percentage. 287 wins, (in 685 starts) and he only had 1 20 win season (also one of the main reasons hes not in the hall). He had 8 .500 or worse seasons, and only 1 game over .500 4 times in his career.(that's 12 seasons of 1 game above .500 or worse in his career...not good) His longevity skews his numbers overall to make it appear as if he was a great pitcher, while in reality, he was a good pitcher. To be #4 on this list is a far stretch IMO. I wouldn't have said anything if he was #10 or so though. Not sure he can count as "in the modern day" since he started his career in 1970, and had 7 seasons with 37 or more starts, 1 with 40 which is unheard of in this day and age. His 242 CG is a stat that shows he's not really a modern day pitcher. Also, how many times do you see a pitcher above 260 innings pitched for a season? He has had 260 or more innings pitched 9 times, including a stretch of consecutive seasons with: 278.1, 287.1, 325, 281, 275.2, and 297.2 but DID NOT LEAD THE LEAGUE IN THAT CATAGORY. But I do get your point.
John Smoltz, Kevin Brown, and David Cone were all better pitchers IMO. Bert was not great, but certainly good. He's been on the cusp of the hall for a reason, and doesn't deserve it for a reason IMO.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Bert is overrated in a lot of minds, and underrated in a lot of others. In my mind he's overrated due to his .534 winning percentage. 287 wins, (in 685 starts) and he only had 1 20 win season (also one of the main reasons hes not in the hall). He had 8 .500 or worse seasons, and only 1 game over .500 4 times in his career.(that's 12 seasons of 1 game above .500 or worse in his career...not good) His longevity skews his numbers overall to make it appear as if he was a great pitcher, while in reality, he was a good pitcher. To be #4 on this list is a far stretch IMO. I wouldn't have said anything if he was #10 or so though. Not sure he can count as "in the modern day" since he started his career in 1970, and had 7 seasons with 37 or more starts, 1 with 40 which is unheard of in this day and age. His 242 CG is a stat that shows he's not really a modern day pitcher. Also, how many times do you see a pitcher above 260 innings pitched for a season? He has had 260 or more innings pitched 9 times, including a stretch of consecutive seasons with: 278.1, 287.1, 325, 281, 275.2, and 297.2 but DID NOT LEAD THE LEAGUE IN THAT CATAGORY. But I do get your point.
John Smoltz, Kevin Brown, and David Cone were all better pitchers IMO. Bert was not great, but certainly good. He's been on the cusp of the hall for a reason, and doesn't deserve it for a reason IMO.

Bert Blyleven Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

vs.

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.

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.

[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?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

4. Bert Blyleven - I know for sure that people don't realize how good he was. I'm counting him as part of the modern era since he's still HOF eligible.

8. Roger Clemens - The other face of the era, for different reasons, Clemens was no better than the seventh or eight best pitcher, but was dominating in his prime, and did it for a long time.

Sorry to make a remark about your post twice, hopefully you will see this as a chance for conversation and healthy debate, and not an attack. I assure you I am looking for healthy debate.

Why would you rank Blyleven ahead of Clemens? If you used the steroids argument, you will get absolutely no argument from me, but you didn't mention it in your comments.
Bert was only a 2 time all star, and never did better than 3rd place for cy votes. In fact, he only ranked in the top 10 4 times. (73, 84, 85, 89)
Clemens (20 game winner 6 times) won a Cy 7 times! 10 times he ranked 3rd or better in Cy votes, and 12 times in the top ten. He actually won an MVP and ranked in the top 10 in MVP votes 6 times! (none for Bert) He went to the all star game 11 times. Won the era title 7 times. (none for Bert) 5 time strike out champ. (1 time for Bert)
I am just not sure where you are getting your opinion from on this one.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Sorry to make a remark about your post twice, hopefully you will see this as a chance for conversation and healthy debate, and not an attack. I assure you I am looking for healthy debate.

Why would you rank Blyleven ahead of Clemens? If you used the steroids argument, you will get absolutely no argument from me, but you didn't mention it in your comments.
Bert was only a 2 time all star, and never did better than 3rd place for cy votes. In fact, he only ranked in the top 10 4 times. (73, 84, 85, 89)
Clemens (20 game winner 6 times) won a Cy 7 times! 10 times he ranked 3rd or better in Cy votes, and 12 times in the top ten. He actually won an MVP and ranked in the top 10 in MVP votes 6 times! (none for Bert) He went to the all star game 11 times. Won the era title 7 times. (none for Bert) 5 time strike out champ. (1 time for Bert)
I am just not sure where you are getting your opinion from on this one.

I think your assumption is that I'm supposed to value popularity voting contests over statistics/what a guy has actually done, but you know me better than that.

I also think you're too wrapped up in this Blyleven 4 vs. Clemens 8 thing. I ranked Blyleven above Clemens because he was more deserving. I would vote for him for the HoF before Clemens, if I had a vote. If you are asking me flat out: whos better, Clemens or Blyleven, Clemens has the numbers. I didn't envoke the steroid argument because it's only relevant if you are looking at career totals and comparing out of context, which you weren't doing.

As for the Cone's, Smoltz', and Kevin Brown, well, Bert was a little bit better. Not that they weren't great players. It doesn't make much sense to say Bert shouldn't be in the hall of fame, as he clearly should, but I wanted to get Clemens in my top ten because he was too good not to put there. I just don't think he's top five good.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think your assumption is that I'm supposed to value popularity voting contests over statistics/what a guy has actually done, but you know me better than that.

Come on man...do I really care about popularity? If it was 2 Cy's to none, sure, I see your point, but 7 to 0??? There is something there.

I also think you're too wrapped up in this Blyleven 4 vs. Clemens 8 thing. I ranked Blyleven above Clemens because he was more deserving. I would vote for him for the HoF before Clemens, if I had a vote. If you are asking me flat out: whos better, Clemens or Blyleven, Clemens has the numbers. I didn't envoke the steroid argument because it's only relevant if you are looking at career totals and comparing out of context, which you weren't doing.

Are you saying Clemens is better here? If so, yes, I am confused at how Bert was 4th on your list and Clemens was 8th.

As for the Cone's, Smoltz', and Kevin Brown, well, Bert was a little bit better. Not that they weren't great players. It doesn't make much sense to say Bert shouldn't be in the hall of fame, as he clearly should, but I wanted to get Clemens in my top ten because he was too good not to put there. I just don't think he's top five good.

Then why do you think he isn't?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't know if there will ever be a Maddux again. Ever. If it were not for Greg Maddux, I probably would not like baseball.

1. Greg Maddux - He's the face of the modern era. At least, the steroid-free modern era.

2. Pedro Martinez - My greatest wish for Zack Greinke is that his career looks something like Pedro's when it's all said and done. In his prime, no one has ever been better.

3. Randy Johnson - I don't think people realize just how good Randy Johnson has been. Curt Schilling was having some of his best years, and he was unquestionably his team's No. 2 starter.

4. Bert Blyleven - I know for sure that people don't realize how good he was. I'm counting him as part of the modern era since he's still HOF eligible.

5. Johan Santana - Over the last five years, no one in the game has been better.

6. Roy Halladay - Should have gotten the AL Cy Young last year over Cliff Lee. While Lee was more valuable by the pitch, Roy's amazing durability, inning eating ability, and strikeout consistency would have given him my vote. Five years from now, he's still going to be an annual Cy Young threat.

7. Tom Glavine - His remarkable durability often gets lost in reasons why the Braves were so good for so long, and even John Smoltz missed much of this decade and found himself in relief. Glavine has his perception a little bit by hanging on too long, but he's an absolute lock for the HOF, which Smoltz is not.

8. Roger Clemens - The other face of the era, for different reasons, Clemens was no better than the seventh or eight best pitcher, but was dominating in his prime, and did it for a long time.

9. Bret Saberhagen - In the late eighties, he was Pedro before there was a Pedro.

10. Mike Mussina - Numbers say: better than Schilling.

Great call with Saberhagen, he's usually forgotten.

I'd move Pedro way down and Clemens up o #1 or #2, but your list looks decent. Halladay and Santana will be on the list, but not yet. Replace him with maybe Kevin Appier or Chuck Finley.
Blyleven was great, but all but about his last 2 seasons were outside the past 20 years.

Mine:

1. GREG MADDUX
2. ROGER CLEMENS
3. RANDY JOHNSON
4. TOM GLAVINE
5. DAVID CONE
6. JOHN SMOLTZ
7. MIKE MUSSINA
8. PEDRO MARTINEZ
9. BRET SABERHAGEN
10. CHUCK FINLEY