Stuff to See!

More on the Best Pitchers

I wrote at moderate length the other day about a couple of pitchers, Roger Clemens and Nolan Ryan, and made some vague remarks comparing one to the other. On the whole, I think Clemens is a cut above Ryan, actually more like two or three cuts. That got me thinking about Clemens's place in the history of baseball.
I'm sure some people think that The Rocket is the best pitcher ever to play the game. Honestly, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree more with that assessment. The idea has been kicking around in my head for a while, so I've decided to explore it. I'll start with a comparison between Clemens and his contemporaries today, then I'll attempt the same comparison with some of the All Time Greats (TM).
Clemens's career is approaching its end. As a result, his numbers compare favorably against nearly every other pitcher active today. The following is a list of active starting pitchers who have at least 200 wins (along with their won-loss records):

• Roger Clemens (320-163)
• Greg Maddux (297-170)
• Tom Glavine (258-165)
• Randy Johnson (240-121)
• Mike Mussina (208-116)
• David Wells (205-133)
• Kevin Brown (204-132)
• Chuck Finley (200-173)

Finley and Wells are at the end of their careers. Their stats, while impressive, do not compare favorably to pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Brown is injury-prone and heading toward the twilight of his career as well. Mussina is in his 14th season and should end his career with between 250-275 wins, although there is an outside chance he could reach 300. Johnson may have one or two more years left, and he has a good chance of being number one on the all time strikeouts/9 innings list, although he may, at best, reach 260 wins. Glavine and Maddux are in decline, although Maddux is a lock for 300 wins. Out of the list above, I'd say Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson will be locks for the Hall of Fame, with Glavine as a near-lock, and Mussina as a 50/50 shot.
In addition to the above, I'd like to add Pedro Martinez (.715 winning percentage, 176-70, 2,546 strikeouts). Pedro will probably make the Hall as well, even if he retires after this year. Cy Young awards for the pitchers above, and Pedro:

• Roger Clemens (6)
• Randy Johnson (5)
• Greg Maddux (4)
• Pedro Martinez (3)
• Tom Glavine (2)

A pretty nice rotation, there. All five are virtual locks for the Hall of Fame, and only Pedro has fewer than 200 wins, which he should achieve if he's even close to healthy for the next three years. I hesitate to add any of the younger pitchers, or any relief pitchers, or other cases like Curt Schilling (174 wins, 2,660 strikeouts) or John Smoltz (1 Cy Young, 163 wins, 127 saves, 2,357 strikeouts), who may be part of the conversation. The five pitchers above are the cream of the last 20 years. Glavine doesn't match up in terms of raw stats. Johnson won't reach 300 wins, although he may conceivably get another Cy Young (then again, so could Clemens) or overtake Clemens in strikeouts (unlikely, but possible). Maddux won't win any more Cy Youngs, and shouldn't pass Clemens in wins or strikeouts. Basically, that leaves Pedro.
Pedro's main disadvantage is durability. He still has a few years in the tank, but he's prone to shoulder injuries, and his dominance is waning somewhat. He may get to 250 wins, but he may not. On a single game basis, I'd probably take Pedro over Clemens if Pedro's on top of his game, but on a career basis, I'd have to stick with Clemens. After five years, if Pedro pitches lights out, he may well come out as the number one, but recent history doesn't support that outcome. Clemens has dominated for 20 years, Pedro for 12, and only twice has Pedro reached 20 wins. He's similar to Sandy Koufax in that he's a transcendently dominant pitcher, but hampered by long term durability. Like Koufax, Pedro should reach the Hall of Fame, and on slightly better credentials. Clemens will reach by an overwhelming vote, perhaps passing 99%.
In terms of overall performance, I'd rank the five pitchers above in this order: Clemens, Johnson/Maddux/Pedro, Glavine. It's easier to peg Clemens at number one than to make the case for the exact order of the 2-4 pitchers. At any rate, I don't see any of them reaching Clemens's total body of work. For that matter, I don't see any currently active pitcher making a run at Clemens.
What about the All Time Greats? Who are they? Here's another list:

• Walter Johnson
• Lefty Grove
• Pete "Grover Cleveland" Alexander
• Cy Young
• Christy Mathewson
• Warren Spahn
• Tom Seaver
• Sandy Koufax
• Nolan Ryan

The game of baseball before World War I was radically different from the game of the 1980s and after. Indeed, prior to 1947, segregation kept some of the best players from competing against everyone else. Imagine Satchel Paige pitching in the majors for nearly 30 years, or Bullet Joe Rogan for 20, or even the impact offensive players like Oscar Charleston or Josh Gibson would have had in the majors. Walter Johnson won 417 games between 1907 and 1927. Assuming his talent remained the same, 70 years later he may have been lucky to win 300. Or, to turn that idea around, move Roger Clemens to the dead ball years between 1900-1920...he may have won 450 to 500 games, although he may not have had the opportunity to practice his exercise regimen in the offseason when he would have had to find a winter job between baseball seasons. Or Clemens may have been shelled in the 1920s against the likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, or Honus Wagner.
Lefty Grove has a better winning percentage than Clemens, but ranks lower in total wins and far lower in strikeouts. Alexander, Young, Mathewson, and Spahn trump Clemens in wins, but fail in strikeouts, although Mathewson has a comparable winning percentage. All have lower ERAs, although all (save Spahn) played in an age where pitching outstripped hitting, and Spahn's career straddles integration in baseball on one end (1942, 1946-1955) and a dead ball era on the other (1955-1965). Clemens has made his mark in an era where offense was the rule and the pitching mound wasn't 15 inches high. Add to that the possible demerit caused by segregation and the effect of year-round conditioning on performance and most of the pre WW II pitchers, and Warren Spahn, represent quantities we can't quite relate to modern-day performance. I'll say that they belong in the conversation concerning the greatest ever, but I can't vouch for any one of them conclusively. The Big Train (Walter Johnson) is probably the best of that crew, but a case can be made for any of them (particularly Grove, Mathewson, and Spahn).
What about the post-WWII pitchers, Ryan, Seaver, and Koufax? Koufax's career was very short, truncated by elbow problems which Tommy John surgery would likely rectify today. Who knows how he would have pitched for another 5-10 years (he lasted twelve years total, like Pedro, only his stats don't quite match Pedro's)? In point of fact, the sum doesn't match Clemens?
Nolan Ryan? Ryan, as I've mentioned before, is a unique case? In Ryan, we have a pitcher who is the all time leader in strikeouts (5,714), and third on the list with 292 losses. He tops the charts with 7 no-hitters, but also with 2,795 walks. Apart from his won-lost record, the walks and strikeouts (8,509 total) point to the kind of pitcher Ryan was: one of a kind. He was the most unhittable pitcher ever, certainly, but not even close to being the best. Even considering that his career was spent with some lousy teams, just look at Steve Carlton, or Tom Seaver, to see how a pitcher can transcend a team's poor performance. In point of fact, aside from some mind-boggling stats which can't be completely ignored, Ryan isn't in the conversation for the greatest pitcher ever. Again, maybe 20th, or 30th, but not anywhere near the top ten.
That leaves Tom Seaver. Seaver had 311 wins, 3,640 strikeouts. Oddly enough, Seaver and Clemens were teammates in 1986. Seaver pitched for the Miracle Mets in 1969 (when they swept my beloved Orioles, although I was not even a sperm cell at that time), but had pretty rotten luck with the rest of his career (including missing out on the Big Red Machine by joining Cincinnati in 1977, the year of my birth). Perhaps on better teams, he may have posted better results. In fact, he and Clemens are pretty similar at numerous ages (according to Baseball-Reference.com, for one). Is Clemens better? The stats say yes, on the whole, but it's a close call. Indeed, it's a close call with a few of the other pitchers for All Time bragging rights, after attempting to account for park effects, era effects, and other things of which I remain blissfully unaware. There's nothing cast in stone which makes Clemens the best pitcher ever, but the evidence which knocks him off of the hill is suspect at best. In the end, I'd be comfortable calling him one of the top five All Time, possibly number one, possibly number five.
I don't love Roger Clemens, although I respect the hell out of his career. Just to be able to witness someone who could be the all time best is enough for me to be thankful to have seen his entire career, more or less. I don't see anyone in the current crop of pitchers who will surpass him. Perhaps I never will.