Best Pitcher of this Generation

[Irishoshea21]

I had this argument on another message board..

 

Is it Maddux, Pedro, The Rocket??

 

By this generation, figure the last 20 years or so.

[rawaction]

I had this argument on another message board..

 

Is it Maddux, Pedro, The Rocket??

 

By this generation, figure the last 20 years or so.

 

Rocket, very close.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

one of those 3 or RJ

[Guest]

I had this argument on another message board..

 

Is it Maddux, Pedro, The Rocket??

 

By this generation, figure the last 20 years or so.

Per inning or sum total of work?

[Outshined_One]

At their peaks or overall?

[srbin84]

If we are just talking about the best and longevity isn't a factor, it's Pedro.

[goonys evil twin]

Rocket best overall. Maddux has been most consistently good, Pedro was best over shorter time.

[badgercub]

For their body of work I would go with Clemens. But Maddux would be extremely close behind I mean really close. Although he has less Cy Young awards I think you need to factor in that he has 15 Gold Gloves. I think Pedro would be a very distant third and if you include Randy Johnson, a very distant 4th. Pedro isn't as durable or efficient as either Clemens or Maddux.

[rawaction]

For their body of work I would go with Clemens. But Maddux would be extremely close behind I mean really close. Although he has less Cy Young awards I think you need to factor in that he has 15 Gold Gloves. I think Pedro would be a very distant third and if you include Randy Johnson, a very distant 4th. Pedro isn't as durable or efficient as either Clemens or Maddux.

 

I don't agree with the part about Pedro. Neither Maddux or Clemens was as good as Pedro was in their prime.

 

I'd probably go:

 

1. Clemens

2A. Maddux

2B. Pedro

4. Unit

[Guest]

On a per-inning basis, Pedro is easily the best pitcher of all time.

 

However, he has not been as durable during individual seasons nor has he yet had the chance for longevity of the other three.

[Soul]

Totality of career: pains me to say it, but it's Rocket.

 

Guy I'd least like to face in one at bat in the prime of his career: Pedro, or Randy Johnson. Pedro because of the mad stuff, and Johnson because he was just plain scary.

[badgercub]

For their body of work I would go with Clemens. But Maddux would be extremely close behind I mean really close. Although he has less Cy Young awards I think you need to factor in that he has 15 Gold Gloves. I think Pedro would be a very distant third and if you include Randy Johnson, a very distant 4th. Pedro isn't as durable or efficient as either Clemens or Maddux.

 

I don't agree with the part about Pedro. Neither Maddux or Clemens was as good as Pedro was in their prime.

 

I'd probably go:

 

1. Clemens

2A. Maddux

2B. Pedro

4. Unit

 

Don't misunderstand me, I think Pedro is great and "stuff" wise he may be better than all of them, that's why I prefaced my remarks by saying "for their body of work". I don't think Pedro will aproach anywhere near the amount of wins or the longevity of any of the guys I mentioned. His durability, when compared to them also comes into play.

 

edit: I know, I know, wins are more of a team stat, but I think over the course of a career they can be used to compare to some degree.

Edited April 18, 2006 by badgercub

[soccer10k]

If you are going by best overall career up to this point:

 

1. Clemens

2. Maddux

3. Pedro

 

Pedro hasn't done it long enough to warrant being ahead of Clemens or Maddux in terms of best career. If Pedro keeps it up for another 5 years, then I might put him higher.

 

If you are talking about who was the most dominant and who the opposing team didn't want to face then I would say:

 

1. Pedro

2. Maddux

3. Clemens

 

Pedro during the late 90's was the best pitcher in the league by far. He was downright nasty.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think I agree with the sentiment of most in this thread. Over a short period, none has been as dominant as Pedro.

 

On the other hand, Clemens and Maddux were good to very good for a much longer period than Pedro. Pedro still has some years to continue to be good, but right now I'd rank them:

 

1. Clemens

2. Maddux

3. Pedro

4. Unit

 

If Maddux can finish this year with a sub 3.00 ERA, I may have to adjust that list. :)

[soccer10k]

I think I agree with the sentiment of most in this thread. Over a short period, none has been as dominant as Pedro.

 

On the other hand, Clemens and Maddux were good to very good for a much longer period than Pedro. Pedro still has some years to continue to be good, but right now I'd rank them:

 

1. Clemens

2. Maddux

3. Pedro

4. Unit

 

If Maddux can finish this year with a sub 3.00 ERA, I may have to adjust that list. :)

 

Even if Maddux does that it's still nowhere near what Clemens did the last couple years with Houston. Maddux is close to Clemens, but he would have to win a Cy Young to pass Clemens in my book.

[UBlink]

Even if Maddux does that it's still nowhere near what Clemens did the last couple years with Houston. Maddux is close to Clemens, but he would have to win earn a Cy Young to pass Clemens in my book.

 

Fixed - I don't trust the Cy Young voters.

[TB_11]

Pedro during the late 90's was the best pitcher in the league by far. He was downright nasty.

 

Overall I'd put it Clemens, Maddux, Pedro. Clemens recent years of dominance in Houston and Maddux's recent years of average perforance put Clemens over the top.

 

Side point #1: IMO, from his last year at Montreal until his near-4.00 ERA year in Boston, Pedro was the most dominant starting pitcher ever.

 

Side point #2: This kind of surprised me, but of the three, Maddux has the best post-season ERA

 

Clemens: 3.71

Maddux: 3.22

Martinez: 3.40

[Bobson Dugnutt]

So does that leave Schilling as a definite #5? I don't think anyone would argue that he was better than one of those top 4 pitchers, but outside of them, I don't think there was anyone better than Schilling and I thought his name deserved mention in this thread.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So does that leave Schilling as a definite #5? I don't think anyone would argue that he was better than one of those top 4 pitchers, but outside of them, I don't think there was anyone better than Schilling and I thought his name deserved mention in this thread.

 

Glavine's career seems to be as good if not better than Schilling. Smoltz could enter the discussion here as well.

[goonys evil twin]

So does that leave Schilling as a definite #5? I don't think anyone would argue that he was better than one of those top 4 pitchers, but outside of them, I don't think there was anyone better than Schilling and I thought his name deserved mention in this thread.

 

I think at this stage you have to bring up guys like Glavine, Smoltz and even Wells or Mussina.

[rawaction]

For their body of work I would go with Clemens. But Maddux would be extremely close behind I mean really close. Although he has less Cy Young awards I think you need to factor in that he has 15 Gold Gloves. I think Pedro would be a very distant third and if you include Randy Johnson, a very distant 4th. Pedro isn't as durable or efficient as either Clemens or Maddux.

 

I don't agree with the part about Pedro. Neither Maddux or Clemens was as good as Pedro was in their prime.

 

I'd probably go:

 

1. Clemens

2A. Maddux

2B. Pedro

4. Unit

 

Don't misunderstand me, I think Pedro is great and "stuff" wise he may be better than all of them, that's why I prefaced my remarks by saying "for their body of work". I don't think Pedro will aproach anywhere near the amount of wins or the longevity of any of the guys I mentioned. His durability, when compared to them also comes into play.

 

edit: I know, I know, wins are more of a team stat, but I think over the course of a career they can be used to compare to some degree.

 

Yeah, I understand. I just give Pedro more credit for being more dominant than the other 2. And even though his career hasn't and won't be nearly as long....he was still a top 3 SP for a good number of years (about 7-8).

[TheDude]

The discussion is slightly curbed by the fact that "this generation" is being generously stretched.

 

Pedro first real year as starting pitcher - 1994

Maddux first real year as starting pitcher - 1987

Clemens first real year as starting paitcher - 1984

 

Pedro is 10 years behind Clemens and 7 behind Maddux, so doesn't have the body of work to compare to others.

 

To make the discussion closer to relevant, consider (with health assumptions) a projected Pedro 7 years from with 70-100 more wins and 1000 more K's. Does that change anyones order?

 

The other thing to consider is that you stick Clemens and Maddux in with a mid-80's generation and Pedro with the mid-90's generation.

Edited April 18, 2006 by TheDude

[soccer10k]

Even if Maddux does that it's still nowhere near what Clemens did the last couple years with Houston. Maddux is close to Clemens, but he would have to win earn a Cy Young to pass Clemens in my book.

 

Fixed - I don't trust the Cy Young voters.

 

Thank you. How about Maddux needs to have a Cy Young worthy season.

[K-Town]

From an ERA+ perspective, you'd have to put Pedro at the top. RJ and Clemens both fare better than Maddux in ERA+ and strikeout numbers......and their ability to flat-out dominate a game, so I'd put them on the next level. Maddux is probably a notch below (although you have to give him credit for his longevity).

[daske17]

I think at this stage you have to bring up guys like Glavine, Smoltz and even Wells or Mussina.

 

Apropos of nothing, Mike Mussina has made over $103 million in his career. I mean come on!

 

Of course, Maddux has made over $124 million, Clemens has made $121 million and Randy Johnson has made $127 million.