- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Greatest Pitching Rotation of All Time — and It’s Not Close
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:23 am to GamecockAlum
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:23 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
baseball-reference lists Maddux has the 5th best pitcher of all-time. They have Pedro, Randy, and Roger at 10, 11, and 12.
Clemens > Maddux. Other than that, the rankings looks about right.
2
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:28 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Clemens > Maddux
bullshite
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:50 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Clemens > Maddux
Are we talking roided up Clemens or natural Clemens?
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:53 am to SPEEDY
quote:
Are we talking roided up Clemens or natural Clemens?
Both. Just like roided up Bonds and natural Bonds was better than Griffey except the gap between Clemens and Maddux is a lot smaller than it is between Bonds and Griffey.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:57 am to Bench McElroy
Regular Season Clemens = Regular Season Maddux
Postseason Maddux > Postseason Clemens
Defensive Maddux >>>> Defensive Clemens
Therefore:
Maddux > Clemens
Postseason Maddux > Postseason Clemens
Defensive Maddux >>>> Defensive Clemens
Therefore:
Maddux > Clemens
This post was edited on 4/4/11 at 2:57 am
Posted on 4/4/11 at 2:59 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
natural Bonds was better than Griffey
Wait what?
Posted on 4/4/11 at 3:11 am to SPEEDY
quote:
Postseason Maddux > Postseason Clemens
Oh please. Maddux wasn't even the best postseason pitcher on his own team's staff. If I needed my favorite team to win one game in the postseason, I would take Smoltz ten times out of ten over Maddux. The only thing Maddux has on Clemens in the postseason is ERA. Clemens had a lower WHIP, more strikeouts per nine innings pitched, a better strikeout to walk ratio, allowed fewer hits per 9 innings pitched and had a superior won-loss% record in the postseason. He was better in all of those areas despite pitching a majority of those innings in the much tougher, more offensively minded American League.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 3:47 am to Bench McElroy
Hits don't mean shite unless the runner touches home, homeboy.
I'd take Pedro over both of them in the playoffs.
Or Curt Schilling if he was wielding the bloody sock.
I'd take Pedro over both of them in the playoffs.
Or Curt Schilling if he was wielding the bloody sock.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 3:59 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Wait what?
Bonds was better than Griffey even before the steroids, however I don't think the gap is as big as most on here would consider it to be.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 4:04 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
Bonds was better than Griffey even before the steroids
Not. A. Chance.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 4:20 am to GamecockAlum
without the injuries griffey makes bonds his bitch. also, maddux>clemens.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 5:45 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
Not. A. Chance.
Go look at the numbers. Baseball is a stats sport. And the stats support Bonds.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 6:44 am to GamecockAlum
quote:
natural Bonds was better than Griffey
Wait what?
No doubt that natural Bonds was better than Griffey. He had already won 3 MVP awards by then. Check their stats through 1998 for a fair comparison because it is widely assumed that Bonds began taking steroids in 1999.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 7:12 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Oh please. Maddux wasn't even the best postseason pitcher on his own team's staff. If I needed my favorite team to win one game in the postseason, I would take Smoltz ten times out of ten over Maddux.
Smoltz is one of the greatest postseason pitchers of all time. There is no shame in being second to him
And what does that have to do with Maddux being a better postseason pitcher than Clemens?? Nothing
quote:
The only thing Maddux has on Clemens in the postseason is ERA.
By a half a run. That is huge
quote:
Clemens had a lower WHIP
1.24 to 1.22
HUGE advantage for Clemens there...
Thanks to 16 intentional walks, Clemens has the edge. That .03 difference equates to 3 hits/walks over 199 innings.
that is a push IMO
quote:
more strikeouts per nine innings pitched
Clemens struck out more people than Maddux? shocking
quote:
a better strikeout to walk ratio
2.45 to 2.47
Thank you IBB
quote:
allowed fewer hits per 9 innings pitched
They both basically pitched the same amount of innings., (198 to 199 innings).
Maddux made up this difference by walking less batters
quote:
and had a superior won-loss% record in the postseason
Team stat. Maddux couldn't help it that the Braves hitters chocked in the postseason. To use that against him is unfair
Maddux started 5 games in the World Series, pitching 38 2/3 innings. His World Series ERA was 2.09, yet his record was only 2-3. Most people hold the 2-3 record against him, even though that is one of the best career World Series ERAs in history
This post was edited on 4/4/11 at 7:20 am
Posted on 4/4/11 at 7:20 am to Vicks Kennel Club
Looking for a good stat about Maddux.
In 1997, won 19 games and had 20 WALKS that year!
10 times in his career, he had the same amount or less walks than games started. A couple of other times, he was within one or two.
Clemens was a thrower. Maddux was a pitcher.
In 1997, won 19 games and had 20 WALKS that year!
10 times in his career, he had the same amount or less walks than games started. A couple of other times, he was within one or two.
Clemens was a thrower. Maddux was a pitcher.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 7:23 am to Kafka
quote:
of All Time
quote:
since 1954
Ahhh....so it's not really a list of the greatest pitching rotations of all time.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 7:24 am to jembeurt
quote:
In evaluaiting pitchers, I like to use the winning percentage of the pitcher in relation to the winning percentage of his team. How much better was the team with him on the mound? If you look at lifetime numbers, here is the way it breaks down for Maddux and Clemens:
Clemens .665 Team .541 + .124
Maddux .627 team .558 +.069
Clemens is .124 higher than his team's winning percentage, Maddux is .069 higher than his team's winning percentage.
I found this quote somewhere^^^
How relevant is this statistic?
This post was edited on 4/4/11 at 7:25 am
Posted on 4/4/11 at 7:34 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
I found this quote somewhere^^^
How relevant is this statistic?
I would say it's usually very significant... unless you have two other hall of famers on the staff skewing the W/L stats.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 7:37 am to C
That's what I was thinking. Just wanted to get some other opinions.
Posted on 4/4/11 at 8:02 am to Kafka
Espn classic had a maddux game on a couple weeks ago... I rarely watch classic games but I just had to stop and watch him pitch in his prime... Just filthy what he could with a baseball.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News