Roger Clemens: Greatest Pitcher Ever?

[honestiago1]

Walter Johnson pitched effectively in both the "dead ball" and hit-happy 1920s. He had 110 shutouts (more than a quarter of his total wins [416]). He lost over 20 games by a score of 1-0. He pitched for over 25 years in an era in which sports medicine did not exist. Clemens is the greatest of the modern pitchers, but Johnson is the best of all time in my book.

[AdamKatz]

About Carlton: I thought that he was always quiet and shy and didnt talk to the media. It wasnt until after he retired that he started talking more and everyone learned he was a miserable SOB.

[honestiago1]

Seaver pitched during a pitcher's era, with the high mound. He was, however, a successful pitcher in the 70s, as well, when averages came more back into line. You have to consider performance relative to the league. Clemens, Pedro Martinez and Maddux each had several magnificent seasons during the 90s, when conditions heavility favored the hitters. Of the three, Clemens' career has been the most consistently brilliant, though one could argue Pedro has had some superior years. Maddux was outright dominant for several years, and is one of the most consistent winners of all time. For pure dominance, though, Sandy Koufax at his peak may have been better than any of them, perhaps even the best of all time.

[rutkap]

Pud Galvin. Nuff said.

[Outta Leftfield]

One thing that you can say about Clemens is that he's won 7 Cy Youngs. This is a truly awesome total and shows his ability to dominate consistently within his own era. Of course, Lefty Grove might have won about that many Cy Youngs if they'd had one in his time. Maybe Walter Johnson, too. I think Seaver and Gibson are really great pitchers, but perhaps not at this level. Neither won as many games or dominated as consistently, and—as has been pointed out—they pitched under conditions that much favored the pitcher. Gibson might or might not be as successful today as he was in his own era. He would have had trouble pitching inside the way he did, and the high fastball he counted on would be called a ball today.
Carlton was great and did pitch for some bad teams, but as has been pointed out, he couldn't pitch when he got older while Clemens has remained dominant. Also, Carlton would alternate great years with 15-14 and even 10-19 years. (By the way, I saw Carlton's last game as a Philly. Boy did he get bombed. He was released right after that and the GM said it was just too painful to watch anymore.)
By contrast, Clemens has never had a losing season and since 2000 his won-lost record is an amazing 94-38. Wow! When the guy started that run, he was 37.
For me, the top three would seem to be Clemens, Grove and Johnson in some order or other, with Matthewson and Pete Alexander close behind. Koufax was great, but just didn't do it long enough. In his first edition of the Historical Abstract, Bill James composed an argument saying Grove was the greatest ever, then in the revised version (a must have book) he argued that it was actually the Big Train. A few years have passed and with Clemens great recent performance, he has definitely entered the discussion. As I study the records of Clemens, Grove and Johnson, whoever I looked at last seems like the greatest ever.... :D

[MARKWEAVER]

[quote:39c36a46cd]Clemens has never had a losing season [/quote:39c36a46cd]

Actually, he has... in 1993 (shortened slightly by injury, I think, although he still pitched 191 innings) he was 11-14 and in 1996 he was 10-13... unless I'm misunderstanding and you meant since 2000 he hasn't had a losing season, which IS amazing since he turned 37 in 2000.

Here's an interesting comparison between Clemens and Carlton up through age 39 (I'm not even going to pretend to compare them after 39):

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=clemero02:Roger+Clemens&st=int&compage=39&age=39[/url]

The other names on this list are those that are in some measure the closest comparitors to Clemens... note that many of those names are the same ones being discussed in this thread! Amazing!

Incidentally, here's the same comparison for Walter Johnson... notice who is the second-closest comparitor! :D

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=johnswa01:Walter+Johnson&st=int&compage=39&age=39[/url]

[Outta Leftfield]

[quote:e35ab5da59="mweaver123"][quote:e35ab5da59]Clemens has never had a losing season [/quote:e35ab5da59]

Actually, he has... in 1993 (shortened slightly by injury, I think, although he still pitched 191 innings) he was 11-14 and in 1996 he was 10-13... unless I'm misunderstanding and you meant since 2000 he hasn't had a losing season, which IS amazing since he turned 37 in 2000. [/quote:e35ab5da59]

My bad...I overlooked those losers. Still, two losing seasons in 22 years isn't so shabby. And he pitched well in the 10-13 years, with a 3.63 ERA when league average was 5.15 (1996). This was his last year in Boston. The Red Sox said he was washed up, but he went 21-7 and 20-6 his next two seasons with Toronto, with 2.05 and 2.65 ERAs that were each more than two runs better than league average—and winning consecutive Cy Youngs in the process. In the last 9 full seasons, Clemens has won four Cy Youngs, this starting at age 34.

[quote:e35ab5da59]Here's an interesting comparison between Clemens and Carlton up through age 39 (I'm not even going to pretend to compare them after 39):

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=clemero02:Roger+Clemens&st=int&compage=39&age=39[/url]

The other names on this list are those that are in some measure the closest comparitors to Clemens... note that many of those names are the same ones being discussed in this thread! Amazing![/quote:e35ab5da59]

I guess the parallels in the names aren't a coincidence, since these guys got where the were by sustaining and extremely high level of performance over a very long time. Still, from age 39 on, Clemens is in a class of his own. I think he really developed an effective repetoire of pitches in his old age. He can't throw quite as fast, but is still above average in that area, and with control and good breaking stuff, especially the split finger, he's remained pretty much as tough as ever.

[quote:e35ab5da59]

Incidentally, here's the same comparison for Walter Johnson... notice who is the second-closest comparitor! :D

[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=johnswa01:Walter+Johnson&st=int&compage=39&age=39[/url][/quote:e35ab5da59]

Thanks for these interesting urls. I use baseball-reference.com all the time (in fact, that's where I'm getting my info for these posts) but I never saw the age comparisons thing. That's cool.