Greg Maddux on Dan Patrick

I posted this in a prior thread, but...

From a recent NY Times article on Leo Mazzone (which is well worth reading).  Greg Maddux asked Mazzone to let him speak with the Braves young pitchers in spring training:  

“You know why I am a millionaire? Because I can put my fastball wherever I want to,” Maddux told them. “Do you know why I own beachfront property in L.A.? Because I can change speeds. O.K., questions?”

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

luv baseball posted:

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

I'm all for proverbial barstool arguments, but...  You are talking about a pitcher with 355 MLB wins, 4 Cy Young Awards, and a 106+ WAR.  Part of the case for any Hall of Famer is longevity--a couple of great seasons aren't enough.  And recall that Maddux pitched during the steroids era, when offense looked quite a bit different than today. 

The dude got the 10th-highest percentage of HOF votes all-time (97.2%).  The baseball writers get a lot of things wrong in their voting (like the insistence of some that no HOF candidate should ever be unanimous), but Maddux was a Hall of Famer by acclamation.   

IMO, Maddux was a great pitcher.

Unfortunately, power pitching wins in the playoffs. Smoltz, and the like, could always reach back and get a strikeout when needed. Batters could mostly put the ball in play versus Maddux which give teams a chance to generate runs by moving runner over or getting a sack fly for example.

His postseason numbers were not bad. He lost a lot of close games. 

luv baseball posted:

 

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

 

That's a bad take. The era in which he pitched was a very high offense era (PEDs). Yes, Smoltz was a great post-season pitcher, and so were others like Schilling who couldn't match Maddux's overall career.

A 3.27 ERA in 30 starts against the very best teams (playoffs/world series) during his high-scoring era was very good. Here are a few others:

  • Roger Clemens, 34 postseason starts, 3.75 ERA
  • Tom Glavine, 35 postseason starts, 3.30 ERA
  • Pedro Martinez, 14 postseason starts, 3.46 ERA
  • Randy Johnson, 16 postseason starts, 3.50 ERA
luv baseball posted:

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

I am honestly at a loss for words.  Can you please explain how a 3.27 ERA in 30 post season starts is not HOF worthy?  

In regards to "stuff." The movement & command combination on G Maddox's fastball alone, by any objective measure, were a cut above anything seen in the modern era of baseball. (There have been some with the movement (Kevin Brown, Bill Swift; but not the command) Some with the command (Jamie Moyer, Pedro; but not the movement) Toss in the secondary command & longevity & you have a no brainer, top shelf, HOF pitcher.

Now, if you want to argue "stuff," at their best, for a single game. Give me Nolan at his best & you can pick from the rest.

luv baseball posted:

 

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  

Reminds me of the Tim McCarver quote about Bob Gibson: "He's the luckiest pitcher in baseball. He's always pitching when the other team doesn't score any runs." 

luv baseball posted:

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

He had the opportunity to pitch all those innings BECAUSE he didn't suck. 

rynoattack posted:
luv baseball posted:

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

I am honestly at a loss for words.  Can you please explain how a 3.27 ERA in 30 post season starts is not HOF worthy?  

Sorry to have such a deleterious effect on your health.  I hope your voice has returned.

Never said not worthy of Hall of Fame or was not a great pitcher. Try to find that statement anywhere in my post.  Just to be sure I have reread it twice and am very confident such a statement is not there so I am at a loss, although not speechless as to where that is coming from.

He is simply overrated IMO but had exceptional durability.  They guy he best compares with is Ryan.  Long and wonderfully durable careers but not as good as people think as displayed by his postseason record which was less than overwhelming.  He went 11-14 in the post season when he had to face good teams every time out.  

I think he was the third best pitcher on that Braves team.  Just a short list of guys I'd rate better:  Seaver, Palmer, Gibson and Carlton. and that is only the 70's guys. 

Saying he is one of the 50 all time great pitchers (although closer to 50 than 1)  hardly trashes the man.  Please read the words and do not infer things that are not there.

russinfortworth posted:
luv baseball posted:

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

He had the opportunity to pitch all those innings BECAUSE he didn't suck. 

Tex...where did I say he sucked?  Overrated does not mean sucked.  Only he wasn't as good as a lot of people think or remember.

Dudes ….read the statements....Top 50 All time.  If you read that as he sucked...then I really cannot help that twisted interpretation.

KD posted:

Simple game; the battery offers the ball, batter hits or not, huh! Original post above stated, " throw strikes, hit your spots, change speeds." Is there any better advise for a high school pitcher or what? 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no better advice for any pitcher at any age. 

LUV you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but most everything you mention is opinion, not really based on facts or data.

Being top 50 sounds like a compliment, but considering there are only 77 pitchers in the HOF you put him in the bottom half.

You make the claim that his large number of wins was due to longevity.  Below are the average wins per season including the pitchers you rank ahead of him:

  • Maddux (23): 15.4
  • Seaver(20): 15.5
  • Gibson(17): 14.8
  • Palmer(19): 14.1
  • Carlton(24): 13.7

Now,  most analytics guys will tell you Wins don’t mean anything, they love WAR.  Seaver is #6 of all time, Maddux is #7.  Total WAR can be positively influenced by numer of years (unless one has a negative WAR season, which surprising each player did).  When you average per year, Seaver has a good advantage over Maddux, Gibson is essentially tied, Palmer and Carlton aren’t close.

Seaver and Carlton had .500 records in the post season, where Gibson and Palmer had exceptional records.  Comparing many other stats from other eras is difficult, mound, dead ball, steroids, etc.  But if you look at each pitchers ERA, they posted similar post season stats as they had in the regular.  Maddux, Carlton and Palmer had higher post season WHIP, where Gibson and Seaver were better.

I know it's cheating, but if you throw away Maddux first post season as a 23 YO, he’d have a career 2.88 ERA.

Finally, as a huge Tom Glavine fan, I agree that he was better.  IMO of course!

CTbballDad posted:

LUV you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but most everything you mention is opinion, not really based on facts or data.

Being top 50 sounds like a compliment, but considering there are only 77 pitchers in the HOF you put him in the bottom half.

You make the claim that his large number of wins was due to longevity.  Below are the average wins per season including the pitchers you rank ahead of him:

  • Maddux (23): 15.4
  • Seaver(20): 15.5
  • Gibson(17): 14.8
  • Palmer(19): 14.1
  • Carlton(24): 13.7

Now,  most analytics guys will tell you Wins don’t mean anything, they love WAR.  Seaver is #6 of all time, Maddux is #7.  Total WAR can be positively influenced by numer of years (unless one has a negative WAR season, which surprising each player did).  When you average per year, Seaver has a good advantage over Maddux, Gibson is essentially tied, Palmer and Carlton aren’t close.

Seaver and Carlton had .500 records in the post season, where Gibson and Palmer had exceptional records.  Comparing many other stats from other eras is difficult, mound, dead ball, steroids, etc.  But if you look at each pitchers ERA, they posted similar post season stats as they had in the regular.  Maddux, Carlton and Palmer had higher post season WHIP, where Gibson and Seaver were better.

I know it's cheating, but if you throw away Maddux first post season as a 23 YO, he’d have a career 2.88 ERA.

Finally, as a huge Tom Glavine fan, I agree that he was better.  IMO of course!

Ave wins per season for Maddox is a pure function of two things:

His durability/consistency and the inferior competition.  As noted his durability is at the very top of history and if I was going to start a Franchise is something of exceptional value.  My contention is that he took that durability and inferior competition and he maxed out his regular season numbers.  It makes him a great pitcher to get you to the World Series, but once there his value drops significantly because the competition eliminated that value because of their quality.   

I will confess to being a big Seaver guy and his 3 post season losses were to 69 Orioles 73 Reds and 73 A's.  In that 73 A's WS loss Reggie Jackson said Seaver was the greatest pitcher he ever saw.  All three of these teams were all time teams stacked with HOF guys that dominated baseball for a decade.  They will never be confused with the 98 Pads or 99 Astros or 89 Giants that defeated Maddox.  

I would tell you though that of the 77 HOF pitchers in a Game 7 - if we had to pick them to pitch that one game at the top of their form...I'd be willing to bet the majority of people would end up ranking Maddox about were I do or would have him lower.  

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and in my view against good lineups the 89/90 fastball no matter how well located will get hit more and harder than better stuff.  I really don't think that is a very controversial point of view.  In fact I'd wager in a poll 75% or more would concur with that statement.

So I suppose this is the bottom line:  If you gave the pitchers the same lineup to face give me Tom Terrific against Maddox every day and twice on Sunday.  I am going to win 70% of those games I think.

George Washington was a mediocre general, at best.

- Lost more battles than he won

- Won a small war against an island nation 2500 miles away

- Didn't show up for the big battles - (Lost battles in New York, Philadelphia when they really counted)

- Consistently passed the buck on big decisions to States and Congress

- Lack of control of officers under his command (several traitorous incidents, Arnold, etc.)

- Directly responsible for the freezing deaths of many soldiers

george washington

 

 

Attachments

Photos (1)

I don’t think many will argue if you thought Seaver or Gibson were better than Maddux.  Carlton (benefited from longevity) and Palmer (more in the Maddux mold, not a power pitcher) are a different story.

Maddux also pitched in the steroid and juiced ball eras.

Chicks do dig the longball.  So if we are going to delve into the off field factors that changed the game on the field let's do it right.

His ERA went over 3 in 1999 when the steroid era began in earnest and was 3.69 from 1999 to the end of his career 10 years later.  Undoubtedly he had exited his prime by then.

I did not dwell on the primary reason for the inferior competition he faced.  He pitched the prime of his career when baseball expanded twice in 5 years significantly watering down the talent.  It is no coincidence that his best years begin in 1992 and ends in 1998 which dovetails with the 93 and 97 expansions.  More than any other pitcher he benefited from 60 minor leaguers becoming MLB'ers including 45 of them in the NL.  

Those inexperienced and less talented guys would have been exactly the guys that a pitcher like Maddox would chew up.  They were in the minors almost certainly because they hit the breaking ball and changing of speed with good location at an inferior level compared to MLB guys.  Maddox still would have been great in that period but as stated before his numbers are inflated IMO because many lineups had 2 or 3 guys that should have been in MiLB.  

It might have gone on longer if not for the steroids that went into full swing following the 1998 Sosa/McGuire HR derby.  It totally blunted the impact of expansion by blowing up a bunch of guys into 20-25 or more HR guys as hundreds of more HR's were hit each season.

What happened?  I went away for 6 days on a golf trip to Florida, and we're debating whether Greg Maddux is overrated or not.   Really?  Slow news day?   The same Greg Maddux that was a first ballot HOFer with 97% of the vote, 355 wins, numerous Gold Gloves and Cy Young awards.   Oh that guy, yes he was schmuck.  Did HSBBWeb legalize marijuana in my absence? 

 

fenwaysouth posted:

What happened?  I went away for 6 days on a golf trip to Florida, and we're debating whether Greg Maddux is overrated or not.   Really?  Slow news day?   The same Greg Maddux that was a first ballot HOFer with 97% of the vote, 355 wins, numerous Gold Gloves and Cy Young awards.   Oh that guy, yes he was schmuck.  Did HSBBWeb legalize marijuana in my absence? 

 

😂 

fenwaysouth posted:

What happened?  I went away for 6 days on a golf trip to Florida, and we're debating whether Greg Maddux is overrated or not.   Really?  Slow news day?   The same Greg Maddux that was a first ballot HOFer with 97% of the vote, 355 wins, numerous Gold Gloves and Cy Young awards.   Oh that guy, yes he was schmuck.  Did HSBBWeb legalize marijuana in my absence? 

 

Giant difference between overrated and schmuck.  He was a great player...but not dominant against good teams IMO.  Every List I have ever seen has him in the top 10 and I think that is wrong.  For example - for the Red Sox faithful....would you rather have Pete or Schilling in Game 7 or Maddox?  At the top of their games Maddox finishes 3rd in that horse race if you want to win.  I can name about 40 more guys in 5 minutes without trying very hard including 2 guys on Maddox own team.  No one would take Maddox over Smoltz although Glavine might be a 50/50ish split although Glavine was '95 WS MVP.

I know my position isn't really popular and contrary.  Except for a couple of arguments on the facts there is a trend here that seems to think the a wise remark questioning sobriety or sanity serves as something witty or thoughtful. 

It does not.  Folks here are usually better then that. 

luv baseball posted:
rynoattack posted:
luv baseball posted:

It probably doesn't hurt to get 15 starts a year for a decade against what might have been the worst division in the history of baseball....the 90's Mets, Expos, Phils and Marlins (one really good season and then blown up) not to mention another 12 against lousy teams throughout the league in that time... Cubs, Reds, Astros, D-backs, and Pirates after Bonds left.  

On top of that he had one of the leagues best lineups.  There was a reason those teams only won one time...they weren't that great.  I have contended for some time that Maddox is the most overrated pitcher in history.  He had average stuff and excellent command.  But against good teams he was very mediocre. 

In truth it was his durability that made him great, he started 25 or more games 19 years in a row and over 30 in 17 of those.  The thing he SHOULD have been telling those players was - join the best team in the league and start 33 games a year and throw 200 innings for 20 years and you will be a great pitcher too.  In this facet he was exceptional and a total outlier.

Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't.

Smoltz by comparison started 27 games with a 15-4 record, 2.67 ERA and a 1.14 WHIP in pretty much the same post seasons.  He had the killer stuff that works against good hitters consistently... Maddox did not.

Maddox won 355 games but 250+ of them might have been against teams with losing records that were actually terrible teams.  Full marks for getting on the hill and doing his job but as for his actual stuff - I could probably  name 40/50 pitchers that I would start against him in a Game 7 and feel like I had the upper hand.  

I am honestly at a loss for words.  Can you please explain how a 3.27 ERA in 30 post season starts is not HOF worthy?  

Sorry to have such a deleterious effect on your health.  I hope your voice has returned.

Never said not worthy of Hall of Fame or was not a great pitcher. Try to find that statement anywhere in my post.  Just to be sure I have reread it twice and am very confident such a statement is not there so I am at a loss, although not speechless as to where that is coming from.

He is simply overrated IMO but had exceptional durability.  They guy he best compares with is Ryan.  Long and wonderfully durable careers but not as good as people think as displayed by his postseason record which was less than overwhelming.  He went 11-14 in the post season when he had to face good teams every time out.  

I think he was the third best pitcher on that Braves team.  Just a short list of guys I'd rate better:  Seaver, Palmer, Gibson and Carlton. and that is only the 70's guys. 

Saying he is one of the 50 all time great pitchers (although closer to 50 than 1)  hardly trashes the man.  Please read the words and do not infer things that are not there.

"Try to tell me with a straight face that a guy who got 30 starts in the post season with a 11-14 record, 3.27 ERA with a 1.24 WHIP for the Analytics guys is an all-time great.  He wasn't."

You can play with words all you want, but an All-Time Great is a HOF.  Therefore, saying he wasn't an all time great, says he wasn't a HOF.

luv baseball posted:
fenwaysouth posted:

What happened?  I went away for 6 days on a golf trip to Florida, and we're debating whether Greg Maddux is overrated or not.   Really?  Slow news day?   The same Greg Maddux that was a first ballot HOFer with 97% of the vote, 355 wins, numerous Gold Gloves and Cy Young awards.   Oh that guy, yes he was schmuck.  Did HSBBWeb legalize marijuana in my absence? 

 

Giant difference between overrated and schmuck.  He was a great player...but not dominant against good teams IMO.  Every List I have ever seen has him in the top 10 and I think that is wrong.  For example - for the Red Sox faithful....would you rather have Pete or Schilling in Game 7 or Maddox?  At the top of their games Maddox finishes 3rd in that horse race if you want to win.  I can name about 40 more guys in 5 minutes without trying very hard including 2 guys on Maddox own team.  No one would take Maddox over Smoltz although Glavine might be a 50/50ish split although Glavine was '95 WS MVP.

I know my position isn't really popular and contrary.  Except for a couple of arguments on the facts there is a trend here that seems to think the a wise remark questioning sobriety or sanity serves as something witty or thoughtful. 

It does not.  Folks here are usually better then that. 

But you haven't presented facts. You trotted out his postseason ERA as evidence that he wasn't an all-time great, and I pointed out that his post-season ERA of 3.27 was better than Pedro, Randy Johnson, Glavine, and Clemens -- and it was damn close to his career ERA of 3.16. And you said things like 250 of his wins were against terrible teams, without any facts to back you up.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But an opinion devoid of facts is unlikely to sway many people. 

We get it, Smoltz and Schilling pitched better in the postseason than Maddux did. But ERA+ measures a pitcher against his contemporaries:

  • Maddux: ERA+ of 132 (32% better than his league) across 5,000 innings; 4 Cy Youngs
  • Seaver: ERA+ of 127 across 4,800 innings; 3 Cy Youngs
  • Glavine: ERA+ of 118 across 4,400 innings; 2 Cy Youngs
  • Smoltz: ERA+ of 125 across 3,500 innings; 1 Cy Young
  • Schilling: ERA+ of 127 across 3,300 innings: 0 Cy Youngs

BTW, Seaver also benefited from expansion (4 new teams in 1969 and 2 in 1977).

If those guys were better than Maddux, then why didn't they pitch better than him? 

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×