Cliff Lee

slotdirt · #1 12-15-2010, 04:05 PM

I went to look up his stats, and...well...355 wins? When did that happen? I know that stat has been bemoaned in this thread, but when a guy is the leader in that category for any player whose career started since World War II, well, that's pretty special.

horseofcourse · #2 12-15-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I went to look up his stats, and...well...355 wins? When did that happen? I know that stat has been bemoaned in this thread, but when a guy is the leader in that category for any player whose career started since World War II, well, that's pretty special.

I think he was better than Clemens for obvious supplemental reasons, as Maddux had the typical career progression with his peak when it should be from age 26-32. He declined steadily from that point but was still very, very good into his 40s, but his decline fit what a normal career should look like of a great player. At age 37 or 40 he didn't "magically" reproduce what he was able to do 10 years earlier like others we know of.

slotdirt · #3 12-15-2010, 04:21 PM

Agreed. 8th all time in WAR (trailing only Young, Clemens, Big Train, Lefty Grove, Seaver, and two guys who played in the 19th Century). 355 wins - trailing only Young, Johnson, Spahn, Matthewson and three guys who played in the 19th Century.

Though if one believes in WAR metrics (acknowledging that WAR for pitchers is still a bit unrefined), Niekro and Gaylord Perry, and Bert Blyleven are pretty darn underrated as well.

clyde · #4 12-15-2010, 04:24 PM

uh-oh....snot alert!!

slotdirt · #5 12-15-2010, 04:33 PM

This all leads to the most important question:

Better pitcher: Jerry Koosman or Catfish Hunter?

philcski · #6 12-18-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

This all leads to the most important question:

Better pitcher: Jerry Koosman or Catfish Hunter?

Hunter and it isn't even close, despite the fact that Kooz played for my beloved Mets and Hunter played for those guys in the Bronx.

On topic, who cares where the Phillies' rotation ranks all time? I care about RIGHT NOW, and they are 1/5 to win a WS in the next 3 years. My team is 50/1 for the same span.

dalakhani · #7 12-18-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philcski

Hunter and it isn't even close, despite the fact that Kooz played for my beloved Mets and Hunter played for those guys in the Bronx.

On topic, who cares where the Phillies' rotation ranks all time? I care about RIGHT NOW, and they are 1/5 to win a WS in the next 3 years. My team is 50/1 for the same span.

Will the bullpen be the question?

Antitrust32 · #8 12-15-2010, 04:33 PM

I wonder what Halladay's stats would be if he had pitched in the NL East from 26-31 instead of in the AL East against the Red Sox and Yankees all year while playing for a team that sucks and never having important games down the stretch?

I know he's played one year in the NL East.. and those stats match up with Maddux NL East Stats.

21-10 (losing a few games where he only gave up 1-2 runs)
2.44 ERA... I know Maddux had two crazy ass seasons where he had a sub 2 era... but 2.44 matches up well with Greg Maddux.
Cy Young Winner
9 complete games
4 complete game shut outs
250 innings pitched
ERA + of 165
WHIP of 1.041
an absolute incredible 7.30 strike outs/walk ratio
219 strike outs

not to mention a Perfect Game along the 2nd No Hitter in Baseball Playoff History.

Seriously, how do you think they Halladay / Maddux would match up if Halladay had the benifit of playing in the NL East from 26-31. Its no question that pitching in the NL East compared to AL east is night and day.

Just watch them both pitch. Both guys have/had nasty pitches. a handful of different pitches to throw out... all for strikes. more movement than a damn rollercoaster. Very comparable pitchers. Comparable human beings also. Both class acts who took much pride in work ethic.

slotdirt · #9 12-15-2010, 04:43 PM

Antitrust, you do realize that stats like ERA+ are attempting to quantify exactly what you are saying? And based on the adjusted stats (read: adjusted for park/league factors, etc.), Halladay isn't in Maddux's league, and isn't likely to ever get there. Maddux had six seasons with ERA+ numbers higher than Halladay's 2009 season, and those seasons came in the steroid hey-day of the early 1990's. You question whether or not Halladay would have similar numbers to Maddux during his peak years; I question whether Halladay would have had the same success pitching against a bunch of guys on the cream and the clear for the majority of his career.

Of course, that isn't to say Halladay's not a Hall of Famer - he is - but he's unlikely to have career value on the same par as Maddux when all is said and done.

horseofcourse · #10 12-15-2010, 04:55 PM

I have nothing against Halladay. I just think Maddux was better. And when Halladay's career is done I think the evidence will be overwhelming. If Halladay continues at his present rate until he's 40, I may change my opinion, but until that actually happens I'll always feel Maddux is a better pitcher. I think Babe Ruth was better than Lou Gehrig. It doesn't mean Gehrig was a stiff.

slotdirt · #11 12-15-2010, 05:02 PM

If Halladay continues for another 7-8 seasons the way he's been pitching the last 8-9 seasons, he'll be an all-timer. That being said, people generally age differently than, say, Roger Clemens.

Antitrust32 · #12 12-15-2010, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

If Halladay continues for another 7-8 seasons the way he's been pitching the last 8-9 seasons, he'll be an all-timer. That being said, people generally age differently than, say, Roger Clemens.

one thing about Roy is he is the harders worker in the league. Blue Jays and Phillies have said that. His work ethic is un matched in baseball. He has a notebook that records every work out, lift, run, pitch etc, that he's done every day for his career. (would be gold to get ahold of that notebook) Hopefully, he can still be in his prime for 5 or more years.

Antitrust32 · #13 12-15-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Antitrust, you do realize that stats like ERA+ are attempting to quantify exactly what you are saying? And based on the adjusted stats (read: adjusted for park/league factors, etc.), Halladay isn't in Maddux's league, and isn't likely to ever get there. Maddux had six seasons with ERA+ numbers higher than Halladay's 2009 season, and those seasons came in the steroid hey-day of the early 1990's. You question whether or not Halladay would have similar numbers to Maddux during his peak years; I question whether Halladay would have had the same success pitching against a bunch of guys on the cream and the clear for the majority of his career.

Of course, that isn't to say Halladay's not a Hall of Famer - he is - but he's unlikely to have career value on the same par as Maddux when all is said and done.

if that is the case... hopefully he'll have more hardware.

If Halladay does what he did this past year for the next 4 years, there career value will be on a very similar par.

Doc Halladay is still in the midst of his prime and is on a very good baseball team. poor guy.. been the best pitcher in baseball the past decade and had to spend it on the Blue Jays.

dalakhani · #14 12-15-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Antitrust, you do realize that stats like ERA+ are attempting to quantify exactly what you are saying? And based on the adjusted stats (read: adjusted for park/league factors, etc.), Halladay isn't in Maddux's league, and isn't likely to ever get there. Maddux had six seasons with ERA+ numbers higher than Halladay's 2009 season, and those seasons came in the steroid hey-day of the early 1990's. You question whether or not Halladay would have similar numbers to Maddux during his peak years; I question whether Halladay would have had the same success pitching against a bunch of guys on the cream and the clear for the majority of his career.

Of course, that isn't to say Halladay's not a Hall of Famer - he is - but he's unlikely to have career value on the same par as Maddux when all is said and done.

How do stats adjust for that accurately? Impossible.

slotdirt · #15 12-16-2010, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How do stats adjust for that accurately? Impossible.

Not that difficult. Take the par for ERA that year, account for park factors, and voila, you have a statistically relevant way to account for what league a particular pitcher was playing in for that season. Sabermetricians do it all the time.

Antitrust32 · #16 12-16-2010, 12:07 PM

How interesting that even Greg Maddux himself agree's with me about this "on paper" thing. hmm. seem to have a lot of credible opinions backing up mine!

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/p...g_Maddux_.html

dalakhani · #17 12-17-2010, 10:55 AM

[quote=slotdirt;734290]Not that difficult. Take the par for ERA that year, account for park factors, and voila, you have a statistically relevant way to account for what league a particular pitcher was playing in for that season. Sabermetricians do it all the time.[/QUOT

That is flawed especially considering that it doesn't take into account the unbalanced schedules.

Beyond on that, how can any stat possibly measure what its like to be in the dog days with your team hopelessly out of contention and then having to pitch to the red sox, yankees and red sox again in the course of two weeks? Impossible.

The money situation in baseball only became this ridiculous during Halladay's career.