Who Is the most underrated pitcher in baseball history?
Three names seem to me to vie for this honr. We all know they were great, but perhaps not how great in the historical scheme of things. All are fairly recent, inn part because I don't think anyone who remembers, or knows something about, the careers of Mathewson, hubbel, Grove, Dean, Johnson and Alexander are underestimating their greatness, and those who do not cannot be helped and are frankly not worth talking to on this subject. So my three are
1. Tom Seaver
Seaver is the only pitcher whose career did not start befire WW I, who has 300 wins and an ERA under 3. Clemens doesn't, Koufax doesn't, Spahn doesn't, Feller doesn't, Hubbel doesn't, Grove doesn't Carlton doesn't, Gibson doesn't etc. The only ptichers who do are Mathewson, Johnson, and Alexander (they didn't keep ERA for Cy Young, he was so long ago). If you combine that remarkable feat with the fact that Seaver pretty much created the NY Mets as a viable franchise, you have one remarkable career on your hands, much greater, I believe, than it is given credit for.
2. Jim Palmer
Palmer didn't win 300 games, but he did win 262, more than anyone else since ?Johnson with a career ERA under 3. And his era is considerably less than Seaver's. What's more his winning percentage, around 650, is considerably higher than SEaver's or Walter Johnson's or almost anyone else. He's not the best of modern pitchers in anyone of these categories, but if there was a calculus combining all three, he'd be right there.
3. Whitey Ford
At last a Yankee. Two statistics suggest to me that Ford, while recognized as a great pitcher doesn't get his due. Number one, his winning percentage is better than anybody else's, whenever they pitched. What's more nobody is even close to the 690 % he put up. Now this remarkable statistic, a winning percentage 100 points higher than the great Walter Johnson, is typically attributed to the dominance of the Yankees during Ford's tenure (as if Ford didn't have something to do with that). But here's the kicker, the stat which combined with the winning % percentage ctapults Ford into this category of underrated immortals. His ERA is better than every starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame since WW I, better than Seaver, Spahn, Palmer, Marichal, Carl Hubbel, Dizzy Dean, Carlton, Ryan, and yes better than Bob Gibson and better than Sandy Koufax. When you consider that Ford pitched in an era less pinched offensively than the late 60's and when Seaver, Palmer, Carlton and Gibson reigned, his lifetime ERA is a truly remarkable feat. Yes, he only won 236 games (though that doesn't count all those World Series wins), but given how rarely he lost and how stingy he was with runs (his ERA is about half a run better than his great contemporary, Warren Spahn), he, like Seaver and Palmer, should be in the discussion for the greatest pitcher in modern baseball history.
1. Tom Seaver
Seaver is the only pitcher whose career did not start befire WW I, who has 300 wins and an ERA under 3. Clemens doesn't, Koufax doesn't, Spahn doesn't, Feller doesn't, Hubbel doesn't, Grove doesn't Carlton doesn't, Gibson doesn't etc. The only ptichers who do are Mathewson, Johnson, and Alexander (they didn't keep ERA for Cy Young, he was so long ago). If you combine that remarkable feat with the fact that Seaver pretty much created the NY Mets as a viable franchise, you have one remarkable career on your hands, much greater, I believe, than it is given credit for.
2. Jim Palmer
Palmer didn't win 300 games, but he did win 262, more than anyone else since ?Johnson with a career ERA under 3. And his era is considerably less than Seaver's. What's more his winning percentage, around 650, is considerably higher than SEaver's or Walter Johnson's or almost anyone else. He's not the best of modern pitchers in anyone of these categories, but if there was a calculus combining all three, he'd be right there.
3. Whitey Ford
At last a Yankee. Two statistics suggest to me that Ford, while recognized as a great pitcher doesn't get his due. Number one, his winning percentage is better than anybody else's, whenever they pitched. What's more nobody is even close to the 690 % he put up. Now this remarkable statistic, a winning percentage 100 points higher than the great Walter Johnson, is typically attributed to the dominance of the Yankees during Ford's tenure (as if Ford didn't have something to do with that). But here's the kicker, the stat which combined with the winning % percentage ctapults Ford into this category of underrated immortals. His ERA is better than every starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame since WW I, better than Seaver, Spahn, Palmer, Marichal, Carl Hubbel, Dizzy Dean, Carlton, Ryan, and yes better than Bob Gibson and better than Sandy Koufax. When you consider that Ford pitched in an era less pinched offensively than the late 60's and when Seaver, Palmer, Carlton and Gibson reigned, his lifetime ERA is a truly remarkable feat. Yes, he only won 236 games (though that doesn't count all those World Series wins), but given how rarely he lost and how stingy he was with runs (his ERA is about half a run better than his great contemporary, Warren Spahn), he, like Seaver and Palmer, should be in the discussion for the greatest pitcher in modern baseball history.
posted by joe valente | 4:07 PM
2 Comments:
That's a really fscinating piece of info on 2 counts: 1) it suggests that Ford's win count is artificially low and why but 2) it makes that 690 winning percentage all the more amazing. If he's not getting to secure the automatic wins against KC (it's always KC whatever their nickname) and the likely wins against weaker pitchers on the luck of the draw, his winning percentage, the best in history for someone in the Hall, is actually artificially low. this would for me project him ahead of Seaver and Palmer as the most underrated hurler of the modern era.
Yet one more reason to read this blog: interesting historical posts when the actual games are not interesting.
I can't wait for playoff blogging.
Post a Comment
<< Home