The best by position

[Rog]

I have followed baseball for over 60 years, so I recently undertook the exercise of picking the best player by position over those 60 years.

Center field is easy.  He's my favorite all-time player.  Not a problem in right field.  Tough to argue against Hank Aaron.

Third base is simple.  Mike Schmidt.  First base is easy if I consider Stan the Man to be a first baseman, which he was most of the time I followed him.

Left field is loaded with Barry Bonds and Ted Williams, but Bonds was the better-rounded player, and he has hit more home runs than anyone.

Then it gets a little tougher.

Whom should I go with at shortstop?  Many would pick Jeter; some would pick Ripken.  Old-timers might go with Ernie Banks, who had such a marvelous combination of fielding and power that he won two straight MVP's while playing for the lowly Cubs.  For me, it's pretty clear.  Alex Rodriguez came up as a shortstop, and he was considered a good fielder.  Early in his career he was close to as good a hitter as the game has seen.

How about catcher?  I've got to go with Bench or Berra, but which one?  At the time I thought Bench was the greatest catcher ever.  Not only did he have all that power, but he had a howitzer arm and began the one-handed phase for catching.  But Berra himself was great.  I'm going to have to look this one up, although I have a feeling I'm going to wind up with Yogi, which I never thought I would.

And, yeah, I've got to go with Yogi.  He won THREE MVP's.  He threw out nearly half (49%) of the guys who tried to steal against him.  He came within 31 homers of Johnny and hit 18 points higher.  He had more runs scored and RBI's than Johnny -- in fewer plate appearances.  It's close, but I have to take Yogi.   Without even trying, he was funnier too.  Special mention to Mike Piazza and Ivan Rodriguez.  Buster Posey might get in that class eventually.

Relief pitcher is a no-brainer.  Just as Babe Ruth changed baseball to a power game, Mariano spurred the age of amazing relievers.  Most teams have two or three of them now.  The three Giants relievers who just left had Giants ERA's of 2.58 (Romo), 2.42 (Casilla) and 2.47 (Lopez).

But the really tough one -- or at least the one I'll get the most disagreement on from my own generation -- is starting pitchers.  Whom should I pick as the top five?

Do I go with the old-timers in Warren Spahn, Whitey Ford, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson and Jim Palmer?  Do I go with the guys just a little later in Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton?  Do I go with the 2000's guys Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Clayton Kershaw?

How about we don a few battles?  Koufax against Kershaw.  Ford and Koufax against Johnson.  Marichal against Maddux.  Gibson against Clemens.  Palmer against Martinez. Seaver against Carlton.

Let's start with the one I'll likely get the most flack for -- Koufax against Kershaw.  Old-timers will tell you Koufax was the best pitcher they ever saw, but in reality Kershaw has accomplished just about the same, and Clayton didn't have the years of so-so performance while breaking in. Sandy was truly great in his prime of five or six years.  He had excuses early (Bonus Baby and tough parks), and it was amazing what he did late with arm circulation problems.  But Kershaw has been dominant since his second season.

So I'll go against convention and take Kershaw, even though Clayton hasn't finished up his prime.  (Due to his early retirement, Koufax may not have either.)

[Rog]

That last one was really tough. Maybe if I consider the postseason I go with Koufax.

But Sandy wasn't much more than average his first six seasons, while with the exception of the game Mark saw (the second of Kershaw's career) Clayton has been dominant nearly from the get-to. Kershaw's ERA after 11 starts was 5.18, but he's been pretty phenomenal since then. It took Koufax seven seasons to find himself. It took Kershaw two. Clayton's career ERA is just 2.37. The next closest live ball ERA I could find is Ford's 2.74. Koufax stands at 2.76. Really close, but let's just say that Kershaw has been much more consistent.

[Rog]

Before I go to Spahn and Ford against Johnson, let me mention that I forgot second base. Do I go with Joe Morgan or Robinson Cano? Another close one, but I'll go with Morgan based on his fielding (five Gold Gloves) and 689 steals at better than an 80% success rate.

[Rog]

So, Spahn and Ford against Johnson.

Ford has the lowest ERA at 2.74, but I'll take Spahn over him based on Warren's body of work. 126 more wins. More than 2000 more innings. That said, I think Whitey is one of the most underrated starters in history. But not underrated enough to beat out Spahnie.

So what about Spahn against Johnson? Warren had 60 more wins and posted an ERA 20 points lower than Johnson. But Randy pitched in the steroid era and was more dominant than Spahn. Tough to go against Warren, who is also underrated IMO, but Johnson was amazing despite facing the PED guys.

[Rog]

Now, Marichal against Maddux. Greg also faced the PED hitters, yet his ERA was just 27 points higher than Juanito's. Greg won 112 more games, or 47% more. Both were master craftsmen, but Maddux did it longer, for 1500 more innings, and won so many more games despite facing the juiced up hitters. As much as I'd love to go with Juanito (my second-favorite Giants pitcher behind only Tim Lincecum), but Greg is the guy.

[Rog]

How about Gibson against Clemens? Two very intimidating pitchers. And Clemens used steroids. Yet based solely on performance, Clemens had an ERA just 21 points higher despite facing the steroids guys. (Although he was on equal terms in that regard.) Clemens pitched 1000 more innings, and he won over 100 more games. Advantage Clemens.

[Rog]

Palmer against Martinez? Palmer pitched 1000 more innings than Martinez and won 49 more games. But no live ball era pitcher has been more dominant than Pedro, who once posted an ERA that was more than three runs below the league average. MORE THAN THREE RUNS! Even in Bob Gibson's record-setting 1968 season, Gibby wasn't able to go even TWO runs below the league average.

Pedro faced the steroids guys and pitched nearly half his career in hitter-happy Fenway Park, yet his career ERA was below 3.00. To get an idea how good he was, his ERA was lower than Madison Bumgarner's, even though Madison has pitched in a much more pitcher-friendly park and hasn't yet gone through his decline phase.

No live ball pitcher has ever been more dominant over seven straight seasons than Pedro was from 1997 to 2003. Advantage Pedro.

[Rog]

Tom Seaver against Steve Carlton. Both won over 300 games, and Carlton won 18 more. Steve pitched 400 more innings than Tom Terrific. But Tom's ERA was 37 points lower. Terrific advantage. Advantage Terrific.

[Rog]

So that narrows the great field down to Kershaw, Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez and Seaver. Clearly I have the later pitchers over the pitchers of my youth. I'm a little surprised too that it came out so lopsided. Seaver is the only old-timer to survive. So let's put him up against the weakest of the new guys, Clayton Kershaw. I say Kershaw is the weakest because he has pitched only 1760 innings.

Seaver won 185 more games than Kershaw has. He pitched 3000 (!) more innings. As great as Kershaw has been, he hasn't caught Tom Terrific yet. When all is said and done, Kershaw might be better than all these guys. But he isn't yet. Advantage Seaver.

[Rog]

So I'm left with Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez and Seaver as the five best starting pitchers of my lifetime. The only question would be, are any of the other guys better than Seaver? Seaver won 60 more games. He won three Cy Young Awards to Gibby's two. Gibby won an MVP Award while Tom didn't, but Tom finished with votes in 10 Cy Young votings compared to only four for Bob. Seaver pitched 900 more innings. Both pitchers were really close, but Seaver did it much longer. Tom still prevails.

Tom won 146 more games than Koufax. Seaver beats Sandy for the same reason he beat Kershaw -- a much bigger body of work.

Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Martinez and Seaver. Those are my guys. And what a rotation it would be!

Over 1500 wins. Seven tremendous peaks. Each pitcher with at least 106 more wins than losses. A combined winning percentage of .635. To top it all off, plenty of arguments!

[Rog]

How cool is it that for me at least, there are two Giants among the top 14 players of my lifetime and a third (Randy Johson) who played for them? Is it my bias that caused 11 of my 14 top players I chose to have played in the National League? And the other darn three to have played for the Yankees?

[sfgdood]

do you talk to yourself like this often? If so, seek help asap, dude

[Rog]

Another fine comment from you, Randy. I think it would be great if you would share with us your baseball knowledge and interests. Mostly we just seem to get nonsense such as the above.

I'm pretty sure you have something to say. This is the place to say it.

[Rog]

OK, Randy, who do YOU think are the best five starters of the past 50 or 60 years? Or perhaps just the top five starters you yourself have seen pitch. Maybe just the top five pitchers who have pitched this century. Maybe the top five starters now. Maybe the top five starters in SF Giants history. SOMETHING other than simply calling guys slime balls or issuing put downs.

[Rog]

A bit of irony: We no longer value wins by a starting pitcher as highly as we once did. Not that pitcher wins are meaningless, but the win is actually a team stat.

Some of the best pitchers of my youth exemplify that. The three pitchers I thought were best when I was young never won 300 games. Bob Gibson's 251 wins were the best, with Juan Marichal a close second with 243 wins. Sandy Koufax won only 165. The three pitchers combined for 659 wins, or an average of not quite 220 apiece.

In the era when pitchers no longer threw a lot of complete games, when pitchers were getting injured with greater frequency. when closers were becoming more and more important, Greg Maddux (355 wins), Roger Clemens (354 wins) and Randy Johnson (303 wins) combined for 1012 wins, more than 350 more wins than the total of Gibson, Marichal and Koufax. There were reasons, of course, but how ironic is it that just as the value of the win was being viewed as less, perhaps the top three pitchers in wins won nearly 120 more games apiece than the guys I viewed as the greatest when I was young.

Koufax's career was cut tragically short by a severe circulation problem. Marichal's career was curtailed by a severe reaction to penicillin in 1970. Despite being one of the best postseason pitchers of all time, Gibson simply didn't win as many games as one would have expected. His career started a little late, as he played collegiately and early in his professional career also played briefly for the Harlem Globetrotters. Bob won only six games before the age of 25.

We overvalued pitcher wins for decades, but it is pitcher wins in part that show how great Maddux, Clemens and Johnson were when compared to Koufax, Gibson and Marichal.

Some would say Sandy Koufax was the greatest pitcher they ever saw. But both Maddux and Clemens won more than 200 more games than Sandy. How many games would Sandy have won if not for the circulatory problem? We'll never know. But for a variety of reasons, Sandy won only 36 games in his first six big league seasons.

Tough beginning and an even tougher ending. In between he was darn good though. 129 wins in six seasons. That's considerably more than Maddux, Clemens or Johnson had in a six-year period. But in an era where pitcher innings and wins were declining, Maddux and Clemens won more than twice as many games as Koufax, and Johnson won nearly 80% more.

As good as Koufax, Gibson and Marichal were, it's amazing Maddux, Clemens and Johnson won more than 50% more games -- just as starter wins were beginning to dry up.