Not Much To-do About Greg Maddux

[andyfox]

299 wins, but doesn't it seem like there was much more publicity surrounding Clemens when he got to 299? Maybe it was the fact that Clemens played in New York, or Clemens' style of pitching (power vs. finesse) or maybe his more bombastic personality than the laid-back Maddux, but isn't there a good case to be made that Maddux, and not Clemens, is the greatest pitcher of his generation?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
but isn't there a good case to be made that Maddux, and not Clemens, is the greatest pitcher of his generation?

[/ QUOTE ] Maybe, but Clemens was better, but Maddux has got to be #2.

[nolanfan34]

I think a case can certainly be made that Maddux was better in the 90s. Comparing their whole careers though, Clemens gets the nod. More Cy Youngs, more wins, etc. It's close though.

I have to admit, I was surprised to see that Maddux was at 299. I knew he was close, but didn't know he was THIS close. His laid-back persona certainly doesn't help him get the media coverage that Clemens does. But there's no denying his greatness, especially from 90-95.

I'm glad I've been able to see both pitch. They are truly two of the greats, ever. Especially glad I have unopened boxes of 1985 Donruss, Fleer and Topps, Clemens rookie year. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

Clemens pitched in 1984, won nine games.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Clemens pitched in 1984, won nine games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you're addressing my 1985 baseball cards reference? His 1984 Fleer Update card is really his true rookie, but the 85 cards are still considered RC's, being his first regular cards. The 1984 Update set is out of my price range, and not something I have in my collection /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

[offTopic]

Is the 84 Fleer Update card still considered an XRC? I haven't looked at a Beckett's in years, so just wondering.

As far as the 85 sets go, those were dark days for Topps, but I love the design of the Donruss cards (especially super-clean ones, since there was so much bleed in those little red stripes on the fronts, and black borders chip). The only problem was those grainy photos...ugh.

[nolanfan34]

Topps 85-91 were pretty bad. Well, the wood grain of 1987 was OK. 1986 was the worst design, and photography, ever.

Ha, I haven't seen a Beckett for a while, but I think the Clemens is still an XRC.

1985 Fleer and Donruss are good designs. 1985 was the first year I started collecting as a kid, and the first sets I hand collated, so I'm partial to this year.

Of course a certain 1968 Topps card with Jerry Koosman and some other young pitcher is the nuts! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[riverflush]

nolanfan...that's the greatest avatar in the history of message boards. Being a huge Cub fan, that incident where Ryan beat the snot out of Robin Ventura was truly one of the greatest moments in Chicago baseball history.

The 1987 Topps set was classic. To this day my brother and I keep track of the players still active in MLB from the 87 Topps set (Larkin, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Palmeiro, McLemore, Sierra, Julio and John Franco, Moyer).

Maddux is just such a quiet worker that he's been able to put together a masterpiece career with minimal fanfare. He just brings his lunchpail and hardhat to work and gets it done every outing. He's a bad ass.

[offTopic]

1968 T #177 - A classic...and Koosman was no slouch, either.

My childhood set was 1978 Topps. Rubber-banded. Well-looked-at. I started assembling it into a hand-collated set in the early 90s, and discovered, much to my chagrin, that while I had a big stack of 4-player Rookie cards, that stack did not include the Molitor/Trammell RC. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Although it started a bad trend in terms of production numbers and pricing kids out of the market, I think the 1989 Upper Deck cards were the most beautiful things I'd seen.

[jagoff]

wow! you guys are taking me back to a strange and akward time! I was 14 in 89 and I had 2 sets of the Upper Deck cards that came out that year. I believe that the Donruss set that came out that year had the Billy Ripken "F uck off" bat! Jesus I hadnt thought about those long, gone and thrown out cards in some time! Yeah my bitchwhore of a mother threw them out when she threw all of us out!

[nolanfan34]

It was Fleer, which had the Billy Ripken "F uck face" bat. There ended up being 4 versions of the card - the error version, a version with a black mark over the words, an airbrushed out version, and a version with a white box over the words, if I remember correctly.

That was the beginning of a big downfall for the hobby. I had more 1991 Score Football cards than I care to admit... /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Although it started a bad trend in terms of production numbers and pricing kids out of the market, I think the 1989 Upper Deck cards were the most beautiful things I'd seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The $1.25/pack price was a bit of a sticker shock for a 13-year-old like I was then, but those were some cool cards.

In many ways, while being ahead of the times, Upper Deck has done a lot to send the hobby in the wrong direction. They upped the price of packs, were the first to introduce autograph cards in packs really, and were the first to include "memorabilia cards" with pieces of bats in them.

Now, everyone does that, and people buying $3 and $4/pack cards today are only trying to find a big insert card. No one cares about the base set anymore. It's like playing the lottery.

Wow...I'm starting to sound like Dana Carvey's "grumpy old man" character on SNL..."back in my day, we only got gum in our packs, and it tasted like cardboard...and we liked it!"

Sorry for hijacking the thread with baseball card talk Andy! /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
299 wins, but doesn't it seem like there was much more publicity surrounding Clemens when he got to 299? Maybe it was the fact that Clemens played in New York, or Clemens' style of pitching (power vs. finesse) or maybe his more bombastic personality than the laid-back Maddux, but isn't there a good case to be made that Maddux, and not Clemens, is the greatest pitcher of his generation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should also apologize for participating in a threadjacking. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I think, as far as perception goes, it really boils down to strikeouts and Maddux's foibles in the postseason. I suppose you could counter Clemens' superior strikeout numbers with Maddux's multiple gold gloves, but IMO, people come to the park to see star pitchers strike guys out, not get them off-balance and popup/hit weak grounders all game (right or wrong).

Also, the postseason is supposed to be baseball's biggest stage, and while Clemens hasn't exactly been a world beater, Maddux has a sub-.500 record.

That all said, if Maddux pitches as many seasons as Clemens, and doesn't completely melt down as he reaches/passes 40, I think he will pass Clemens as "the greatest" of this generation, since he will very likely finish with more wins, a better ERA, and he's got that consectutive seasons with 15 or more wins streak, which underscores his consistency.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
That all said, if Maddux pitches as many seasons as Clemens, and doesn't completely melt down as he reaches/passes 40, I think he will pass Clemens as "the greatest" of this generation, since he will very likely finish with more wins, a better ERA, and he's got that consectutive seasons with 15 or more wins streak, which underscores his consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, except I don't think Maddux will pitch long enough to reach the number of wins needed to really distance himself from Clemens. But considering them pitchers 1A and 1B isn't too shabby.

I guess Randy Johnson and Pedro are 2A and 2B.

[Sooga]

One would think that Maddux should get more coverage than Clemens simply because he will probably be the last 300-game winner in a very, very long time. Not even sure which young pitchers today have a decent shot at it. As for old pitchers, Tom Glavine probably has a very outside shot at it, but other than that, I think the 300 club will not be accepting new members for quite some time.

[Bill Murphy]

I don't believe that Bill James & the other stat boys have Maddux rated close to Clemens, Seaver, WJohnson, Grove, Spahn, & Alexander, but I could be wrong. I think James' most current pitching stats are thru either '00 or '01, and he's mentioned they need reworking, i.e. they favor the old-timers too much.

Seems like Maddux was at 260 wins just a little while ago. Great HOF pitcher, no question, but I gotta go w/Clemens, no matter what either does the remainder of their careers.

I would take Maddux over the Weasel, tho. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

I think James' stats favor the old-timers because they pitched so many more innings than the current pitchers.

I know for sure he ranks Clemens over Maddux. I remember reading where James said that there's a good case to be made for Clemens being the greatest pitcher of all time.

[andyfox]

Here's the complete list of pitchers who are 150 or more games over .500 since 1900:

Mathewson 185
Alexander 165
Grove 159
Clemens 159

[Sooga]

What's more amazing is that Maddux has a grand total of 2 20-win seasons (granted, 20 is an arbitrary number... he has 5 19 win seasons). But the point is that a pitcher like Dave Stewart had 4 20-win seasons in a row and only finished with 168 career wins. Maddux's consistency has been amazing. He's won at least 15 games every year since 1988! That's when I was 9 years old! Andy I'm sure you were a couple years older than that /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Bill James goes in depth about the Maddux/Clemens best-righty-of-his-generation argument in his Historical Basball Abstract (which should be essential reading for ANY even casual baseball fan), and he basically concludes the argument by saying it's close, but his vote is that Clemens is the greatest righthander of his generation. BTW James ranks Clemens #11 all-time, Maddux #14.

[Randy_Refeld]

"Bill James goes in depth about the Maddux/Clemens best-righty-of-his-generation argument in his Historical Basball Abstract (which should be essential reading for ANY even casual baseball fan)"

I think I will have to buy another copy of that; it is my favorite book of all time, but I own the 1984 version.

Randy Refeld

[Sooga]

Oh lordy, absolutely.... I don't have the '84 version, but I can only imagine it is a LOT different than the '01. Plus the new one is in paperback now so it should be cheap. It's definitely a must-buy. Does '84 have the same format? i.e. rating the top players with a bit of a blurb on each player? Bill James says things that only he could think up. For example, for pitches, #81 all time he ranks Sixto Lezcano. And while on other players he has at least a paragraoph, for Sixto he simply writes, 'No relation to Antonio Alfonseca.' Flat out hilarious.

[andyfox]

Yes, the '84 version is the same, without the Win Shares. So his ratings are different. If memory serves, he rated Musial #1 in left field, mostly because he liked Musial as a person more than Ted Williams. In the new version, he coudln't argue with the numbers and Williams was #1.

BTW, I have his book Win Shares and have tried to wade through it a number of times without success.

[Randy_Refeld]

Was there an edition prior to 84? I know I have the 84 edition and I am pretty sure the win shares are in there. I moved recently so I dont' have access to it at this time.

Randy Refeld

[riverflush]

OK...big Cub apologist here, so bias will be present...

The thing that blows me away with Maddux is his BB totals (or lack thereof). Over the past 10 years he's averaged something like 37 BB/yr.

95 and 97 were just insane:

1995 - 19W 2L 1.63ERA 23BB in 209 innings
1997 - 19W 4L 2.20ERA 20BB in 232 innings

That's just nuts. Even this year, at age 38 and a high ERA he's only walked 19 in 135 innings.

The gold gloves are just icing on the cake for whichever team has Maddux at the time.

[andyfox]

This sounds ridiculous, but my baseball books are in my bedroom and my wife's already asleep. But I am 99.9% sure Win Shares was not in the '84. Perhaps you're thinking about the new hardcover edition which came out a year or so before the new paperback edition. That is, the original Historical Abstract of '84 did not use Win Shares. But both the hardcover and paperback editions of the New Historical Abstract did.

BTW, this thread is a helluva lot more fun than the Social Security one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

Pretty similar to old time pitcher Christy Mathewson's totals late in his career. And Mathewson and Maddux might be pretty close in where they rank all-time.

[Sooga]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past 10 years he's averaged something like 37 BB/yr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes. Must be one hell of a rake.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty similar to old time pitcher Christy Mathewson's totals late in his career. And Mathewson and Maddux might be pretty close in where they rank all-time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted it was a totally different era, but I like how in 1913-1914 he had more wins than walks.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
It was Fleer, which had the Billy Ripken "F uck face" bat. There ended up being 4 versions of the card - the error version, a version with a black mark over the words, an airbrushed out version, and a version with a white box over the words, if I remember correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a picture (http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ripken.htm) of the card.

I've still got a couple Rickey Henderson rookie cards (Topps) and about seven Cal Ripken rookie cards (Topps Future Prospects).

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I've still got a couple Rickey Henderson rookie cards (Topps) and about seven Cal Ripken rookie cards (Topps Future Prospects).

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh heh, good link.

I hope I have the Rickey rookie...although I won't know since I have about 1/2 a box of 1980 Topps unopened packs, and I ain't opening them!

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've still got a couple Rickey Henderson rookie cards (Topps) and about seven Cal Ripken rookie cards (Topps Future Prospects).

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh heh, good link.

I hope I have the Rickey rookie...although I won't know since I have about 1/2 a box of 1980 Topps unopened packs, and I ain't opening them!

[/ QUOTE ]

Good move. Big set, and the Henderson is pretty much the only worthwhile card. Nobody wants to kick down just to experience the joy of cracking a Jessie Orosco RC.

[Uston]

Now, everyone does that, and people buying $3 and $4/pack cards today are only trying to find a big insert card.

Try three and four hundred per pack and up.

Unfortunately, I can't find the article or the link, but there was a piece on espn.com about the insane prices people are paying for individual packs now. The hobby has gotten so lame.

[Uston]

It's true that there aren't many worthwhile rookies in the 1980 Topps set but there are a ton of second and third cards of HOF'ers (Brett, Molitor, Murray, Ozzie) and it was a pretty cool design for Topps cards of that era.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that there aren't many worthwhile rookies in the 1980 Topps set but there are a ton of second and third cards of HOF'ers (Brett, Molitor, Murray, Ozzie) and it was a pretty cool design for Topps cards of that era.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed on the design. Replica autographs are great for little kids (learn to forge your favorite player!)

Personal anecdote about the 1980 set. I (well, my parents, really) bought a few cards in 77, a bunch in 78, then a few in 79 and a few in 80. I wasn't a set collator at that age, so I sorted them into teams and arranged them alphabetically. (The Giants and A's being the most raggedy, particularly the 78 set.)

Fast forward to, I think 1992 or 1993, and my dad was moving some stuff around in the garage. He brings in this old Peanuts lunchbox and says, "Are any of these worth anything?" I open the box and in it are the 1980 cards (probably about 300 or so).

I start going through them (no PSA 9s, most are EX) and when I get to the A's, I stop at Mike Heath, hold my breath, and look at the next card. Rickey! Good times.