The second greatest athletes of all time

[Clarkmeister]

Because I'm bored, and because greatest is frequently a runaway, here are my second greatest athletes of all time.

Quarterback: Elway
Running Back: Payton
Defensive Player: LT
Overall NFL Player: Brown

LHP: Carlton
RHP: Rocket
MLB Player: Mays

NHL Player: Mario

Mens Tennis: Pete
Womens Tennis: Steffi

Horse Racing: Citation
Boxing: Ali
NBA player: The Stilt
Golfer: Jack

[IrishHand]

Who were the first greatest athletes of all time, or did I miss that one?

[B-Man]

When you say Elway is the second greatest "athlete" at QB, do you mean he was the second-best QB, or the second-most athletic? I assume the former. Who do you rank first, Montana or Marino? I assume Montana. I don't understand why many people rank Elway over Marino. For most of their careers, Marino was clearly superior, but Elway got a great coach and, more importantly, a great running back at the end of his career, and rode that running back to two super bowl wins. No Terrell Davis, no rings. Elway was a wonderful athlete and a clutch player, but Marino was a better quarterback for most of their careers (and better overall)(similarly, Bird was better than Magic (though not by a a large margin) for most of their careers, but near the end Bird got injured and declined, and Magic stayed healthy and played for a better team, so people forget that Bird was better from 1980-1988).

On defense, who do you rank over L.T.? Honestly, I think it is crazy to put anyone ahead of him. Dick Butkus may have had fewer off-field problems/issues, and clearly L.T. had a drug problem, but he was by far the best defensive player I ever saw. The man was a force.

Who do you rank as the best pitchers?

I don't agree with Wilt as #2, but I think it is extremely difficult to come up with definitive relative rankings of Wilt, Russell, Bird, and Magic (followed by Kareem), all after Jordan (before he came out of retirement 3 times).

Because I'm bored, and because greatest is frequently a runaway, here are my second greatest athletes of all time.

Quarterback: Elway
Running Back: Payton
Defensive Player: LT
Overall NFL Player: Brown

LHP: Carlton
RHP: Rocket
MLB Player: Mays

NHL Player: Mario

Mens Tennis: Pete
Womens Tennis: Steffi

Horse Racing: Citation
Boxing: Ali
NBA player: The Stilt
Golfer: Jack

[Clarkmeister]

That would be covered in my explaination that the "(first) greatest is frequently a runaway"

No one is really going to care to debate Jordan, Secretariat or Babe Ruth are they? Second greatest is more fun.

[pudley4]

Some of the #1's are easy to figure out but who is #1 for:

Defensive Player
LHP
RHP (Cy Young? Walter Johnson?)
Boxing
Men's Tennis

Here's my #2 list:
QB - Johnny U
RB - Payton
Defensive Player - Butkus (I have LT #1)
Overall Player - Brown

LHP - dunno
RHP - Walter Johnson
MLB Player - Mays

NHL - Mario

Men's Tennis - Laver (Sampras #1)
Women's Tennis - Graf

Horse Racing - Either Man O' War or Secretariat - I still can't decide who was best.
Boxing - don't care about boxing /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
NBA - Wilt
Golf - Nicklaus

How about WR? Lance Alworth

[Clarkmeister]

Yes, I mean player, not "pure athletic ability"

Since the first two respondents asked, here are my #1's:

QB: Montana
RB: Brown
Defense: Ray Lewis (see Tiger and Pedro below, I'm not afraid to do a little reasonable projection with an already accomplished great player)
Overall NFL: Rice

LHP: Koufax
RHP: Pedro
MLB Player: Ruth

NHL: The Great One

Womens Tennis: Martina
Mens Tennis: Laver

Horse Racing: Big Red
Boxing: Robinson
NBA: Jordan
Golf: Tiger
Track and Field: Carl Lewis (Didn't do a #2 in this because no one is really even close)

[Clarkmeister]

Elway took 3 really really forgettable Denver teams and singlehandedly carried them to the Super Bowl. A feat that Marino was never able to do after 83, and he was a part of several teams that had more talent than Denver.

Actually, I am one of those who thinks a compelling arguement can be made that if you swap Montana and Elway, that Elway does as good or better in SF while Montana doesn't reach those 3 SB's with Denver that Elway did.

I don't understand the knock that he didn't win until Terrell was there. So what? Montana wouldn't have won without Rice. You need a great team to win the big one. And its not like they beat a bad GB team the first time around. That Packer team was outstanding, and by my memory Denver was over a 1TD underdog.

I would put Unitas 3rd, Marino 4th and Favre 5th.

I agree that the difference between Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird and Russell is small, but that is the order in which I would rate them. But it is close and I change my mind on it from time to time. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Clarkmeister]

I have Man O War 3rd. Citations career was simply too dominant and against a much better quality and quantity of competition.

[IrishHand]

QB: Montana, Marino
RB: Brown, Payton
Defense: Deion Sanders (not my fault he was an idiot), Ray Lewis
Overall NFL: Montana, Elway

LHP: Koufax, Spahn
RHP: Cy Young, Pedro (although tough to really judge a guy who played 100+ years ago, I'm relying on raw numbers)
MLB player: Ruth, Williams

NHL: Mario, Gretzky (Mario in his prime was a better player than Gretzky with far crappier teammates, and this thread isn't about best careers)

Women's Tennis: Graf (the woman owned the sport for years - no need for a 2nd since Graf was so insanely dominant)
Men's Tennis: Sampras, McEnroe

Horse Racing: don't care
Boxing: Ali, de la Hoya (unreal until recently)
NBA: Jordan, Magic
Golf: Tiger, Nicklaus
Track & Field: don't care

[pudley4]

I'll argue the Man O' War/Secretariat /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Man O' War - 20 wins in 21 races. Only non-winning race was a 3rd place finish - the starter sent off the field while Man O' War was facing backwards. He broke the (then) current records by several seconds at a time. He destroyed the 1919 Triple Crown Winner (Sir Barton) in a match race. He never once raced to his full potential:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
We never lifted a jockey to his back that we didn't tell to hold the horse down, so as not to win by too wide a margin

[/ QUOTE ]

Samuel Riddle, owner.

[pudley4]

Track and Field - I think Edwin Moses and Michael Johnson (and even Jesse Owens) could be argued for #1.

[B-Man]

While I don't agree with all of them, you can make a straight-faced argument for most of the players you listed--except Deion. How could you possibly rank him as the greatest defensive player of all time? He wasn't even a great all-around cornerback, he was a great cover corner... granted that is the primary responsibility of a corner, but he was a poor tackler and shied away from making tackles on running plays.

Lawrence Taylor was the best defensive player in history, and I don't think it was close. He could do everything Ray Lewis can do and more, and was the greatest pass-rushing linebacker in history. I'm no Giants fan--in fact, I hated the Giants during most of the L.T. era--but L.T. was simply a force. Ray Lewis is great, but unlike Tiger and Pedro, he isn't so much better than everyone else that he should be projected to finish as the best ever. Is Lewis even the best middle linebacker ever? I'm not so sure you could say so.

[Clarkmeister]

Michael Johnson's Atlanta 200m is the single most dominant individual performance I have ever witnessed.

Edwin Moses, despite his detractors who say he shied away from the elite competition near the end of the streak, dominated his sport for an amazing length of time and is clearly one of the dominant figures in the sport's history.

But they aren't close to Carl.

He dominated 4 events for an unprecedented length of time. From his record setting performances early in his career to his final amazing long jump Gold in Atlanta, he simply was light years ahead of anyone else. In fact, I think I could make a convincing arguement that he was the greatest athlete of the 20th century.

[Clarkmeister]

As I mentioned earlier, I have Man O War 3rd, virtually tied with Native Dancer (who also only lost one race), behind both Citation and Secretariat.

A couple of corrections. He finished 2nd in his lone loss, and while he was off slow in that race (charts show he broke 5th of the 6 horses in the race) he was not facing backwards. I don't know where you heard that, but it's wrong.

He broke no track records at 2, but did break 5 American records at 3. It is at least notable that the year was 1920 and breaking a record is significant, but not nearly as significant as doing it in the postwar era. His win over Sir Barton is nice, but it was the only time he raced against a horse from a different generation (significant), and Sir Barton is certainly one of the worst Triple Crown winners, and maybe not in the top 100 American horses of all time. In his last 10 races, he only defeated a total of 14 horses. Yes, many of those runs were record setting, but in my book, you need to beat more than 1.4 horses, all from your generation, per race.

Secretariat by contrast beat large fields, beat older, won on turf and set far more meaningful stakes and world records, several of which still stand and haven't even been approached. This despite tracks today being consistently souped up for the major race cards of the year.

Citation also set world records, one of them after his return to the races following a year long layoff from which he never returned to top form. That's right, he set the world record for a mile while injured and at a shadow of his former self. He also arguably beat better competition than Secretariat and certainly beat better than Man O War. His 16 race winning streak (including the TC) still has not been surpassed by handicap horses and he was racing's first millionaire.

[M2d]

where does longevity come into play? obviously not very high, since you've rated Koufax the greatest lefty and Martinez the greatest righty.
Personally, I'd have to go with the Big Train on the right-handed choice. he has the longevity (21 years, 417 wins, 2.17 ERA) and the short-term spurt (check out his 5 years from 1912-1916: over 25 wins each year, 149 total wins over that span, and his highest ERA was 1.90)

tough to argue the differences of the eras (not Earned Run Average /forums/images/icons/smile.gif ), as people have made careers on this subject, but for pure numbers and domination of his time, I'd go with the train.

I'd also go with Magic as the best, but I'm a die-hard laker fan /forums/images/icons/smile.gif . couldn't argue my point, either. Coolest nickname, at least.

You like Hingis as the greatest womans tennis player?

[IrishHand]

First of all, I'll preface my reply by reminding that the thread is about the greatest players ever, and has nothing to do with career acheivements.

Deion Sanders, in his prime, was the most dominant player in the NFL. He completely changed the way the offense had to play because you had to make a serious effort NOT to throw to his side of the field. That allowed his team to allot defensive resources elsewhere and forced the other team to both (a) lost it's top receiver, and (b) throw in a more predictable manner because of it. I can't remember how many games I watched where the in-game graphs showed that the opposing QB had made 25+ throws to the non-Deion side, with 2 or 3 to the Deion side. I have no idea how you think he wasn't the greatest corner ever simply as a corner.

In addition, he was arguably the greatest return man ever. Again, kickoffs went to the other guy the majority of the time, and punts went out of bounds. When you did kick to him, he was a legitimate threat to return for 6 nearly every play.

The aforementioned LBs were certainly great players - I just don't think they had the overall impact that Deion did in his prime. You can stop a LB in a run scheme with 2 blockers, and the guys listed weren't great cover guys. Lewis is an easy example - he's a great run stopper - no denying that. But I'd argue that by himself, he doesn't change the complexion of the game to the same extent that Sanders did. That's my opinion of course, and I certainly don't begrudge those who favor the big LBs.

Irish

[Clarkmeister]

I am assuming you are kidding with the Hingis comment? There's only one Martina and her last name begins with an "N".

Quite frankly it was simply too easy to pitch back in the early 1900's. There are 3 or 4 pitchers with very similar stats, and an ERA below 2 simply wasn't that impressive relative to the field. Ruth's accomplishments are so monumental because of how much he stood out from the pack. Johnson, Young etc all look decidedly similar and so in my book they get moved down. Besides, while I think Ruth could still hit today's pitching, I really doubt the early pitchers could have remotely the same success against todays hitters.

Longevity plays a part in my selections, (I'm trying to have a balanced view, otherwise I'd just list the best single year performances in each sport) but I think in general we over-emphasize it in sports. Is Jim Brown any less great because he retired so soon? Of course not. OTOH do we need to acknowledge players like Jerry Rice who can continue to excel well past their prime? Of course. I just think that baseball in particular overemphasizes durability over brilliance. Entry standards into the hall are proof of that.

My selections of Pedro, Tiger and Lewis obviously assume some reasonable level of extrapolation. But all have dominated deeper more talanted modern competition enough that I feel comfortable listing them that high. I'd argue that Pedro's last 5 years are the best consecutive 5 years in the history of the game.

PS, I'm glad that you at least admit your love of Magic is sentimental and not rational. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Clarkmeister]

I agree with everything you said about Deion, and I would have put him top 6 in my Defensive list along with Lewis, LT, Deacon, White and Butkus.

[B-Man]

Well, you listed Deion as the greatest defensive player, not the best return man. If you want to argue that Deion was a better return man than L.T., I will concede the point, but I don't think that helps in the argument over who was the best defensive player.

I disagree with much of what you wrote. I think Deion was a tremendous player, but he was not as dominant as you make him out to be. Deion was never the most dominant player in the league, nor do I think a cornerback could be. He was an excellent cover man, but a poor tackler. Rod Woodson was a better all-around corner (and a pretty damn good return man as well), before he converted to safety late in his career. I also disagree that Deion automatically took away a team's best receiver--that just wasn't the case. Jerry Rice once scored 4 touchdowns against him in one game (of course Rice has done that to a few other people as well).

Also, if you don't think L.T. was a great cover man for a linebacker, you must not have seen him play very much. He was the best pass-rushing linebacker in history, a great tackler, and, for a linebacker, an excellent cover man. There were no holes in his game (unlike Deion), he had the total package (much like Jim Brown). L.T. actually was the most dominant player in the NFL in his prime; he was the force you are claiming Deion was.

I'm not saying Deion wasn't great, I just don't think he was as great as you are making him out to be. He may or may not have been the greatest corner, but he was not the best defensive player.

[Clarkmeister]

Your contention that Mario in his prime was better than Gretzky is a popular, and completely false one. I'll defend my position with a simple question: Do you remember the year when Gretzky had more assists than anyone else had points?

Including De La Hoya on a top 50 list is a borderline joke, let alone #2. Do you actually follow the sport? Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Chavez, Whittaker, Leonard would all rip him apart in their primes, and that's just an off the top of my head list from the last 20 years.

How do you put McEnroe ahead of Borg?

[andyfox]

Good post.

Quarterback: Elway: good choice: I'd vote Montana #1
Running Back: Payton: I'd vote OJ #2
Defensive Player: LT: Agree (Butkis #1)
Overall NFL Player: Brown: I vote Brown #1, Jerry Rice #2

LHP: Carlton: I vote Spahn #2 (Grove #1)
RHP: Rocket: Not a bad choice, but I'd vote Alexander #2 (Johnson#1)
MLB Player: Mays: I agree

NHL Player: Mario: not that familiar with Hockey, but consensus seems to be Gretzky #1 and Mario #2

Mens Tennis: Pete: I vote Pete #1
Womens Tennis: Steffi: good choice I think (Martina #1)

Horse Racing: Citation: haven't a clue
Boxing: Ali: don't know enough to comment
NBA player: The Stilt: I vote Wilt #1, Jordan #2
Golfer: Jack: Jack is still #1, Tiger's now in the top 10, but not #1 yet. I'd vote Snead #2.

[Clarkmeister]

Respectfully Andy, I'm about as big a Chamberlain supporter as there is, but I don't know that he's really that close to Jordan. If nothing else, Jordan averaged more points per game while being 8 inches shorter and against a much deeper, more talented and more defensively oriented league.

I think if Tiger died tomorrow a case can be made that he is the best ever based on his accomplishments to date, but I would certainly understand those who ranked Jack higher. That said, he is certainly no worse than 2 at this moment in time. I can already think of a half-dozen "greatest feats in golf history" that Tiger has already accomplished. Lapping the field in the Masters and in the Open at Pebble. The Tiger Slam. Averaging over a stroke per round better than the next closest competitor on tour over the course of a year. No, I don't think that I can put him behind Snead.

For the pitchers, as I mentioned in another post there are simply too many pitchers who had similar numbers back in the dead ball era of the early century. While my list maybe doesn't give enough credit to those legends, I think yours discounts the postwar pitchers too much.

[HDPM]

Mario is not in top 2 in hockey. Gretsky is no. 1 and he was great in many areas. But Gordie highlights the weaknesses that the sniveling pretty boy Gretsky had. Gretsky was protected by goons and could not play physical hockey. All he did was cry about goonery in hockey and talk about how it should be a wholesome wimp sport, even though he had goons who would fight you if you hit him cleanly. Gordie had all the skills and was very tough. He skated, scored, hit, and fought when there were six teams comprising good athletes who were very hungry and very tough. Gretsky competed in an era of expansion and relatively soft defense, particularly the conference he played in. He was great and did things nobody else could do, but he wasn't perfect. And no way can the visor wearing fragile (not counting the cancer) Mario beat out Gordie.

[David Ottosen]

In track, I'd give Sergei Bubka some consideration if you want to apply the same standards you did in other places which is how superior he was to the competition. In football, I don't think I'd take Lewis, but I'm also not sure who I would take; LT seems a rather prominent alternative, and I wouldn't discount Deion out of hand. I'd take Chamberlain over Jordan in the NBA. It's probably trendy, but I prefer Barry Sanders as RB. I don't know much about boxing, but I've always had this idea that Roy Jones Jr was pretty good. Women's tennis I'd take Graf over either Martina.

One I do agree on is Gretzky, not Mario. In fact, this is the one I'd have said "There's no point doing a #2 since #1 is so far in front". Lemieux had some pretty good teammates over his career (one in particular comes to mind), so I don't buy that junk.

[M2d]

completely kidding about the hingis thing. I do think that you're going to have to consider serena for this list soon, though. (assuming she doesn't go off the deep end on this fashion design thing). I had just read an article about sergio garcia, so I had hingis on the mind when I read your post. figured that the graf/navratalova thing was so cut and dried that I'd throw in something from left field.

I disagree with your assertion that the pitchers of previous eras wouldn't do as well today as the contemporaries. the only changes in the game that aren't in their favor is the breakinng of the color line and the livening of the ball in the twenties.
conditioning helps the pitchers more than the hitters, because, while hitters gain in power, pitchers can gain in stamina and longevity. They can now pitch longer in a game and more games in a year.
the advent of more pitches helps the pitchers (obviously). today, pitchers can use sliders and split-fingers, both of which more than compensate for the lack of the spitter.
Pitchers today also benefit from the advent of the reliever. Earlier, pitchers went nine unless the were getting bombed or their arms fell off. Now, the pitch six and they get a "quality start" (damn, bill james and his minions). then they turn the game over to a middle reliever, a setup man, and a closer. all fresh arms.

I also think that comparing pitchers against their peers is somewhat misleading. the common truth across the ages in baseball, is that great pitching will beat great hitting (in our beloved long run). I think Pedro, Unit, Schilling, et al are great pitchers (but not all time), but that they look even better because of expansion and the fact that the rest of their peers are crap. teams have been rushing twenty one and twenty two year olds to the show because they throw hard, and are the only live arms in the system. earlier, they'd often have a chance to mature in the minors. the bottom end of the spectrum is really triple A or less in quality now.

As for Ruth, he never played a game under lights, never faced a slider, never faced a setup man, and closer, and never played against anyone other than whites. Not that he wasn't great, but I'd go with Mays, if I were figuring in changes in the game. Ruth's up there if not.

[Glenn]

"As for Ruth, he never played a game under lights, never faced a slider, never faced a setup man, and closer, and never played against anyone other than whites."

What was Mays' ERA again?

[Clarkmeister]

The biggest knock against Young, Johnson et al is simply that pretty much EVERYONE back then had crazy ERA's, tons of wins etc. Of the top 50 all time career ERA leaders (min 2000 IP) only ONE didn't pitch his entire career prior to 1930. Other than the top two, the rest of the top 50 all have ERA's between 2 and 2.75.

So I am left with two possible conclusions.

1. It was simply a golden age of pitching and all the great pitchers of the game came along pre 1920.

2. A limited number of pitchers from a limited talent pool (whites who couldn't get a better paying job) simply were all very similar, and were more likely all mediocre products of the dead ball era and equally mediocre hitters.

I find #2 entirely more believable.

That's why Ruth is so amazing. These pitchers from that era are all the same, but Ruth alone stands out as a hitter. The fact that people were chasing him, and only him through Maris and Aaron shows just how -ahem- Ruthian his feats were.

[marbles]

"His 16 race winning streak (including the TC) still has not been surpassed by handicap horses"
-Looks like Duchossois has duped me again... Did Cigar beat Citation's streak or not?

[Clarkmeister]

No. He tied it in that race (I was there actually). He lost his next start to Dare and Go when Baily decided to speed duel with Siphonic.

[marbles]

Consider the memory banks updated. Thanks.

And from what I've read, I would have to call it a toss-up between Citation and Man O' War for #2.

[Glenn]

Here is a statistical comparsion of Pedro v. Johnson with some adjusted numbers. I took Pedro's carrer and compared it to Johnson's best 10 year stretch, 1910-19 (since Pedro has about 10 seasons as of now). Johnson's career numbers are also included. I think this clearly shows Johnson having an edge, especially when you look at the adjusted ERA number for Johnson from that 10 years (higher is better--it is basically the ratio of the average league era to the pitcher's, adjusted for park factor). Pedro isn't even top 5 yet IMO (although he could be if he keeps it up).

PS-it totally sucked to format that chart

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>



Martinez Best 10 Total

W/L 152-63 265-143 417-279
Pct .707 .650 .599
OBA/LgAvg .199 (.273) .202 (.263) .216 (.269)
OBP/LgAvg .252 (.342) .241 (.333) .261 (.338)
BB 507 661 1363
BB/9 2.62 1.74 2.07
K 2220 2219 3509
K/9 10.56 5.83 5.33
ERA 2.62 1.59 2.17
Adj ERA 171 212 146
IP 1892.3 3427.7 5914.7

</pre><hr>

Also, lets compare their best season

The following year by Pedro has been lauded by some as the great year for a pitcher ever:

W/L: 18-6 (.750)
CG: 7
SHO: 4
IP: 217
ERA: 1.74
Adj ERA: 285
OpAvg: .164 (.265)
OpObp: .197 (.336)
K/9: 11.8
BB/9: 1.33

But what about this season by Johnson?

W/L: 36-7 (.837)
CG: 29
SHO: 11
IP: 346
ERA: 1.14
Adj ERA: 259
OpAvg: .183 (.267)
OpObp: .206 (.339)
K/9: 6.27
BB/9: .98

Close. Pedro has a slight edge in the main percentages, but Johnson has a huge edge in record, IP, and BB/9.

[skp]

I think 99's assists alone would have won the Art Ross Trophy (scoring champion) on several occasions - not just one.

Participating in hockey pools is a Canadian obsession and in the 80's, all pools in the country had a special rule for Gretzky: The guy who had the first draft couldn't just take Gretz and get all of his points. That would have been insane - there is simply no way that the guy with the first pick could then go on to lose the pool. So, what everyone did was split his total into assists and goals. Even so, "Gretzky's assists" was the coveted first pick in hockey pools for years. "Gretzky's goals" would also usually be a top 15 or top 20 pick (His 92 goals in the '82-'83 season remains the best ever).

I lived in Edmonton during the glory days of the Oilers. If they weren't the best hockey team ever (which I think they were), they were no doubt the most exciting. Even the staunchest Canadiens and Islanders fans would admit to that.

All that said about Gretz, Mario is friggin' unbelievable as well. His assists this year may win the Art Ross.

Not much to choose between these two guys and Bobby Orr for that matter.

The Hockey News had a big survey done last year picking Hockey's all-time top 50. Gretzky barely edged out Orr. Howe finshed third and Mario 4th.

[skp]

Johnson faked the injury in that 150m made for TV race against Donovan Bailey.

Agree or disgaree?

[skp]

IMO, Gretzky vs. Mario vs. Orr is about the closest race there is in sports as to the best ever. Picking any of the 3 as the best ever is defendable.

[B-Man]

I am curious why you compared Walther Johnson's best 10 years against Pedro's last 10 years? Don't you think that is a little unfair? Don't you also think comparing some (not all) of the stats you chose is a little ridiculous considering Johnson pitched in the dead-ball era and Pedro pitches in the age of the home run?

Consider the following stats and all-time rankings (sorry, tough to format the table, not sure how you did it):

Stat Pedro Johnson
Adj. ERA 171 (1st) 146 (3rd)
WHIP 9.908 (3rd) 9.550 (6th)
W-L% .707 (3rd) .599 (not among leaders)
K/9 10.550(3rd) 5.33 (not among leaders)

If I had to pick one stat to use to compare pitchers from different time periods, I would choose adjusted era. Pedro is the all-time leader, bar none. Johnson is a very respectable 3rd. In terms of allowing walks and hits, which is obviously also very important, Pedro is 3rd all time, Johnson is 6th. But wait--Johnson pitched in the dead-ball era, and Pedro pitches a juiced ball! It is amazing that Pedro's raw WHIP is better than everyone in history except for two dead-ball era pitchers (not Walter). All things considered, he is by far the toughest pitcher there has ever been to get a hit or walk off of, and also the toughest to score against.

He's also 3rd all time in winning percentage, despite playing for some good but also some mediocre teams, and 2nd all time in strikeouts/9 (not the most important stat, but something to consider).

We don't know what pedro will do for the next 5 or 10 years, but to this point in his career, he is the best ever.

[Glenn]

If you actually look at the league BA and league OBP that were in my post, you will see they were pretty similar. Pedro Martinez has pitched for 10 years. Is it fair to compare his stats to 2x years of ERA of Johnson's? Nevermind the fact that he pitched 3x as many innings. If his career ended today, it would be reasonable to compare the only 10 years of Martinez's career to Johnson's best 10 year stretch to see who was more dominant at their best. I did not pick the best years out, I picked a 10 year period of his career. He was clearly more dominant, and his adjusted ERA was much better (over 200). This accounts for the league and park factors so dead ball era isn't an arguement. You can't compare an ERA over 10 seasons to an ERA over 20+. I compared an ERA over 10 seasons to an ERA over 10 seasons. I did not even make the longevity arguement, etc... So even if Pedros numbers were better, and his career ended today, Johnson could still be considered a better pitcher. However, I didn't argue that. I compared 10 years to 10 years. It doesn't make Johnson a bad player because he pitched effectively but not godlike past his prime. This cannot be counted against him when comparing him to someone who hasn't pitched that long yet.

[Roy Munson]

During this very lengthy thread no one has given their opinion to the greatest bowler of all time. Although my career was cut short due to a very unfortunate ball return injury, I believe that I, Roy Munson, would have become the greatest bowler of all time.
My first PBA win out of the gate in the 1979 OdorEaters open over the grizzled tour vet Ernie McCracken gave the bowling world a glimpse of the brilliance that was sure to follow but, alas, never came to fruition.
After a extended period of inactivity I entered the winner take all Reno open against the top bowlers in the world with a rubber prosthesis and came up one shot short of capturing this very prestigious event.
I can think of no other bowler facing similar circumstances that could have performed to this level.

[B-Man]

Pedro Martinez has pitched for 10 years. Is it fair to compare his stats to 2x years of ERA of Johnson's?

It's not about fair, it's about who is the greatest pitcher. Pedro has pitched 11 years, I don't know what he is going to do for the next 9, all I know is what he has done so far, which is better than anyone else has done in their career (based on averages and percentages, not totals, obviously). Johnson's career numbers do not compare, nor do anyone else's. I don't see how you can pick the best ten year period from Johnson's career and pretend he never pitched before that or after that; it's arbitrary and capricious. If you want to compare Johnson's first 10 or 11 years to Pedro, that would at least make some sense, but not picking his best stretch.

The question was who was the greatest (and second-greatest) right-handed pitcher of all time. Pedro has the best career numbers, period. He's first all-time in adjusted ERA (the most important stat, IMO), 3rd all-time in raw WHIP (and would certainly be first if league-adjusted) behind two dead-ball pitchers, third in winning percentage and second in strikeouts per inning. Nobody has dominated like he has. Maybe he'll be mediocre for the next 5 years and will drop out of this discussion, who knows, but if you compare his career to anyone else's career, Pedro comes out on top (based on percentages and averages as opposed to accumulating totals).

[Glenn]

You have got to be kidding. ERA means nothing when you compare 6000 innings and twenty-some years to 2000 and ten years. Johnson had an adj ERA of 212 for a period as long as Pedro's career. The fact that he did anything else is pretty much irrelevant when comparing him to Pedro since Pedro has done nothing else. Think about it...I run a marathon in 3 hours. You run a half marathon in 1hr 25 mins. I ran 13 miles of my marathon in 1hr 15 min. You have NO basis to argue that you are a better runner.

[IrishHand]

Pedro is a pitching God. The others were simply dominant pitchers. If Pedro were a free agent today, he'd get more per year than A-Rod and deserve every penny.

[John Cole]

Glenn,

Obviously you're not of the Dan Duquette school of thought. Even though the Red Sox didn't win, they spent more days in first place than any other team.

John

[B-Man]

I thought we were talking about pitching, not road racing, but if you want to discuss marathons I suppose we could.

You can't compare the innings pitched from the dead-ball era to the innings pitched today. Its ridiculous, there is simply no comparison. Back then pitchers could start 60 or more games and complete every one. It was a different era.

What you can compare is adjusted ERA. Pedro is #1 all time. Pitching is about giving up the fewest runs, and Pedro is the best ever in that category.

As I pointed out, he is better than Johnson (and just about everyone else) in most of the other major categories, too.

I am not slamming Walther Johnson--he is one of the top 5 or 6 pitchers ever. He just wasn't as dominating as Pedro.

[Glenn]

I specifically didn't compare IP, I compared seasons, 10 to 10. Even though I think 10 best consecutaive seasons is the best way to compare, Johnson leads Martinez in adjusted ERA for his 1st 10 seasons as well (since you said that would be better). So should Johnson be penalized because he kept pitching and won a couple of hundred more games after that point? And if Pedro has a 150 adjusted ERA next year does that mean he's worse than we think?

Road racing was an anology...it was a good analogy too...

[IrishHand]

It was a good analogy - but B-Man doesn't like analogies when they support ideas he doesn't like.

Of course, I'm still believing that Pedro is the best RHP in baseball history no matter how the stats compare. I look at a player, I look at the era, and I look at his performance relative to both his contemporaries and others in history. (I think that adjusted ERAs are the product of a statistician's boredom and not all that helpful though.) Overall, I'm confident that unless Pedro loses it in the near future, his place in history is secure.

[Glenn]

Don't get me wrong, I think Pedro is awesome to watch, he just needs to do more to be the best ever. I am not saying he can't, I am just saying he hasn't. He certainly has the best stuff I have ever seen, but that of course doesn't make him the best pitcher.

[Clarkmeister]

Nice Chart.

Couple of thoughts: First, you and B-man seem to have a disagreement as to the adjusted ERA figures. I'd be interested in seeing where you each get those numbers. Mostly for my personal edification because I don't know where to go for stuff like that, not because I'm questioning their validity.

OK - we have career and season discussions here:

Career:

As Bman stated, its obviously at least a little unfair to take the ten best seasons vs Pedros 10. A fairer comparison would be Johnson's best 7 vs Pedro's best 7. Note Johnson would still have an edge because of more seasons to chose from, but I think it would still be a more meaningful comparison.

Something else that would be cool: Pedro has a better winning %, but I'd like to see both their win%'s compared to their teams win% without them pitching. I have no clue how good Johnson's teams were.

Just so you know, I think the 3 most important numbers for stuff like this are ERA, Win % and BB/K. According to your season numbers, pedro has better BB/K and Win % while Johnson has the better adjusted ERA (disputed by Bman). In fact, despite the fact that I think the methodology is skewed against Pedro, I think his numbers in your table are the better of the two. Also note that I agree with Bman that IP is pretty much irrelevant due to the eras each pitched in. I am willing to concede some durability points, however, since Pedro isn't exactly an Ironman even among his peers.

Best Single Season -

I look at those stats and think "no contest"

Johnson has an edge in win %. IP is irrelevant IMO for reasons already stated. And BB/9 isn't as relevant either because of the era. No one back then walked or struck out a ton of guys. Far more relevant is SO/BB and Pedro has the definite edge in that one.

Pedro also wins ERA, OppBA, OppOBP by reasonable margins. You say slight, but .164 vs .183 is not slight.

Johnson's season you listed is remarkable, but I don't see how it can be considered as good as Pedros.

Add to all those numbers the fact that he faces a better conditioned, more athletic players, a DH, and a talent pool that draws from the entire globe and I simply can't vote for Johnson.

[andyfox]

Chamberlain vs. Jordan: Chamberlain's points per game went way down when he deliberately stopped scoring. Granted, the league was smaller and the talent pool nowhere near what it was when Jordan played, but the man averaged 50 points a game one year, while averaging over 48 minutes a game. He led the league in assists the year the Lakers went 69-13. But I certainly understand the case for Jordan, although I think it's based, to a certain extent, on championships won. If you do that, then Yogi Berra should be considered as the greatest baseball player ever, since he played on more championship teams and his manager said the secret of his success (after a history of failure elsewhere) was never playing a game without "my man," by which he meant Berra.

In Snead's day, "majors" meant much less than they do now. I believe he only played in one British Open (and won it). Yet he won over 80 tournaments. I saw him finish second in the L.A. Open when he was 63 years old. He won 50 more tournaments than Tiger has.

On pitchers, most of the analysts, both of the old breed and the new sabremetric kind agree that Walter Johnson was #1, and most rank Lefty Grove #2. The only old-time pitchers I rank high, other than those two, are Alexander and Mathewson. I rank Seaver, Maddux, Clemens, Pedro, and the Big Unit all above any other old-timers.

[Glenn]

I got my numbers at www.baseball-reference.com. (http://www.baseball-reference.com.) I had to calculate a few of the stats myself (Opposing OBP for instance), but that site has the adjusted ERA and adjusted OPS stats that are so important when comparing players from different eras. I don't think B-Man and I are disagreeing on the numbers themselves, we both gave 171 and 146 I think for their careers. However, I think it is that it is not correct to penalize Johnson for pitching longer so I got his stats for an equal amount of time. Also, I didn't pick out Johnson's 10 best seasons, I picked his best ten year strecth. My contention was that he has a career within his career that is better than Pedro's career thus far. If you have a better way to compare be my guest, but I thought this was pretty reasonable, especially since Johnson has a bunch of other above average seasons that this negates. Pedro has no other seasons and thus he is neutral not including his 10 years.

About Johnson's teams -- I had no idea how good they were, but that site has the historical WP's. Here are Johnson's team's records v. pedro's...the adjusted the team's record is when the pitcher did not get the decision in a game:

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>

Pedro Johnson (10-19) Johnson (Career)
Overall 834-719 742-748 1429-1434
Pct .537 .498 .499
Adjusted 682-627 477-605 1022-1170
Adj Pct .509 .441 .466

</pre><hr>

So Pedro's teams were significantly better. Once you adjust for this (using 1910-1919 vs. 1993-2002) is it a virtual deadlock.

[M2d]

can you honestly say that you worked half again as hard at your craft than the other bowlers did?

[IrishHand]

Glenn:

I don't agree with your conclusions, but that's some excellent research and a reasonable rationale for the comparisons you're making and the conclusions you draw from them. Kudos.

Irish

[youtalkfunny]

[Six_of_One]

Disagree...

What evidence is there to suggest that he faked the injury? None that I've ever heard of or seen. Nothing but another conspiracy theory, and probably as false as 99% of them are.

[BruceZ]

Tough to compare bowlers even in the same era, let alone over different eras when equipment was so different, and you certainly can't compare money. The greats are considered to be Earl Anthony, Mark Roth, Dick Webber, Walter Ray Williams Jr.

[B-Man]

Think about it...I run a marathon in 3 hours. You run a half marathon in 1hr 25 mins. I ran 13 miles of my marathon in 1hr 15 min. You have NO basis to argue that you are a better runner.

Aside from the fact that you are changing the basic facts and assumptions, you are also changing the basic question. You could be a better marathon runner than I, but I could beat you at every distance from 100 yards to a half-marathon, and I could have a very strong basis to say I am a better runner. The pitching issue was never "who has the best 20 year career", it was "who is the greatest pitcher." Please show me where the rule exists that someone has to pitch 20 years to be considered the greatest pitcher (as the 26.2 mile requirement for the marathon is part of the rules). Sandy Koufax didn't come close to 20 years, and many people consider him the greatest pitcher.

Furthermore, the alleged "times" you gave for the marathon don't correlate to the pitching stats. Pedro is #1 all time in adjusted ERA. If you want to be fair instead of misleading, to use your ridiculous running analogy, you would have to say something like, "My average mile through a marathon is 5:00, your average mile through a half marathon is 4:45. I don't think you have run far enough for it to be a fair comparison." That might make some small bit of sense... except in this case, Pedro's career ends whenever he chooses to quit, not when he pitches for 20 years (or crosses the finish line). There is no requirement for him to pitch 20 years, but he still might end up as the greatest pitcher.

Analogies are a great tool if they are logical and actually bear some relationship to the original issue. In this case, it does not.

[skp]

As a Canadian, we just like to believe that he faked it..hehe... without any regard to the actual truth - which btw, only the faker will know :-)