It is a short list of pitchers in the modern era who are Maddux's equal. Maybe REALLY short!
For RH's, you can throw Gibson, Seaver, Palmer, Pedro Martinez, Clemens.....and that might be it. Have I missed anybody?
Over a career Maddux stacks up against any of them...maybe better. Over a 6 or 7 season run, ditto (although Pedro had some ungodly ERA+ numbers over a 7 year run...but Pedro only has 219 career wins, too).
We were had the honor of watching Maddux and Clemens at the height of their careers. Clemens blew it.
Maddux is on the VERY short list of best RH's over the last 50 years.
Lee and Halladay? They would be Glavines to Maddux. Or Koosmans to Seaver. Or maybe not quite Carltons to Gibson.
Great. Not Maddux great.
And you're right. Split Maddux's career in two..and he might get in to Cooperstown twice!
=== Just for 2011 ===
Who would you take just for next year? If you could have (say) the 1995 Maddux-Glavine, or the 2011 Halladay-Lee?
Both would be quite appealing :- ) but I'll tell you what. People are forgetting that the 1995 Maddux was a simply automatic win.
The memory fades. In 1995, the Braves won 18 of Maddux' last 20 starts, won their division by 20 ... and at the time, that seemed like it was pretty much Maddux' ordinary level of performance.
Right now, it seems like Lee can't lose. But it seemed a lot more that way in the 1990's :- )
.
=== Lesson Learned ===
The Phillies appear to have an invincible rotation. But you know what, there are a lot of teams that have had fearsome rotations. They all get picked for 110 wins. It doesn't usually happen.
Historically, teams that sign several marquee pitchers find that those pitchers don't stay on top and win Cy Youngs in alternate years. One, or two, or all three, of those pitchers disappoint. Maybe the Phils won't. But that's the tendency.
You look at articles around the 'net, and sportswriters call "the greatest rotations in history" some one year's worth of performance. LOL! Do they ever talk about lineups that way? We're talking about predictable greatness here, boys.
I can think of only a few rotations that were predictably great: Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz, the Feller Indians, the Koufax Dodgers, the Tommy John Dodgers, and Earl's Jim Palmer rotations.
Well, even the Palmer rotations tended to have McNally and Cuellar at 115 ERA+ or so. You start looking for post-1970 rotations where several SP's pitched together for ahwile, and you've got a long look.
.................
Andy Messersmith, Don Sutton, Claude Osteen and Tommy John seemed like an unfair rotation to me as a Reds fan in the 1970's. But now I go back and look and what do I find? Four guys with ERA's in the 110's... well, not really. They'd take turns having a good year and one of them would star. And the 1970's Dodgers, with four starters who'd have had $100M deals today, never won a World Series.
The 1990's Yankees did keep Wells, Pettite and Cone (then El Duque) together for four or five years, and have the championships to show for it. The Monopoly guy with the monacle got a store-bought rotation and did achieve the titles with them...
Beane kept Hudson, Zito and Mulder together for several years. He had some postseason appearances, though not titles, to show for it.
...................
In 1990, the Braves kept three great pitchers (including Smoltz) healthy, and winning, and at their tiptop peaks, for ten years in a row.
That's why every team gets compared to the Braves. They're just about the only team that ever had it work for them like that.
...................
I'd like to be a Phillies fan. :- ) But it ain't likely that Lee, Halladay and Oswalt are going to have their best years together in 2011. Should the M's make the playoffs, they don't have to move to Kamchatka to avoid public humiliation the odds will be on the "field" and against the Phils, even to win the NL pennant.
Lotta baseball to play.
.
Cheerio,
Dr D
Comments
This one will play out on the field, probably a bunch through 2012 at least.
Which hand would you want to be dealt as a GM:
Halladay 34, $20M thru 2013; Lee 32, $24M thru 2015; Oswalt 33, $16M thru 2011; Hamels 27, $9.5M arb-eligible, FA in 2013
Lincecum 27, $13M arb-eligible, FA in 2014; Cain 26, $7M then $15M, FA in 2013; Bumgarner 21, club control, I think 3 more years before arb; Sanchez 28, $2.1M arb-eligible, FA in 2013; Zito 33, $19M thru 2013
Maybe depends on how much you value Bumgarner and whether you think he'll keep up his 136 ERA+ (and 2.2 WAR in just 18 games) at minimal salary. Seems like, at a minimum, Bumgarner ought to equal Hamels. Zito is just sunk cost, of course, but he's been giving them 190+ innings of league-average performance, just not $19M worth.
Lee last 3 seasons (ages 29-31): 168, 131, 130
Cain last 3 seasons (ages 23-25): 118, 148, 130
We may think of Lee as post-season gold, but Cain went through this post-season with an ERA of 0.00 in 21.1 innings. Lee was the LP to Lincecum in the WS. Twice.
Interested in everyone's thoughts.
Just did a quick comparison on the pitchers mentioned above.
Taken over a career, I think the RH that I would choose LAST would be Gibson. Wouldn't have imagined that. 251 career wins, but only 1 season with an ERA+ over 165 (THAT phenominal..they even changed the rules following that one ). Career ERA+ over 17 seasons of 128.
Seaver and Palmer essentially have very similar careers, although Tom Terrific does have a 43 win advantage.
Palmer has a career 126 ERA+ and minus the 17 innings he threw in his last season, he only had one year below 94 in 19 seasons. From '75-'79 he averaged 316 innings and 21.5 wins.
Seaver was north of 165+ 4 times (Palmer only once). 311 wins for Seaver. 128 career ERA+. 20 seasons and only two below 100 with the ERA+. And one of those was a 99! Heck of a career.
Maddux and Clemens have mirror type careers, nearly. Perhaps the edge to the guy who cheated, though.
Maddux: 23 seasons. ERA+ of 132. 6 times north of 165. 4 Cy Youngs....and if Gibson wasn't the best fielding pitcher ever, Maddux probably was. I loved him! Oh...355 wins. (.610%)
Clemens: 24 seasons. ERA+ of 143. 9 times north of 165. 7 Cy's. 354 wins (.658%). He cheated.
Pedro: 18 seasons. 219 wins. .687% ERA+ of 154. 7 seasons in a row between 163 and 291...6 of them north of 190. His 2000 season may be the finest ever by a starter compared to the guys he competed agains in a season.
So......1955 was the rookie year of Sandy Koufax AND Jim Bunning. Which would you choose? it isn't as easy as you think. Check it out. Height of career vs. incredibly productive length?
The Pedro vs. Maddux or Clemens question is a bit like that. Interesting.
Were it me...and I was drafting for a career and not caring that Clemens was a cheating cheater. I would take..
1. Clemens
2. Maddux
3.Pedro
4. Seaver
5. Palmer
6. Gibson.
I hate cheaters, however.
Ergo...I drop Clemens off the list. A shame. The best RHP in history (OK...the last 50 years) destroyed his remarkable legacy.
That leaves Maddux. But, dang...Pedro would be WAY tempting!
Seaver and Palmer wouldn't be bad fall backs, though. I might consider them over Pedro. Maybe..Maybe not.
moe
The Phillies should frogstomp their way through the NL East. The Giants needed a playoff just to get into the playoffs, basically. If the Padres don't swandive at the end of the season we're not talking about Lincecum and Cain at all.
The Giants have a rotation that could be a nightmare in the 2011 playoffs.
And their odds of getting there aren't great compared to the Phillies.
The Padres won't be a huge threat in the NL West again, so that should help the G-Men. The Rockies are loading up. The Dodgers are spending money like it grows on trees and I don't think they're done yet.
*shrugs* On paper, you'd think the Giants should have another couple of years to make another run.
I wouldn't be shocked at all to see them miss the playoffs completely next season, so while their rotation is much cheaper than the Phillies, if the GM butchers his offense then it doesn't matter how nice the cards are he was dealt.
For the record, I'd still take the Phillies' rotation (unless we're on a budget), but the Giants have an awfully pretty one themselves. I just think the lineup for the Phillies is much more impressive and stands a better chance of guaranteeing them the postseason shots that the Giants might not get.
~G
Okay, I get why Phillies will be favored - (and they should).
BUT ... Werth posted a 5.2 WAR in 2010 and is gone -- Lee posted a 4.3 between Seattle and Texas.
One could argue (and get laughed at) that the Phillies spent a LOT of money to win one less game. (I still remember the optimism about how great the Seattle 2010 season was going to be when Z pulled off *HIS* Cliff Lee Coup). Didn't turn out as well as expected, huh?
Jeff, all very interesting. Thanks. Don't you/others think that we tend to give greater ability to the current over the past? As if Jerry West or Oscar Robertson were subpar? Or could you imagine watching Lee Trevino in his prime with a metal driver? How about Denny McLain or Lolich on the mound together?
How soon we forget real greatness, tossed aside for the flavor of the day.
Sheeeeesh...Oscar Robertson AVERAGED a triple-double one year.
Is there a guard in the league today better than Jerry West was?
James-Wade-Bosh? Hardly West-Baylor-Chamberlain.
Heck, it isn't even Bird-McHale-DJ. Or Russell-Hondo and Heinson! Or Jordan-Pippen-Will Purdue, for that matter!
Yep, we forget!
moe
Moe wrote: "How soon we forget real greatness, tossed aside for the flavor of the day."
Great line! Somehow yesterday's heroes were all vanilla?
There are never any gimmies in sports, ask the Cowboys! Anything can happen over a long baseball season and the Phillies have incredible starters on the mound. Maybe they will seem timeless. Maybe the won't either. Lee is incredible. No doubt or question. But, at times, even last season, he was hittable. Next year? Like you said, stay tuned. No one figured the Giants to be there.
We remember that Roscoe Tanner was the first (?) to hit 100 mph with his serve, and at times he dominated with it...
Now the women are serving 125, 130 with today's equipment. Would sure like to see Borg, Connors and McEnroe with this equipment ... or Nicklaus with a 300cc driver, playing wedges into all his par-4's...
Not sure I've seen this excellent caveat, San'... a trade of Werth for Lee is one I make all day long, but it's still a much different scenario to deal your #4* hitter for an ace, than it is to trade a minor leaguer for an ace...
cpoints amigo...
I have not paid much attention to tennis since Borg/Connors. Nicklaus pounded the ball to get to 275+. Today that is nothing. What Hogan or Nelson would have done hitting wedges instead of long irons?! I got to caddy for Sam Snead in his 60's. What an athlete. Those guys played with tinker toys. Sad that most people today in sports don't know who went before them.
How about Bob Feller? He would be a stud today.
In the real life sense I kind of agree with Baker. I'd take Halladay+Lee over Maddux+Glavine.
The strike zone has only recently started getting more accurate due to umpires being double-cheked by computerized systems in the past several years. While there is some favoritism, its scaled back quite a bit from a decade ago.
In the 90s, veteran favoritism was off the walls IMO. I'm not sure if Maddux's command was better than either Halladay or Lee now.
I think prime-Madduz/Halladay/Lee are all around the same level and prime-Glavine is not really close to that.
Maddux/Glavine are greater in the historical sense, but throw those aces in an '11 rotation and I'm taking Halladay-Lee.
I get where Doc's coming from. I mean, Maddux was as good as there has ever been, during his reign of terror in the 90's. Glavine was a studly #2, who looked even better because he was parked next to the candy-apple-red stretched Hummer.
But I think I'm with you, Taro. I'd rather have Halladay/Lee, today, than those two. If I get their careers, then 9/10 I go with Maddux/Glavine, but if we're talking about charging into one season, next season, in 2011, I'm taking Halladay/Lee. When they're pitching, the game is exclusively about them, in much the same fashion as Randy Johnson or Felix Hernandez. The opponents only get to hope and pray there's a juicy mistake somewhere along the line, because if there isn't, then the game is over before anyone laces up for action.
Taking their peak seasons, the Braves duo was 12.5 wins a year between them -- Halladay and Lee about 10. :shrug: How do you call a 10-win player better than a 12-win player?
...............
Maddux and Glavine were not *scary.* Both pitched off fastballs usually below 90. Maybe the precision vs. power adds to the 'real life' feel that Halladay and Lee are painful to face?
................
If we're just saying, well, the sport has advanced, Halladay has a tougher job etc, then yeah. Everybody playing today is better than everybody who used to play. Why write the articles comparing anybody?
Here's a neat article from BP.
They use a paradigm: If a pitcher's 3-year history is his 'established level of performance,' which 4-man rotations were highest going into a season?
On that basis, there is a BIG gap between [Braves & Phils] and everybody else in history. So in that sense, you sympathize with the greatest-rotation-ever hyperbole.
Of course, there you've got to bring in Cole Hamels as a #4. 4-man rotation is a different conversation than, "which two teammates gave more than a reliable 12 WAR a year."
..................
Put Maddux and Glavine on a .500 team, no other changes, and that team projects to a 93-69 record.
Era-adjusted Maddux-Glavine are clearly better, but if the question is which two I'd rather have in my '11 rotation I'd take Halladay-Lee.
I'm not sure if Maddux does better than either of those two in the current era though I think he'd be around the same level. Halladay-Lee are both precision AND power.
Glavine I think is a clear tier below those three which makes it a relatively easy choice for me.
Will take Halladay and Lee with any pair of aces ever ... if so, then adding Oswalt and Hamels surely gives them the best 4-man rotation ever...
For sure I'd like to be a Phillies fan. Maybe we'll see multiple 15-game winning streaks like the 2001 M's ran?
...................
A lot of saber 'experiments' will be conducted in the null-gravity of this amazing rotation. Can four guys move you from 81 wins to 100? Since the Phil's OPS+ is 99 minus Werth, we'll see...