Who is the best pitcher to play post WW2?

Question

Personally I'd say Clemens. 353 wins and counting, 4000+ strikeouts, 3.12 career ERA, all of this in the steroid era. These numbers are enough for him to be considered one of the top-five pitchers of all time, regardless of era. But what do you think?

Koufax is a good pick, imagine what he would have done if it werent for injury

Answer 1

Good question, me and my friends have this debate all the time.

You can't go wrong with Roger Clemens when you consider his longevity and the career numbers he's amassed. Hypothetically speaking, if you had to pick one post WWII pitcher who was going to be on your team for the next 15 years, it seems pretty clear that Roger Clemens would be the pick. However, I personally consider Pedro Martinez to be the best post WWII pitcher for the reason that his peak seasons over a 3-5 year period were the greatest in MLB history (better even than Koufax) when adjusting for park factors and era.

Here's the nutshell version of it: Clemens amassed his best American League years in the late 80's and early 90's, during a period of mediocre offenses. (However, his best era adjusted season is actually with Toronto in 97'.) But when you consider his years during the true offensive season(or steroid era as some like to call it) they are good but somewhat underwhelming: he had ERA's of 4.6, 3.7, 3.51, 4.35, and 3.91 from 1999-2003 while in the American League.

During the same period of time Pedro amassed ERA's of 2.07, 1.74, 2.39, 2.26 and 2.22. In the 2000 season Pedro had a WHIP of 0.74... the lowest WHIP in the history of baseball despite having played in one of the most offensively prolific seasons of ALL TIME. In that year, Roger Clemens was the runner up for the the lowest ERA with a 3.70. Pedro's 1.74 ERA in that year was an entire TWO WHOLE runs more than the RUNNER UP. This is a historically unheard of precedent in MLB... and perhaps one we'll not see for another hundred years.

Basically, it all depends whether you value good-to-great pitching over a long period of time more than you value dominant pitching. Since I value dominant pitching over a shorter period more, I consider Pedro Martinez to be the greatest post WW-II of all time. Those that value longevity higher than dominance will pick Roger Clemens.

Answer 2

Career numbers sometimes do not tell an accurate story. If a guy hangs around long enough he can rack up some pretty impressive stats, even though he may never have been among the elites of his era.

Personally, I like to evaluate pitchers on a substantial, in-their-prime time capsule...maybe five to seven years.

You'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a more dominant pitcher, during his prime years, than Sandy Koufax. Compare Sandy's numbers from 1962-1966 against Clemens, from any five-year stretch.

Answer 3

Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson

Answer 4

Clemens, then Spahn for career value
Martinez, then Koufax for peak value

Answer 5

Clemens

Koufax was amazing, and had one of the best peaks a pitcher has ever had, but his career was just to short to be considered.

Answer 6

Clemens.

There's a bunch of guys who can vie for #2-10 and even then we'd have to leave out a few, but Rocket carries the top slot, and rather easily.

Answer 7

I would have to say Sandy Koufax.