It is safe to say that we are in one of the best eras of MLB pitching, but do any of today’s gifted arms compare to the greats of baseball’s past?
But deciding who should be considered in this debate is more difficult to narrow down than just looking at the WAR rankings on their own. Although the fact that WAR is a volume-stat play in favor of the GOAT argument, the fact that starting pitching has changed so drastically gives a significant advantage to the older players. So, to limit the candidates, the qualifications were a sub-3 career ERA, over 400 games started, from least to greatest in WAR. From these credentials, we have six retired legends and an active, future Hall of Famer Clayton Kershaw to see who would perform to the highest standard if all were put on the even playing field.
| Walter Johnson | Pete Alexander | Tom Seaver | Christy Mathewson | Pedro Martinez | Bob Gibson | Clayton Kershaw | |
| WAR | 147.6 3% DEF | 112.8 3.4% DEF | 163.15 3.7% INF | 72.52 7.8% DEF | 120.23 9.6% INF | 133.3 63.2% INF | 126.3 82.8% INF |
| G | 767 4.3% DEF | 669 3.9% DEF | 651 .8% DEF | 600 5.7% DEF | 529 11.1% INF | 491 7.1% DEF | 436 15% INF |
| IP | 5,321 10% DEF | 4,778.1 7.9% DEF | 5,111.1 6.9% INF | 4,044 15.6% DEF | 3,167 12% INF | 4,222 8.7% INF | 2,880.1 15% INF |
| ER | 1,6151 3.4% INF | 1587 7.5% INF | 1409 7.4% DEF | 1516 33.5% INF | 7521 8.1% DEF | 1171 6.9% DEF | 5741 5.4% DEF |
| H | 4,811 2.1% DEF | 4,601 5.5% DEF | 4,009 .9% INF | 4,485 6.3% INF | 2,130 4.1% DEF | 3,396 3.6% INF | 1,8951 .9 INF |
| HR | 237 143.9% INF | 319 93.5% INF | 313 17.6% DEF | 398 347.1% INF | 145 39.2% DEF | 210 18.4% DEF | 111 43.4% DEF |
| BB | 1,449 6.3% INF | 994 4.5% INF | 1,328 4.5% DEF | 9451 1.5% INF | 692 9% DEF | 1,294 3.1% DEF | 590 2.7% DEF |
| SO | 5,394 53.7% INF | 3,521 60.2% INF | 3,516 3.4% DEF | 3,352 33.7% INF | 2,458 22.1% DEF | 2,880 7.6% DEF | 1,693 36.6% DEF |
| ERA | 2.73 26% INF | 2.99 16.8% INF | 2.48 13.3% DEF | 3.37 58.1% INF | 2.14 26.9% DEF | 2.50 14.4% DEF | 1.83 26.5% DEF |
| WHIP | 1.176 10.9% INF | 1.171 4.4% INF | 1.044 6.9% DEF | 1.343 26.9% INF | 0.891 15.5% DEF | 1.111 6.5% DEF | 0.880 12.3% DEF |
| FIP | 2.23 13% DEF | 2.81 3% DEF | 3.01 5.3% DEF | 3.11 23.9% INF | 2.55 .6% DEF | 3.04 2.3% DEF | 2.71 13.3% INF |
In terms of WAR, Terrific Tom Seaver takes the throne away from Walter Johnson, thanks in large part to a longer leash allowed per start. This inflated his innings pitched by nearly 7%, even though he would have started around six fewer times. And considering he does not lead in any other categories and was able to leads by a sizeable margin in WAR shows how consistent he was. In his 20 year career, Seaver made at least 32 in each of his first 14 years, and 17 years in total. In only 2 of his 20 seasons he posted an ERA above 4, with his age in those seasons being 37 and 41.
Walter Johnson now trails Seaver by 15.5 WAR points, which makes sense when his ERA jumps by 26%. Although the jump to the neutral era obviously blows up his total earned runs (adding an additional 191), however since his innings dropped 10% his ERA does not blow up as much as anticipated. In fact, Johnson instead seperates himself in one of the more recent metrics with a 2.23 FIP due in large part to his ability to strike out batters well above the league’s average, and that his Achilles Heel was the long ball. That would be in the top-20 of starters all-time, and all of those members of the list played in the Deadball era. This just goes to show that for what we know about Johnson from his time on the mound, he may be one of the few early pitchers who would succeed in any generation we put him.
| Johnson Career | Standard | First Era (’03-’19) | Second Era (’20-’50) | Third Era (’51-’68) | Fourth Era (’69-’87) | Fifth Era (’88-’03) | Sixth Era (’04- Pre) |
| ERA | 2.17 | 1.82 16.2% DEF | 2.71 25% INF | 3.29 52% INF | 3.16 45.7% INF | 3.60 66.1% INF | 3.66 68.9% INF |
| G | 802 | 844 5.3% INF | 754 6% DEF | 830 3.4% INF | 882 10% INF | 841 4.8% INF | 847 5.6% INF |
| IP | 5,914.1 | 6,254 5.7% INF | 5489.1 7.2% DEF | 4,845 18.1% DEF | 4,965.1 16%DEF | 4,785 19.1% DEF | 4690.2 20.7% DEF |
| CG | 531 | 671 26.4% INF | 407 23.3% DEF | 275 48.3% DEF | 143 73.1% DEF | 42 92% DEF | 13 97.5% DEF |
| ER | 1,424 | 1,262 11.4% DEF | 1,652 16% DEF | 1,773 24.5% DEF | 1,742 22.3% DEF | 1,913 34.4% DEF | 1,908 33.8% DEF |
| H | 4,913 | 4,577 6.8% DEF | 5,205 5.9% INF | 4,702 4.2% DEF | 4,799 2.3% DEF | 4,962 1% INF | 4,823 1.8% DEF |
| HR | 97 | 564 1.6% DEF | 192 98.3% INF | 308 218.2% INF | 290 199.4% INF | 366 277.1% INF | 401 312.8% INF |
| SO | 3,509 | 3,875 10.4% INF | 3,491 .5% DEF | 5,496 56.7% INF | 5,540 57.9% INF | 6,605 88.2% INF | 8,004 128.1% INF |
| BB | 1,363 | 1,297 4.9% DEF | 1,555 14.1% INF | 1,536 12.7% INF | 1,519 11.4% INF | 1,592 16.8% INF | 1,488 9.2% INF |
As we can see with practically every pitcher’s change, the length of appearances are a decisive factor that would have been even more substantial if bullpen usage were as universal as the league averages make them out to me now. When we compare the older generations to today’s game their numbers take a hit due to not only shorted outing lengths but also growth in offenses. But if we look at pitchers in their current era, how might we view them if the older style of managing prevailed. The four pitchers above that pitched later than era two are prime examples of pitchers who may have even better statistics if rushing to the bullpen was not such a point of emphasis.
Bob Gibson was a different breed, posting the greatest differential between the league average and his average outing length even before inflation. All seven pitchers hover at or above the six innings pitched line, which in today’s game is well above average. Although some of the smaller marginalizations, like Pedro Martinez only averaging 5.94 innings per start when the league average is 5.53, hypothetically this difference over his 476 career outings equals 195.2 additional innings. If he was able to perform at a level similar to his baseline over those additional pitches, who knows how much better his or the rest of the group’s numbers may look.
However, there is a reason why pitchers are being pulled earlier, and that is because it is a smarter decision on the team’s side. Yes, there are big enough sample sizes over these players’ careers that give us a simplistic understanding of how the athlete may perform. But it’s statistically proven that the longer a pitcher goes and the more times opposing hitters see him, then they will most likely perform worse. Only two of the seven pitchers in the G.O.A.T. debate played while these statistics were being measured, but even Kershaw and Martinez follow the trendline.
*Martinez’s number only represents from 2002-2009
For Martinez, he was in the twilight of his career, but even in his prime, he was not dedicated to eating a larger workload than the league average, mostly for this reason. And for Kershaw, his 2.89 ERA the third time through is still elite level pitching, but it is also a 26.5% increase over his first two times through average.
But all aspects considered, Pedro Martinez runs away with this comparison, leading in 4 of the categories. Even though 4 of the 6 metrics are volume statistics and he has the 5th-most games pitched, he would still lead in 3 of those 4 if he started 767 games instead of 529. Plus, the most impressive numbers of Martinez’s career are the balanced stats, ERA and WHIP. Although neither of these are held in the same light anymore, this WHIP would be the best in MLB history, while his ERA would represent the best of any pitcher who debuted later than 1908. Let’s remember that Martinez played a bulk of his career in the Steroid Era, and yet held a homerun percentage of just over 2%, which rightfully gives him the lowest mark of the group after a 39% deflation.
Who else do you think should be considered in this debate? Leave a comment to see how that player would compare!
