Any doubt left on the best pitcher in MLB? (when healthy)

[deerayfan072]

Also whos to say who they have faced will change? Lincecum is in the NL West with some horrid offenses. You say he has faced weak competition sure. But that doesnt mean he wont continue to. Same with Lee. Who is to say he wont continue to face crap offenses or good teams with hurt players or people getting the day off or sitting because of him being a lefty? Why cant we just compare the stats at face value and not try to over-analyze?

That is very true, which is why you put it in the analysis for the first half of the season. I don't think you can say who the BEST MLB pitcher is, there are too many variables that are unaccounted for.

[The Cow]

CC Sabathia shouldn't be left off this list. After his beginning of the year problems, he has jetted to the top of the pitcher rankings and has been virtually unhittable.

i guess we should mention paul byrd and jake westbrook next right? go right on down the indians rotation

Umm C.C. is a far better pitcher than Byrd and Westbrook. since April C.C. has a sub 2 ERA not to mention a CY Young in his back pocket. C.C. should definitely be on this list. One thing is for sure C.C. is a better pitcher than the brittle Cole Hamels. C.C. at age 27 has 107 wins. Hamels at age 24 has 32 wins. If C.C. got to pitch to the opposing SP instead of the DH it would be ridiculous.

By the way C.C. is a career .300 hitter with a .792 OPS, not too shabby he should be the Tribe's DH.

The Cow

P.S. Johan is the best pitcher in the game, C.C. should be on the list, though C.C. did own Johan last year.

[thatguy27]

CC Sabathia shouldn't be left off this list. After his beginning of the year problems, he has jetted to the top of the pitcher rankings and has been virtually unhittable.

i guess we should mention paul byrd and jake westbrook next right? go right on down the indians rotation

Umm C.C. is a far better pitcher than Byrd and Westbrook. since April C.C. has a sub 2 ERA not to mention a CY Young in his back pocket. C.C. should definitely be on this list. One thing is for sure C.C. is a better pitcher than the brittle Cole Hamels. C.C. at age 27 has 107 wins. Hamels at age 24 has 32 wins. If C.C. got to pitch to the opposing SP instead of the DH it would be ridiculous.

By the way C.C. is a career .300 hitter with a .792 OPS, not too shabby he should be the Tribe's DH.

The Cow

P.S. Johan is the best pitcher in the game, C.C. should be on the list, though C.C. did own Johan last year.

I would hardly say he owned Santana last year. The only categories in which he had a substantial edge were Wins and Losses, categories over which pitchers have little conrol. Santana had a pretty large edge in K's/9 and a slight edge in ERA while C.C. had slight edge in WHIP.

[The Cow]

I don't get all the Rich Harden love. The guy can not stay healthy that is a HUGE factor. I mean if a GM were able to sign any SP to a long term deal, Harden would be far from the top of the list because he can not stay healthy. I think NZ said K's are not a factor when judging real life SPs, he then says Halladay should be top 5 because of his ability to pitch deep into games, OK thats all fine, but then NZ ranks Harden #5???? WTF?? How does Halladay's ability to pitch deep into games raise his stock, but yet Harden who one can say does not have the ability to pitch deep into a season because he is always hurt #5??? Harden falls well out of the top 10 not even close.

The Cow

[ScrappyDoo]

I think this thread is operating under the idea that the pitcher will be healthy all year. In that case I would put Harden in the top 3 or so pitchers. But that isn't realistic, and I wouldn't rank Harden in the top 10. Skill wise he is at the head of the class, but unfortunately injuries happen and durability is a big factor in deciding who the best pitcher is.

Johan is the best, he hasn't been as dominant as a few years ago, but he is a workhorse who puts up great numbers with consistency.

[The Cow]

I would hardly say he owned Santana last year. The only categories in which he had a substantial edge were Wins and Losses, categories over which pitchers have little conrol. Santana had a pretty large edge in K's/9 and a slight edge in ERA while C.C. had slight edge in WHIP.

C.C. and Johan faced each other 3 times last year. C.C. won all 3 games, thus C.C. owned Johan last year its that simple. 3-0 versus 0-3.

The Cow here to educate

[thatguy27]

I would hardly say he owned Santana last year. The only categories in which he had a substantial edge were Wins and Losses, categories over which pitchers have little conrol. Santana had a pretty large edge in K's/9 and a slight edge in ERA while C.C. had slight edge in WHIP.

C.C. and Johan faced each other 3 times last year. C.C. won all 3 games, thus C.C. owned Johan last year its that simple. 3-0 versus 0-3.

The Cow here to educate

Word.

[AquaMan2342]

Are we seriously debating pitchers based on teams faced? Are Harden owners this desperate to make him the best pitcher on the planet?

Get with the program.

We're also going for a Barack/Harden ticket in '08, get on it.

If you have to lay out 'what if' scenarios like health and facing weaker competition then clearly he is not 'the' best pitcher.

Pitching in a division with three major pitchers parks is not a "what if scenario"...it's a fact that some pitchers pitch more games against inferior offenses and that some pitch more often in pitchers' parks. Obviously it's not their fault, and it doesn't take away from what they do, but it makes the accomplishments of others look better. How could one argue that what Volquez has done is less impressive than say Lincecum? For the most part their statistics are as close as can be. The difference is that Volquez has those numbers against FAR better competition. How does that not make a difference in showing who is better to this point?

Edit: How is taking the level of opponent into consideration "over analyzing"? Taking stats at face value is a mistake when there are a lot of outside factors at play. How you could effectively quantify competition is difficult, but it's not hard to figure out that a guy like Volquez has faced far more difficult competition than Lincecum has.

[Yoda]

If you have to lay out 'what if' scenarios like health and facing weaker competition then clearly he is not 'the' best pitcher.

Pitching in a division with three major pitchers parks is not a "what if scenario"...it's a fact that some pitchers pitch more games against inferior offenses and that some pitch more often in pitchers' parks. Obviously it's not their fault, and it doesn't take away from what they do, but it makes the accomplishments of others look better. How could one argue that what Volquez has done is less impressive than say Lincecum? For the most part their statistics are as close as can be. The difference is that Volquez has those numbers against FAR better competition. How does that not make a difference in showing who is better to this point?

You are taking something that someone has already done and asking what his numbers would look like if he was healthy or if he pitched in a different league or if he pitched in a pitcher's park. How are these not 'what if's?

For instance, did you know that Volquez only has 7 starts at home vs. 10 on the road? How about that Licnecum also has 7 starts at home vs. 9 on the road? Are you really telling me that you go into this much detail when evaluating pitchers?

Also, LA is neutral and not a pitcher's park anymore. AZ and COL are extreme hitter parks so they offset any advantage Lincecum has in SF and SD.

[AquaMan2342]

If you have to lay out 'what if' scenarios like health and facing weaker competition then clearly he is not 'the' best pitcher.

Pitching in a division with three major pitchers parks is not a "what if scenario"...it's a fact that some pitchers pitch more games against inferior offenses and that some pitch more often in pitchers' parks. Obviously it's not their fault, and it doesn't take away from what they do, but it makes the accomplishments of others look better. How could one argue that what Volquez has done is less impressive than say Lincecum? For the most part their statistics are as close as can be. The difference is that Volquez has those numbers against FAR better competition. How does that not make a difference in showing who is better to this point?

You are taking something that someone has already done and asking what his numbers would look like if he was healthy or if he pitched in a different league or if he pitched in a pitcher's park. How are these not 'what if's?

For instance, did you know that Volquez only has 7 starts at home vs. 10 on the road? How about that Licnecum also has 7 starts at home vs. 9 on the road? Are you really telling me that you go into this much detail when evaluating pitchers?

Also, LA is neutral and not a pitcher's park anymore. AZ and COL are extreme hitter parks so they offset any advantage Lincecum has in SF and SD.

So this thread (about 120 responses) is devoted to discussing who might be the best pitcher is in baseball, and you're going to say something like "are you really telling me that you go into this much detail when evaluating pitchers"? If that much detail is equivalent to four or five mouse clicks, then I'd have to answer "yes". I have no vested interest in any of these pitchers....unfortunately for me none of my pitching staffs are any good this year. However, it's an interesting debate and the angles of argument are really endless. If you want to just play the numbers game be my guest. When I am interested in finding the answer to something, I usually try to do whatever I can to satisfy my interest.