Who are your top 5 pitchers of all time?(modern era) [Archive]

View Full Version : Who are your top 5 pitchers of all time?(modern era)

RaiderFan18

08-04-2008, 10:00 PM

Just wanted to know what the board thought, you don't have to put them in order, but here's my top 5 in order:

5. Greg Maddux
4. Randy Johnson
3. Tom Seaver
2. Sandy Koufax
1. Roger Clemens(assuming earlier in career he wasn't a roider)

Poochiesdead

08-04-2008, 10:06 PM

Nolan Ryan
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Steve Carlton
Sandy Koufax

in no particular order...

Bill

08-04-2008, 10:15 PM

Carlton, Seaver, Johnson, Koufax, Schmoltz?

Becoming a dominate closer after being a dominate starter moved Schmoltz up many spots on my list

dallasstars06

08-04-2008, 10:18 PM

GMLBFan

08-04-2008, 10:28 PM

I know you are talking about full careers, but here are my top single-season performances: (going strictly from memory without looking up numbers)

5) Mark Fidrych
4) Vida Blue
3) ***lord Perry
2) Dwight Gooden
1) Mickey Lolich

I'm not a Tigers fan, I just remember Lolich pitching sooo much and so well that when considering both quantity and quality he would be #1

akaplan2180

08-04-2008, 10:32 PM

5. Pedro Martinez
4. Randy Johnson
3. Nolan Ryan
2. Tom Seaver
1. Sandy Koufax

I would have Clemans between Seaver and Ryan, but I going on Guilty until proven Innocent

julio1867

08-04-2008, 10:34 PM

Being a Twins fan here's my homer list (not to be taken seriously):

5. Jack Morris
4. Jeff Reardon
3. Greg Maddux (who didn't have WGN growing up?)
2. Johan Santana
1. Bert Blyleven

mrmet6986

08-04-2008, 10:40 PM

BSBenji

08-04-2008, 10:42 PM

akaplan2180

08-04-2008, 10:43 PM

Greg Maddux
Walter Johnson
Bob Gibson
Tom Seaver
Pedro Martinez

in no order

guys i'm on the fence about

Sandy Koufax- if he pitched a full career who knows what the numbers would have been
John Smoltz- playoffs, starting and closing. he could do it all but number for number he might not match up
Nolan Ryan- no cy award and only series came in 2nd season and he didn't have a lot to do with it
Trevor Hoffman- his record only has a chance to be broken by K-Rod but closers still get no love
Josh Beckett- still young but playoff dominance is off the wall

hell deciding and arguing about this will never have an end. we mind as well put a bunch of names on a wall and throw 5 darts and whichever they land on are the best of all time.

I forgot about Gibson, I would probley put him in between Ryan and Seaver on my list and bump Pedro out of the top 5

Bill

08-04-2008, 10:50 PM

Greg Maddux
Walter Johnson
Bob Gibson
Tom Seaver
Pedro Martinez

in no order

guys i'm on the fence about

Sandy Koufax- if he pitched a full career who knows what the numbers would have been
John Smoltz- playoffs, starting and closing. he could do it all but number for number he might not match up
Nolan Ryan- no cy award and only series came in 2nd season and he didn't have a lot to do with it
Trevor Hoffman- his record only has a chance to be broken by K-Rod but closers still get no love
Josh Beckett- still young but playoff dominance is off the wall

hell deciding and arguing about this will never have an end. we mind as well put a bunch of names on a wall and throw 5 darts and whichever they land on are the best of all time.

Must be an anti Phillies bias to not mention Carlton

akaplan2180

08-04-2008, 10:52 PM

Must be an anti Phillies bias to not mention Carlton

I think Carlton was great, but I don't even think he is top 10 IMO.

gretzky999

08-04-2008, 10:55 PM

1-Bob Gibson
2-Randy Johnson
3-Clemens
4-Maddux
5-Ryan

mrmet6986

08-04-2008, 10:56 PM

Must be an anti Phillies bias to not mention Carlton

yeah i must be biased that's why i mentioned Maddux and Smoltz who were/are both Braves and were/are Met killers.

Carlton is in the middle for me. he was great but not my top 5 but not somebody i would make an excuse for as to why he isn't a "great" of all time. even i won't deny that year he had 27 wins on a 58? (is that right, i forget) win team was beyond ridiculous.

Bill

08-04-2008, 11:10 PM

I believe Carlton was the first 4 time Cy Young winner

M-41A

08-04-2008, 11:42 PM

I cannot believe some lists have Nolan Ryan absent from them.

Christ. Are we baseball fans or not?

Geeesh.

Kallisti

08-04-2008, 11:50 PM

In no particular order:

Nolan Ryan
Pedro Martinez
Bob Gibson
Tom Seaver
Walter Johnson

Joe Bruin723

08-05-2008, 02:21 AM

You know I wouldn't really call anything before 1990 modern. When I think modern I think of today, but whatever.

If I was going from '90 on I would say.

5:Tom Glavine
4:Randy Johnson
3:John Smoltz
2:Greg Maddux
1:Roger Clemens

flyeaglesfly

08-05-2008, 05:40 AM

1 sandy koufax
2 nolan ryan
3 warren spahn
4 steve carlton
5 tom glavine

Poochiesdead

08-05-2008, 07:49 AM

Walter Johnson is modern era? I didn't realize the 1920's were modern...

kanabrew49

08-05-2008, 08:32 AM

1: Koufax..easily #1
2. Gibson
3. Ryan
4. Clemens
5. Maddux
Oh, check the last year stats for Koufax when he retired in 1966 and you'll see how hard it is to say any recent pitchers compare..strikeouts,innings pitched,era,and he pitched usually against another teams best pitcher..say Bob Gibson,Juan Marichal:eek:.

Hardcore Legend

08-05-2008, 08:36 AM

Walter Johnson is modern era? I didn't realize the 1920's were modern...

Modern era of baseball is more in line with when statistics were being more ardently kept.

5.Carlton
4. Unit
3. Koufax
2. Gibson
1. Ryan

Hulkster

08-05-2008, 09:35 AM

I cannot believe some lists have Nolan Ryan absent from them.

Christ. Are we baseball fans or not?

Geeesh.

I can't believe as many lists actually HAVE Nolan Ryan on them.

I forgot who said it, but wasn't the quote, "Nolan Ryan is the greatest .500 pitcher of all time" ?

sibelius

08-05-2008, 09:39 AM

Nolan Ryan
Tom Seaver
Bob Gibson
Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson

Hckeynut1

08-05-2008, 09:55 AM

5. Jim Palmer first baseball pitcher I could think of off hand.. ( I like hockey)
4. Nolan Ryan ( Tv commercial comes to mind)
3. Sangria (yes I know its a girly wine drink but its good)
2. Tea (sweetened or not)
1. BEER... :)

Bronx Bombers

08-05-2008, 10:02 AM

I'm kinda young so I didn't get a chance to see most of the older guys like Koufax, Seaver and such pitch, so here is my modern modern list :)

Randy Johnson
Nolan Ryan
Brandon Webb
Roy Halladay
Justin Verlander

You cant be serious right??

Randy Johnson
Nolan Ryan
Mariano Rivera(homer pick but by far greatest relief pitcher)
Sandy Koufax
Greg Maddux

SmartassBoiler

08-05-2008, 10:30 AM

Of the past 20 years, I'm going with

Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Randy Johnson
Johan Santana

Those are the 4 guys that have been thoroughly dominant during the time I've watched baseball.

MCWHITEY

08-05-2008, 11:15 AM

any list WITHOUT Steve Carlton would be silly

RaiderFan18

08-05-2008, 01:07 PM

any list WITHOUT Steve Carlton would be silly

Top 5, he wasn't better than Gibson, Koufax, Seaver, Unit or Clemens(again assuming he didn't do roids), IMO

SmartassBoiler

08-05-2008, 01:09 PM

Dammit, forgot Clemens.

quiggle

08-05-2008, 01:10 PM

no Roy Oswalt? :confused:

Poochiesdead

08-05-2008, 01:55 PM

Modern era of baseball is more in line with when statistics were being more ardently kept.Yea that was pretty much my point.

Waudodat4

08-05-2008, 02:27 PM

Gibson
Koufax
Clemens
Maddux
Carlton

IN THAT ORDER

NotoriousVesaToskala

08-05-2008, 02:29 PM

How do you define "modern era"? Are we talking about after the mound modifications of 1968 or before?

Bill

08-17-2008, 09:47 AM

Top 5, he wasn't better than Gibson, Koufax, Seaver, Unit or Clemens(again assuming he didn't do roids), IMO

It is very safe to assume that he DID do roids

Hateohiostate

08-17-2008, 01:00 PM

NO ONE brought their lunch bucket EVERYDAY the way Ryan did. He might have been .500 but I would take him any day. After him in no particular order would be:
Gibson
Seaver
Carlton
Koufax/Clemens

JerseyDevil

08-17-2008, 01:13 PM

It's unthinkable that some of you don't have Greg Maddux in your lists. The guy was the best pitcher in baseball from 1991-2002. Seeing him dominate games week in and week out was just a pleasure to watch. For a finesse pitcher to have such great numbers and make batters look completely foolish was a mark of the best pitcher of my generation.

Hateohiostate

08-17-2008, 09:51 PM

The poll said top 5. Maddux is my #6 :)

TheCollectorStop

08-18-2008, 03:04 AM

Walter Johnson is modern era? I didn't realize the 1920's were modern...

Everything 1900 and after is considered the Modern Era. It signifies when the rules and statistics were stabilized. A good example would be that anytime you reached another base for any reason you were credited with a steal. Say you were on first and someone hit you in on a triple. You would have been credited with 3 stolen bases. We do not include those statistics in the Modern Era. Modern Era is a technical term and means something very specific when speaking about baseball statistics.

wilycoyote

08-18-2008, 06:27 AM

Greg Maddux
Walter Johnson
Bob Gibson
Tom Seaver
Pedro Martinez

in no order

guys i'm on the fence about

Sandy Koufax- if he pitched a full career who knows what the numbers would have been
John Smoltz- playoffs, starting and closing. he could do it all but number for number he might not match up
Nolan Ryan- no cy award and only series came in 2nd season and he didn't have a lot to do with it
Trevor Hoffman- his record only has a chance to be broken by K-Rod but closers still get no love
Josh Beckett- still young but playoff dominance is off the wall

hell deciding and arguing about this will never have an end. we mind as well put a bunch of names on a wall and throw 5 darts and whichever they land on are the best of all time.

Most of you guys didnt see Koufax pitch but I did and for the first 8 years of his career he was a mediocre 500 pitcher with a ERA OF 4.00:eek::eek:

He was a dominating 4 year wonder that developed arthritis to end his career but does dominating 4 years of a 12 career make you a Hall Of Famer..........apparently:rolleyes::rolleyes::o

glove-save

08-18-2008, 08:47 AM

IN no particular order:

Bob Gibson
Nolan Ryan
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Steve Carlton

platzy19

08-18-2008, 09:15 AM

Interesting Rob Neyer article from a few years back on this same subject

Roger Clemens the best pitcher ever?

Who can say? Unless we make a massive timeline adjustment, there's simply no way for the likes of Roger Clemens to compete with the likes of Cy Young (511 wins) and Walter Johnson (417). So let's restrict our focus to the period following World War II, because it's convenient and also because shortly after the war ended, the competition began to get quite a bit tougher.

There are, in my opinion, five pitchers with a claim on the title, "Best Pitcher Since World War II": Warren Spahn, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Roger Clemens, and Greg Maddux. Let's review the basic qualifications of each pitcher. ...

W-L / Innings / ERA / ERA+
Spahn / 363-245 / 5,244 / 3.09 / 118
Gibson / 251-174 / 3,884 / 2.91 / 127
Seaver / 311-205 / 4,783 / 2.86 / 127
Clemens / 299-153 / 4,132 / 3.15 / 142
Maddux / 276-157 / 3,814 / 2.87 / 146

"ERA+" is a method that's supposed to put a pitcher's ERA into something of a neutral context. Spahn's 118 ERA+ means his career ERA was 18 percent better than league average, after adjusting for the ballparks in which he pitched.

With that in mind, I think we have to summarily eliminate Bob Gibson, as great he was, from this competition. Gibson's ERA is roughly equivalent to Seaver's ... but in 900 fewer innings. That leaves us with four candidates.

W-L / Innings / ERA / ERA+
Spahn / 363-245 / 5,244 / 3.09 / 118
Seaver / 311-205 / 4,783 / 2.86 / 127
Clemens / 299-153 / 4,132 / 3.15 / 142
Maddux / 276-157 / 3,814 / 2.87 / 146

I've arranged the pitchers in chronological order, but it's probably not coincidental that one can detect other orders here, too. They're also listed in decreasing order of wins and innings, and in increasing order of ERA+.

Which makes ranking them pretty tough. You want innings, and wins? That's Warren Spahn. You want a phenomenal ERA, relative to the league? That's Clemens or Maddux. You want an impressive mixture of durability and quality? That's Tom Seaver.

How do we choose?

Well, let's start with Maddux. It seems to me that if Maddux and Clemens sport ERAs that are essentially equivalent (they do), and if Clemens has an edge of more than 300 innings (he does), then it's pretty hard to make the argument that Maddux is better than Clemens. Especially if you agree that (as Bill James has suggested) Maddux has benefitted from better fielders than has Clemens.

That leaves three candidates.

W-L / Innings / ERA / ERA+
Spahn / 363-245 / 5,244 / 3.09 / 118
Seaver / 311-205 / 4,783 / 2.86 / 127
Clemens / 299-153 / 4,132 / 3.15 / 142

These are, at least in this writer's opinion, the three greatest pitchers since World War II.

Which was the greatest?

Before we go any further, we've got to acknowledge the "timeline problem."

It's a generally accepted notion that as systems mature, it becomes more and more difficult to stand out. This, of course, is how Stephen Jay Gould explained the demise of the .400 hitter. But in an era in which Randy Johnson can annually post an ERA well below 3.00 and Barry Bonds can hit 73 home runs one season and bat .370 the next, is it really safe to assume that it's more difficult to dominate in 2003 than it was in 1953 or 1973?

Well, maybe. But maybe not. It's possible that after years and years and years of the game getting harder and harder and harder to dominate, that process has stopped, or even reversed itself. How could this happen? Well, it could happen if a significant percentage of the greatest athletes in this country were, as children, playing soccer and basketball instead of baseball. Which is, of course, precisely what's happening. Which is to say, we should be treading lightly in this area.

Now, Warren Spahn. Beginning in 1947, Spahn started at least 32 games and pitched at least 245 innings in every season for 17 straight seasons. Beginning in 1957, Spahn ran off a streak of six straight seasons in which he led the National League in complete games ... and in the last of those six seasons, he was 42 years old.

But then, Clemens hasn't exactly been a piker when it comes to durability. Spahn pitched for 20 seasons in the major leagues (not including a 16-innings cup of coffee in his first shot). Clemens is currently pitching in his 20th season. Granted, Clemens has been on the disabled list seven times, most notably in 1985 when two DL stints cost him half the season. But Spahn's significant edge in innings is due as much to changing conditions as to the two pitchers' durability. Still, just as we can assume that if Spahn pitched in the 1990s, as part of a five-man rotation, he wouldn't have started or completed as many games, we also can't assume that if Clemens had pitched in the 1950s, he'd have thrived in the four-man rotation.

So yes, Spahn gets points for starting (and completing) so many games, and pitching so many innings. But enough points to outweigh Clemens' ability to simply dominate the competition? While one might argue that both Spahn and Clemens were the best in their respective leagues in six or seven seasons, when Clemens was the best he was almost always obviously the best. The same can't be said for Spahn, who was always excellent but rarely scary.

I believe that Spahn, great as he was, just doesn't quite measure up to Clemens.

That leaves two candidates.

W-L / Innings / ERA / ERA+
Seaver / 311-205 / 4,783 / 2.86 / 127
Clemens / 299-153 / 4,132 / 3.15 / 142

Fitting, isn't it? On the mound, Clemens bears a resemblance to Seaver, and the two were briefly teammates with the Red Sox in 1986.

Comparing them, Seaver falls between Spahn and Clemens; Seaver pitched more innings than Clemens but not as many as Spahn, and Seaver was more dominant than Spahn but not quite as dominant as Clemens.

If he does indeed retire after this season, Clemens is going to finish with almost exactly as many wins as Seaver ... but many fewer losses. However, this says a lot more about the teams Seaver and Clemens pitched for than about Seaver and Clemens. As Bill James points out in his most recent book, "Seaver pitched for eight losing teams, several of them really terrible, and four others had losing records except when Seaver was on the mound." Meanwhile, Clemens has pitched for eight teams that reached the postseason, five teams with losing records, and zero really terrible teams.

Which is to say, the fact that Seaver lost more than 200 games, and Clemens won't, shouldn't be held against Seaver.

In the end, it comes down to this: What's more important, Seaver's slight edge in innings or Clemens' slight edge in quality?

But wait, maybe that's not the end. Maybe we're missing something. It's fair, isn't it, to consider postseason performance when making such a tough choice?

Unfortunately, there's not much difference between Seaver and Clemens here, either. In eight postseason games, Seaver went 3-3 with a 2.77 ERA. In 22 postseason games, Clemens is 6-6 with a 3.46 ERA. Yes, Seaver's got the more impressive ERA, but Clemens has pitched a lot more postseason games and has been brilliant -- 3-0, 1.56 -- in the World Series. So we'll call that one a push, and we're right back where we started.

I believe that Roger Clemens might be the best pitcher since World War II.

But I'm not sure. I'm not at all sure. With Clemens still going out there every fifth day and throwing thunderbolts, we simply don't have enough perspective on his career to precisely measure his place among the greats. We know that he wasn't as good as Walter Johnson, and we know that he was better than Bob Gibson. But do we really know, in May 2003, that Clemens was better than Seaver?

No, I don't think we do. We need a few years to put Clemens into perspective. And until we've got that perspective, I have to consider Roger Clemens only the second greatest pitcher since World War II. I might change my mind in a few years, but right now Tom Seaver still takes the imaginary trophy.

Senior writer Rob Neyer writes four columns per week during the baseball season. His new book, "Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Lineups," has just been published by

platzy19

08-18-2008, 09:16 AM

His response after people got bitter about no Nolan

the wake of Roger Clemens' failure to register victory No. 300 and my recent article suggesting that Clemens should at least be considered as the greatest pitcher since World War II, a few follow-up notes ...
· Rob,
After reading your article about Roger Clemens, I was wondering: Was there anything special about his college career or first few seasons in the minor leagues that could have pointed to such a brilliant career? And following that up, are there any pitchers out there that we should be keeping our eyes on because of similar numbers, but maybe haven't heard of yet?

Thanks,
Mike Bledsoe
It's easy, now, to say that nobody knew Clemens would be this good, but that's true of almost every great player. Unless you draft a player with the very first pick, you just hope he can eventually reach the majors and contribute in a meaningful way; anything else is gravy. It's true that Clemens wasn't even considered, at least by some, the best pitcher on his University of Texas team, but 1) that was a real good team, 2) in two years at Texas, he struck out 241 hitters in 275 innings, and 3) he was the 19th player selected in the June 1983 amateur draft.

And you know, if Clemens were pitching for Texas today, he'd probably go a lot higher in the draft, because people are starting to figure out that college pitchers are better bets than high school pitchers. As for his minor-league career, Clemens barely had one. He started four games in Class A and posted a 1.24 ERA, then started seven games in Double-A and posted a 1.38 ERA, then started six games in Triple-A and posted a 1.93 ERA. And then, just 11 months after he was drafted, Clemens reached the majors for good.

As for pitchers we should be keeping our eyes on, nobody out there right now is doing quite what Clemens did. Two guys I'm watching, though, are Oakland's Rich Harden and Kansas City's Zack Greinke (and yes, I know there are probably a half-dozen others in the same class; forgive a man his biases).

********

Early on, it was pretty obvious that Monday wasn't going to be the Rocket's day. He struck out Doug Mirabelli to end the top of the second, but strike three came on his 46th pitch. And 46 pitches in the first two innings doesn't generally for a long day make.

Not that Clemens generally goes the distance. He hasn't completed a start since 2000 -- his streak of 95 starts without a complete game is supposedly a Yankees record -- which might suggest that he's on a relatively low pitch count. But that's not really the case. Last Aug. 18, Clemens threw 117 pitches ... but went only seven innings. Last Sept. 8, Clemens threw 125 pitches ... but went only seven innings. This April 13, Clemens threw 115 pitches ... but went only seven innings. Last week against the Red Sox, Clemens threw 100 pitches ... but went only six innings. So Clemens' dearth of complete games isn't due to a lack of durability, but rather to a lack of economy.

This is one component of the Yankee Way: pick up quality veteran pitchers, and then ask them to go as hard as they can for as long as they can. If they can give us only six or seven innings, we'll happily turn things over to the bullpen. It worked with David Cone, and it's working with Roger Clemens.

********

Basically, the complaints can be separated into four categories.

One is that I didn't give enough credit to Sandy Koufax. To which I would respond, that's fine if you think that five great seasons (Koufax) really can trump nearly two decades of high quality (Seaver, Spahn, Clemens, Maddux). It's an interesting argument, I suppose, more a matter of taste than anything. But it's not to my taste.

Another is that I didn't give enough credit to Steve Carlton. To which I would respond, Carlton certainly was a great pitcher, but he did mix in a lot of very good seasons with his truly great seasons (of which I count four). That's not a knock, it's just to explain why he doesn't rank among the five greatest pitchers since World War II. Which he pretty clearly does not.

Another is that it's ridiculous to rank Clemens as high as I did, considering that he's spent his entire career in the American League, and thus very rarely had to bat. As a result, the gutless Clemens -- so the argument goes -- could pitch inside without worrying about getting plunked himself, which goes a long way toward explaining his success.

All of which is absolutely preposterous. Clemens, like most great pitchers, is somewhat bellicose in nature, and it's silly to think he'd have pitched any differently, any more than Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale pitched differently, knowing they had to bat after throwing fastballs at the chins of their opponents. Pitching is pitching, and Clemens would have been just as good in 1968 as he was in 1998.

And the most popular criticism, by far -- I lost count, but the number went well into three digits -- was that I somehow managed to completely ignore Nolan Ryan. Here's a very small sample of the messages that came in ...
· I loved the ESPN.com column on the best post World War II pitchers, but for what reasons were Nolan Ryan excluded?

James

**********

I just finished reading your peice on ESPN.com on the best post WWII pitcher. Great piece, but I have one question: Where is Nolan Ryan?

I'm not a statistician, just a little more than a casual baseball fan, but it would seem to me that Nolan Ryan would at least be in the running for the title of greatest since WWII. Maybe one of us is missing something?

**********

How did you not have Nolan Ryan as one of the best pitchers since WWII????????

**********

I read your article "Clemens with few peers in modern age" on May 26th and realized that nowhere on your list was Nolan Ryan. How could he not be one of your five greatest pitchers since WWII. He threw seven no-hitters and struck out 5,714 batters while winning 300+ games. The guy is a legend and is definitely one of the five best since WWII.

**********

Are you are nuts Rob??? How can you make a column about the best pitchers post WWII and not even "mention" Nolan Ryan. C'MON!!!

**********

Have you called Mr. Ryan yet? You really should. Tell him you didn't know what you were thinking. An apology is the least you could do after that sham of an article. "Five Best Pitchers" Was it a parody? Fiction? Maybe I missed something. Or Maybe you're 13 years old.

**********

Regarding your five greatest pitchers of all-time (since WWII). How is it humanly possible Nolan Ryan is outranked by Greg Maddux?

**********

Your article about the top five pitchers in post-WWII baseball is a nice article, but you need to have Nolan Ryan in the mix. Like Tom Seaver, his teams were average at best. Ryan was more dominating than Clemens (7 No-No's!).

**********
Roger Clemens won six Cy Young Awards. Randy Johnson won five Cy Young Awards. Greg Maddux and Steve Carlton both won four Cy Young Awards. Jim Palmer and Sandy Koufax both won three Cy Young Awards. Nolan Ryan won -- not six, nor five, nor four, nor three, nor two Cy Young Awards. Nolan Ryan didn't even win one Cy Young Award. Nolan Ryan won zero Cy Young Awards.

Nolan Ryan isn't the greatest pitcher since World War II, and in fact he's not one of the 10 greatest pitchers since World War II. After the five pitchers -- Tom Seaver, Roger Clemens, Warren Spahn, Greg Maddux, and Bob Gibson -- I mentioned in the article about Clemens, I would list the following (in no particular order): Randy Johnson, Robin Roberts, Steve Carlton, Sandy Koufax, and Jim Palmer.

And Ryan? Obviously, he was a great pitcher. Among post-World War II pitchers, he might be placed in the next group of five, with ***lord Perry, Juan Marichal, Whitey Ford, and Ferguson Jenkins. Then again, I'm not really so sure that Ryan was better than Phil Niekro, or Pedro Martinez. But Ryan's almost certainly one of the 20 best pitchers since World War II.

Among the very greatest, though?

Saying that Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher because he has the most strikeouts and the most no-hitters -- which is essentially the only argument I've seen -- is a little like saying that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter because he has the most hits, or that Mark McGwire is the greatest hitter because his home runs went the farthest, or that John Olerud is the greatest hitter because he's got the prettiest swing.

Seven no-hitters ... yeah, that's impressive. Bottom line, though, seven no-hitters is just a tiny better than seven one-hitters, and just a wee bit better than seven two-hitters. In each of those seven games, Ryan gave his team an overwhelming chance of winning, and his teams did win all seven games. But in a career that included 773 starts, seven games really isn't a huge number: 0.9 percent, to be moderately precise.

Five thousand, seven hundred and fourteen strikeouts ... yeah, that's impressive. It's also impressive that Ryan led his league in strikeouts 11 times. Nobody's ever struck out more batters, or led his league in strikeouts so many times. It's funny, though ... nobody seems to remember that Ryan also walked more hitters -- 2,795, to be absolutely precise -- than anybody else, and that he led his league in walks eight times. Nobody seems to remember that Ryan often had trouble throwing strikes, or that he wasn't any good at fielding his position.

Here are some other things that nobody seems to remember ... This great pitcher led his league in ERA only twice, and never led his league in victories. This great pitcher -- who some tell me was the greatest pitcher of the last half-century -- was never given the most prestigious award for the greatest pitcher of a single season. It's true: Nolan Ryan never won the Cy Young Award. He finished second in 1973, and seven other times he finished in the top 10. He was a very good pitcher for a very long time, he pitched in five All-Star Games, and he probably was the scariest pitcher of his time.

But the greatest? Roger Clemens won six Cy Young Awards. Randy Johnson won five Cy Young Awards. Greg Maddux and Steve Carlton both won four Cy Young Awards. Jim Palmer and Sandy Koufax both won three Cy Young Awards. Nolan Ryan won -- not six, nor five, nor four, nor three, nor two Cy Young Awards. Nolan Ryan didn't even win one Cy Young Award. Nolan Ryan won zero Cy Young Awards.

Is it possible that the baseball writers knew so little about baseball that they would unfairly ignore Nolan Ryan, the greatest pitcher in baseball, for so many years, and reward so many less-deserving pitchers so many times?