King Felix to Yankees?

[Emmz]

Maddux is enough to make any rotation look freakin' sweet, but Smoltz+Glavine was overkill. Maddux was definitely the best of them, though, guy is a top-five all-time pitcher. Considering his fastball was like, 90 mph at best, that's very impressive. If ever there were a perfect pitchers' mind, it was in the head of Greg Maddux.

[Spudboy]

1971 Orioles are up there. Four 20-game winners. Cuellar' date=' Dobson, and Palmer each pitched over 280 innings. McNally pitched over 220. 70 complete games between them, 12 shutouts. Horses.[/quote']

 

Bingo.

 

I was about to search what what year it was . Thankfully you posted it first. I am so lazy!

 

They also had a good bull pen.

[Dipre]

Sure, they had better peripherals, but:

 

They didn't play in the middle of the steroid era, and the league average in runs scored was right about 720 runs, while in 1998 it was about 795, as usual, let's not touch pitcher wins as an accurate way to measure a pitcher's effectiveness (See: Hernandez, Felix) and also, sOPS+ (which in a pitcher's case evaluates a pitcher's performance compared against the rest of the league) gives a clear edge to the 1998 Braves at 71, compared to the Oriole's 86.

 

Different eras, but compiling those numbers against much tougher (and 'roided) competition needs to be taken into consideration.

[suns]

Who has the best starting rotation ever?

 

It was a really long time ago.

It had Bob Feller as the ace.

3 HOFs. All ERA under 4

[Spudboy]

Sure, they had better peripherals, but:

 

They didn't play in the middle of the steroid era, and the league average in runs scored was right about 720 runs, while in 1998 it was about 795, as usual, let's not touch pitcher wins as an accurate way to measure a pitcher's effectiveness (See: Hernandez, Felix) and also, sOPS+ (which in a pitcher's case evaluates a pitcher's performance compared against the rest of the league) gives a clear edge to the 1998 Braves at 71, compared to the Oriole's 86.

 

Different eras, but compiling those numbers against much tougher (and 'roided) competition needs to be taken into consideration.

 

I didn't look at the periferals and I agree that W/L is not the best measure of a pitchers value. Especially when they play on a perenial powerehouse like the Weaver era O's.

 

However, I saw those guys pitch dozens of times. They were "dominant". Sometimes talent transends generations and eras. Those four, along with guys like Gibson, Seaver, Marichel (sp), Blue, McClain, etc., would be very sucessful and likely as "dominant" if they were pitching now.

 

Just as Gale Sayers or Jim Brown would be in football ( where the players are bigger and faster now) or Wilt Chamberlain and Lew Alcindor (as examples) in basketball.

[Dipre]

I didn't look at the periferals and I agree that W/L is not the best measure of a pitchers value. Especially when they play on a perenial powerehouse like the Weaver era O's.

 

However, I saw those guys pitch dozens of times. They were "dominant". Sometimes talent transends generations and eras. Those four, along with guys like Gibson, Seaver, Marichel (sp), Blue, McClain, etc., would be very sucessful and likely as "dominant" if they were pitching now.

 

Just as Gale Sayers or Jim Brown would be in football ( where the players are bigger and faster now) or Wilt Chamberlain and Lew Alcindor (as examples) in basketball.

 

If you're talking about talent that would transcend eras then Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine should be up there as well. But if we're comparing a specific year, its pertinent to note how well that rotation did when compared to the rest of the league. And while i agree those pitchers would have been successful in the middle of the steroid era, i doubt they would have been so to the same extent.

 

I have a question:

 

Which season do you consider more "dominant":

 

Jim Palmer's 1975 season or Greg Maddux' 1998 season?

 

I ask this because they had similar seasons (albeit Palmer had a shitload more IP) but i personally consider Maddux' year to be more impressive given the environment they were pitching in.

 

Take their ERA+, for instance (it measures a pitcher's performance to the rest of the league) Palmer's was 169, while Maddux' was 187, and that's a reflection of generational differences.

 

In fact, let's use ERA+ to compare both rotations:

 

1998 Braves:

 

Maddux: 187

 

Glavine: 168

 

Smoltz: 144

 

Neagle: 117

 

Milwood: 102

 

1971 Orioles:

 

Palmer: 126

 

Cuellar: 116

 

Dobson: 109

 

McNally: 117

 

Compared to their peers, the 1998 Braves rotation was superior, and that has a lot to do with everyone hitting HR's left and right, and the inflation of run-scoring to a degree never before seen by baseball.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

1971 Orioles are up there. Four 20-game winners. Cuellar' date=' Dobson, and Palmer each pitched over 280 innings. McNally pitched over 220. 70 complete games between them, 12 shutouts. Horses.[/quote']

 

Damn, that's pretty monster.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

It was a really long time ago.

It had Bob Feller as the ace.

3 HOFs. All ERA under 4

 

1951 Guardians? No.

[a700hitter]

I can think of lots of awesome rotations from the 60's:

 

1969 Mets -- Probably had as much talent as any staff that I have seen.

 

1967 Giants- They featured Gaylord Perry and Juan Marichal as #1 and 2, but Mike McCormick the #3 won the Cy Young that year.

 

1968 Cards- How do you go wrong with Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton on the same staff. Nelly Briles was 19-11 with a 2.81 era on that staff.

 

1965 Dodgers- Koufax and Drysdale--People don't realize that you just didn't score when you played that Dodger team.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

This isn't from the 60's but surprised no one mentioned the early 2000 Oakland A's Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder?

[Dipre]

This isn't from the 60's but surprised no one mentioned the early 2000 Oakland A's Barry Zito' date=' Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder?[/quote']

 

Not on the same level as any of the other rotations mentioned IMO.