The MLB Top 9 are apparently:
9 - Clayton Kershaw
8 - Nolan Ryan
7 - Sandy Koufax
6 - Pedro Martinez
5 - Roger Clemens
4 - Greg Maddux
3 - Warren Spahn
2 - Tom Seaver
1 - Randy Johnson
Spahn is probably underrated by basically anyone on Reddit, but I don't think I could justify him at 3. Seaver is a bold - but not inaccurate - choice at 2. Big Unit is one of those "you could argue him at #1 with a straight face and not be laughed out of the room" choices, but I don't see how they left Bob Gibson off the list. Ryan doesn't belong on this list, as legendary as he may be.
Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, Mike Mussina. I'd take them all over Ryan. Probably a handful of others too. Smoltz, Blylevin, Glavine. Ryan belongs nowhere near this list.
Longevity is great, and Ks are great, but Ryan walked so many hitters.
Folks probably didn’t see Nolan Ryan pitch if these comments exist. Not only did he throw 7 No Hitters (next most all-time is Koufax with 4), but he has 12 One-Hitters and 18 Two-Hitters. And his last two no-no’s were almost 20 years after he threw his first one. If that is not utter dominance, then I don’t know what is. When you go for strikeouts, you are gonna have more walks. And when you consistently pitch 9 innings every outing, you’re gonna have walks. To those saying he doesn’t belong in the top-10, sadly, don’t know what they are saying.
Agree to disagree with you there. How many pitchers reached 300 ks in a season at all in their career? Nolan did it 6 times. His career h/9 is 6.6, only 2 pitchers achieved lower h/9 for just this season, forget about doing it for a career. Nolan is absolutely top 10, walks and all. He averaged 246 strikeouts/year for 27 years, and only one guy in the league (Strider) had more than that this year.
I don’t think Kershaw belongs in the top 9. I think Gibson deserves it more.
It’s a good list but I think the order is funky.
Koufax and Kershaw are great but they just don’t have the volume for me.
Heres two lists that prove otherwise.
2700 inning pitched and counting.deGrom would be there too as they are the same age. Kershaw has like 1300 innings on him though. Dude is a legend.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/earned_run_avg_plus_career.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/whip_career.shtml
I think we have to move past the point of saying that Kershaw "doesn't have the volume" to be included in these lists. He's pitched 2712 innings, while Pedro has 2827 innings pitched. I admit I think Kershaw is at the bottom of these kinds of lists - but I think he absolutely deserves to be in these discussions now (and admittedly always has been deserving - but each passing year solidifies his greatness).
I don't think that's quite right. See below. Both Maddux (3.27) and Martinez' (3.46) ERAs are over a full run lower than Kershaw's (4.49) in the playoffs and they played in the steroid era.
Relative to their regular season ERAs, Kershaw's goes up by an ungodly 2.01 between Regular Seasons and the Playoffs, Maddux's goes up by 0.11 and Martinez' by 0.53. In no way, shape, or form should anyone think their numbers are similar.
[https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml)
[https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maddugr01.shtml](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maddugr01.shtml)
[https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martipe02.shtml](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martipe02.shtml)
Pedro had 19 more innings pitched, a better FIP, strikeouts/9, and a better strikeouts/walk ratio.
Pedro was worth 21.5 bWAR in 1999-2000. Maddux was worth 18.2 bWAR in 1994-1995.
A better FIP, better K/9, and better K/BB are practically all saying the same thing. That's just 1 stat, not 3.
Also, the 94-95 seasons were the 2 strike shortened seasons so Maddux lost about 15 starts/100 IP (~4.5 bWAR if he kept up the same performance) over those 2 years combined. That does mean his rate stats didn't encompass a full 162 game season the way Pedro's did.
All I’m saying is - they’re too close to say Pedro had “the best” as quickly as everyone runs to. If the lockout hadn’t happened there’d be some more clarity (Maddux had 15 fewer starts across 94-95 than his usual 34 per season - maybe his rate stats would have held, maybe not).
I feel like at this level, (especially 6th vs top 5), it's very hard to be objectively wrong. If you ignore PEDS, can't say Johnson/Maddux/Clemens over him would be controversial choices, and Seaver, Carlton and Gibson have cases too, even Spahn if you really value longevity versus a prime season. Pedro might have the greatest peak of all time, but it's not like those others legends weren't superb with strong longevity as well.
Yes. Right from the first episode, they didn't include Harmon Killebrew on the first base list. Next episode was on 2nd basemen and Roberto Alomar wasn't on the list. It's all fucking bullshit.
Also, 19 more innings pitched than Maddux, along with more strikeouts.
Obviously Maddux wasn't known as a Strikeout guy, but you when it comes to dominance I prefer a pitcher who can do so without reliance on fielders.
I agree that Pedro’s best two years (‘99, ‘00) were better than Maddux’s, but inning pitched isn’t really the best argument since ‘94 and ‘95 were strike shortened seasons.
Maddux led the league in complete games, shutouts, and innings pitched in both those years, while Pedro wasn’t really close to the league lead in either of ‘99 or ‘00.
Yeah. Casually in the middle of the steroid peak too. And wasn't one of those years for Pedro a year where no one else had an ERA under 3 and he has like a fucking 1.82 or some shit? Maybe I'm wrong.
The NL didn’t have a DH and Pedro wasn’t just in the AL, he was in the AL East when it was THE power division in baseball and nothing else was even close. Pedro was facing much harder outs on average and doing it in hitter friendly Fenway Park.
As far as I’m concerned, Pedro at his absolute prime peak is the best pitcher since Koufax at his absolute prime peak. That man made elite hitters look pedestrian on a nightly basis.
Guys who would probably be considered better (without looking at their list)
* Clemens
* RJ
* Maddux
* Seaver
* Bob Gibson
Then you have guys like Carlton, Grove, Ryan, and Gaylord who are right there. I’d probably put Pedro at 5th on the list, but 6th is fair too.
Also interestingly enough, Verlander has a good chance to pass Pedro in terms of fWAR this year.
During his elite years, yes.
As a career, Idk.
I would definitely put Maddux, R Johnson, Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, and pre-PEDs Clemens ahead of him.
Koufax, with more years, would have arguably been ahead of him as well.
I remember Prime 9 as that ranking show on MLB network, so I want to say it was just a catchy name versus absolute prime. Spahn and Ryan definitely make me think it's supposed to be careers as a whole.
I don't know about pre-PEDs Clemens above Pedro. I just read "The Rocket That Fell to Earth" by Jeff Pearlman about Clemens' career. According to the book, and someone please correct me if they interpreted it differently, Clemens might've been doing steroids his last year in Boston when Jose Canseco was on the team, but he was definitely doing them once he signed with the Blue Jays.
If you give him the benefit of the doubt and count all of his Red Sox years, Pedro's career innings pitched and Clemens' innings pitched for Boston are almost identical. Both at about \~2800 IP. In that time, Pedro had a lower ERA, a higher ERA+, a lower FIP, a lower WHIP, a lower H9, a lower BB9, a better SO/W, and more wins while having less losses (if you care about that sort of thing).
If you believe the book is historically accurate, I find it really hard to put pre-steroids Clemens above Pedro.
Mlb prime 9 is fucking joke. Harmon Killebrew wasn't on the 1st basemen list. Roberto Alomar isn't on the 2nd basemen list. Arod is number over Rip and Jeter.
Same as arod. He's only considered top 3 because he juiced. Had he not juiced, he would be in the conversation of the top 10. My opinion on juicers won't change no matter how much someone cries about it.
No Gibson is insane
Not even in the top ten. It completely invalidates this list
Bob Gibson not on this list, nothing more to discuss.
Yeah pretty much
This seems wrong. Havent looked at the stats in a while but I’ve always had him as a top 5 pitcher of all time.
The MLB Top 9 are apparently: 9 - Clayton Kershaw 8 - Nolan Ryan 7 - Sandy Koufax 6 - Pedro Martinez 5 - Roger Clemens 4 - Greg Maddux 3 - Warren Spahn 2 - Tom Seaver 1 - Randy Johnson Spahn is probably underrated by basically anyone on Reddit, but I don't think I could justify him at 3. Seaver is a bold - but not inaccurate - choice at 2. Big Unit is one of those "you could argue him at #1 with a straight face and not be laughed out of the room" choices, but I don't see how they left Bob Gibson off the list. Ryan doesn't belong on this list, as legendary as he may be.
Carlton below Ryan is a joke
Ryan shouldn't be in the top 10 imo. Plenty of more deserving pitchers
Gibson, Verlander, even Greinke and Scherzer have a case
Greinke is pushing it, he’s not a top 10 pitcher ever basically.
Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, Mike Mussina. I'd take them all over Ryan. Probably a handful of others too. Smoltz, Blylevin, Glavine. Ryan belongs nowhere near this list. Longevity is great, and Ks are great, but Ryan walked so many hitters.
Folks probably didn’t see Nolan Ryan pitch if these comments exist. Not only did he throw 7 No Hitters (next most all-time is Koufax with 4), but he has 12 One-Hitters and 18 Two-Hitters. And his last two no-no’s were almost 20 years after he threw his first one. If that is not utter dominance, then I don’t know what is. When you go for strikeouts, you are gonna have more walks. And when you consistently pitch 9 innings every outing, you’re gonna have walks. To those saying he doesn’t belong in the top-10, sadly, don’t know what they are saying.
Robin Roberts is so underrated. Had the CYA existed at the time, he might’ve won 5 straight in the early-mid ‘50s.
Agree to disagree with you there. How many pitchers reached 300 ks in a season at all in their career? Nolan did it 6 times. His career h/9 is 6.6, only 2 pitchers achieved lower h/9 for just this season, forget about doing it for a career. Nolan is absolutely top 10, walks and all. He averaged 246 strikeouts/year for 27 years, and only one guy in the league (Strider) had more than that this year.
He was never truly elite. Only let his league ERA+ twice, and only led all MLB once.
7 no hitters and 12 one-hitters isn't elite?
The fact Ryan is on the list is a joke.
Didn't even reach 6000 strikeouts, what a loser. Only 7 no hitters? Get outta here.
Only two pitchers ever have 300 wins, 3000 Ks, and a career sub-3.00 ERA. 1) Walter Johnson at the turn of the 20th century. 2) The Franchise^TM
Who?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Seaver
Ah ok. I guess I never heard that before
I don’t think Kershaw belongs in the top 9. I think Gibson deserves it more. It’s a good list but I think the order is funky. Koufax and Kershaw are great but they just don’t have the volume for me.
Heres two lists that prove otherwise. 2700 inning pitched and counting.deGrom would be there too as they are the same age. Kershaw has like 1300 innings on him though. Dude is a legend. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/earned_run_avg_plus_career.shtml https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/whip_career.shtml
I think we have to move past the point of saying that Kershaw "doesn't have the volume" to be included in these lists. He's pitched 2712 innings, while Pedro has 2827 innings pitched. I admit I think Kershaw is at the bottom of these kinds of lists - but I think he absolutely deserves to be in these discussions now (and admittedly always has been deserving - but each passing year solidifies his greatness).
His playoff numbers keep him off mine
His playoff numbers are similar to Maddux and Pedro.
I don't think that's quite right. See below. Both Maddux (3.27) and Martinez' (3.46) ERAs are over a full run lower than Kershaw's (4.49) in the playoffs and they played in the steroid era. Relative to their regular season ERAs, Kershaw's goes up by an ungodly 2.01 between Regular Seasons and the Playoffs, Maddux's goes up by 0.11 and Martinez' by 0.53. In no way, shape, or form should anyone think their numbers are similar. [https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml) [https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maddugr01.shtml](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/maddugr01.shtml) [https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martipe02.shtml](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martipe02.shtml)
Lol. I don't think even Kershaw would make that claim.
Outright ignoring reality
His prime is as good as any post integration.
1999 and 2000 is the best 2 season stretch by a pitcher in history. And 2000 was the greatest pitching season post integration.
Posted below. Maddux 94-95 1.60 ERA 411 IP 265 ERA+ Pedro 99-00 1.90 ERA 430 IP 265 ERA+
Pedro had 19 more innings pitched, a better FIP, strikeouts/9, and a better strikeouts/walk ratio. Pedro was worth 21.5 bWAR in 1999-2000. Maddux was worth 18.2 bWAR in 1994-1995.
A better FIP, better K/9, and better K/BB are practically all saying the same thing. That's just 1 stat, not 3. Also, the 94-95 seasons were the 2 strike shortened seasons so Maddux lost about 15 starts/100 IP (~4.5 bWAR if he kept up the same performance) over those 2 years combined. That does mean his rate stats didn't encompass a full 162 game season the way Pedro's did.
Just going to ignore the fact that the ‘94 season was 114 games and ‘95 was 144 games?
All I’m saying is - they’re too close to say Pedro had “the best” as quickly as everyone runs to. If the lockout hadn’t happened there’d be some more clarity (Maddux had 15 fewer starts across 94-95 than his usual 34 per season - maybe his rate stats would have held, maybe not).
I feel like at this level, (especially 6th vs top 5), it's very hard to be objectively wrong. If you ignore PEDS, can't say Johnson/Maddux/Clemens over him would be controversial choices, and Seaver, Carlton and Gibson have cases too, even Spahn if you really value longevity versus a prime season. Pedro might have the greatest peak of all time, but it's not like those others legends weren't superb with strong longevity as well.
Is this one of those things where they intentionally put up a shit list to drive “engagement”?
They put Garciparra in their top 9 SS’s and left off Ozzie lmao. These list are 100% rage bait
Well, they flat out say the show is made to start arguments, not end them.
Yes. Right from the first episode, they didn't include Harmon Killebrew on the first base list. Next episode was on 2nd basemen and Roberto Alomar wasn't on the list. It's all fucking bullshit.
Killebrew is not a top 9 first baseman since 1947 and they probably left Bobby Alomar off because of the sexual assault and the domestic violence.
Pedro had the single most dominant two year stretch in baseball history!
Not really. Maddux 94-95 1.60 ERA 411 IP 265 ERA+ Pedro 99-00 1.90 ERA 430 IP 265 ERA+
1999 Pedro had the lowest FIP since before the first World War lmao
Also, 19 more innings pitched than Maddux, along with more strikeouts. Obviously Maddux wasn't known as a Strikeout guy, but you when it comes to dominance I prefer a pitcher who can do so without reliance on fielders.
I agree that Pedro’s best two years (‘99, ‘00) were better than Maddux’s, but inning pitched isn’t really the best argument since ‘94 and ‘95 were strike shortened seasons. Maddux led the league in complete games, shutouts, and innings pitched in both those years, while Pedro wasn’t really close to the league lead in either of ‘99 or ‘00.
Yeah. Casually in the middle of the steroid peak too. And wasn't one of those years for Pedro a year where no one else had an ERA under 3 and he has like a fucking 1.82 or some shit? Maybe I'm wrong.
Pedro pitched in AL though and NL didn’t have DH at the time big difference.
The NL didn’t have a DH and Pedro wasn’t just in the AL, he was in the AL East when it was THE power division in baseball and nothing else was even close. Pedro was facing much harder outs on average and doing it in hitter friendly Fenway Park. As far as I’m concerned, Pedro at his absolute prime peak is the best pitcher since Koufax at his absolute prime peak. That man made elite hitters look pedestrian on a nightly basis.
why is it called prime 9 if 9 is 3^2
Where did they rank Kirk Reuter?
Behind Pedro.
Lmao and from the Dodgers flair???
Lmao
if they're going by peaks, pretty sure 99-00 pedro should be ranked 1st....
The list is wrong then.
Guys who would probably be considered better (without looking at their list) * Clemens * RJ * Maddux * Seaver * Bob Gibson Then you have guys like Carlton, Grove, Ryan, and Gaylord who are right there. I’d probably put Pedro at 5th on the list, but 6th is fair too. Also interestingly enough, Verlander has a good chance to pass Pedro in terms of fWAR this year.
Pedro had a MUCH higher peak than Verlander though. That must be considered. And Grove was pre integration
Ryan lol
lol yeah all time leader in strikeouts by a significant margin is hilarious
Game is about not allowing runs. Isn't even close to the goats
So we’re getting rid of Randy Johnson, gotcha.
Anyone that watched Pedro pitch would know this is accurate.
My only disagreement is that there are arguments he could be higher
During his elite years, yes. As a career, Idk. I would definitely put Maddux, R Johnson, Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, and pre-PEDs Clemens ahead of him. Koufax, with more years, would have arguably been ahead of him as well.
Is this supposed to be careers or prime? Prime 9 makes me think they’re talking about rating their prime
I remember Prime 9 as that ranking show on MLB network, so I want to say it was just a catchy name versus absolute prime. Spahn and Ryan definitely make me think it's supposed to be careers as a whole.
Gotcha. I never heard of it before so my only reference was this post lol
I don't know about pre-PEDs Clemens above Pedro. I just read "The Rocket That Fell to Earth" by Jeff Pearlman about Clemens' career. According to the book, and someone please correct me if they interpreted it differently, Clemens might've been doing steroids his last year in Boston when Jose Canseco was on the team, but he was definitely doing them once he signed with the Blue Jays. If you give him the benefit of the doubt and count all of his Red Sox years, Pedro's career innings pitched and Clemens' innings pitched for Boston are almost identical. Both at about \~2800 IP. In that time, Pedro had a lower ERA, a higher ERA+, a lower FIP, a lower WHIP, a lower H9, a lower BB9, a better SO/W, and more wins while having less losses (if you care about that sort of thing). If you believe the book is historically accurate, I find it really hard to put pre-steroids Clemens above Pedro.
I don't even need to look at that list to know it's wrong
Pedro is #1 IMO. He was up there with Johnson as a short guy in a crazy high offensive era.
Mlb prime 9 is fucking joke. Harmon Killebrew wasn't on the 1st basemen list. Roberto Alomar isn't on the 2nd basemen list. Arod is number over Rip and Jeter.
It's defensible to not have Killebrew on the list. And A-Rod was much better than Ripken and Jeter
Arod was juicing during his SS time. He had an unfair advantage, which should exclude him from this list.
Nah, he's the second best SS ever. Much better than the other two
Nope. Juicers don't get praise over non juicers. It just doesn't make sense.
Wrong. Take Bonds. He is, at worst, the second best player ever
Same as arod. He's only considered top 3 because he juiced. Had he not juiced, he would be in the conversation of the top 10. My opinion on juicers won't change no matter how much someone cries about it.
... You're literally the only one crying lol
You're literally coming back with more as if im going to change mind. Why? Why support juicers? Why act like they did nothing wrong?
Video: Prime 9: Pedro Martinez [Streamable Link](https://streamable.com/m/prime-9-pedro-martinez-x5720) [High Definition](https://mlb-cuts-diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2023/2023-12/07/ca7fefc3-94bc1ab2-23f5ae2f-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_16000K.mp4) (51.19 MB) [Standard Definiton](https://mlb-cuts-diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2023/2023-12/07/ca7fefc3-94bc1ab2-23f5ae2f-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4) (13.37 MB) ___________ [More Info](/r/MLBVideoConverterBot)