Greg Maddux

[WSUCougar]

Watched Maddux twirl another victory last night against my Redbirds. He was in classic form, painting the corners with pinpoint control - and he actually was pissed throughout the game, because the umpire wasn't really giving him anything. Joe Buck had a great comment that somewhere in New York (where the Braves were playing the Mets) Bobby Cox was complaining about not getting those pitches. :D

Anyway, I heard a pretty remarkable stat that I hadn't heard before, at least that I could remember:

Maddux has won 15+ games in 17 consecutive seasons. And (at 12-11) is working on his 18th season. WOW

Truly one of the all-time greats.

[Ksyrup]

You haven't heard that? Geez, for the past 3 years, that stat has accompanied every article Maddux is mentioned in or broadcast of the games he pitches. I suspect you'll hear some people from the "meaningless stat" department chime in about how unremarkable it is, though.

[WSUCougar]

You haven't heard that? Geez, for the past 3 years, that stat has accompanied every article Maddux is mentioned in or broadcast of the games he pitches. I suspect you'll hear some people from the "meaningless stat" department chime in about how unremarkable it is, though.
So, basically, what you're saying is I'm a dork.

[saldana]

Maddux has won 15+ games in 17 consecutive seasons. And (at 12-11) is working on his 18th season. WOW

Truly one of the all-time greats.

(beavis voice) ummm, thats not that good, really, ummmm, whats the big deal?

[Ksyrup]

No, not really. I'm just honestly surprised that someone who follows baseball as closely as you do hadn't heard that before. The last comment was a separate one based on the thread we had a few weeks ago about Frank Thomas' stat line and how the media and others cherry pick mostly meaningless stats to prop up a player they like.

Not that Maddux needs to be propped up, but the movement seems to be to equate pitchers' wins with hitters' RBIs as team-dependent, meaningless stats.

[WSUCougar]

My memory isn't what it used to be...I'm sure I've heard it before and had just lost that byte on the ol' hard drive.

As for a meaningless stat, say what you will, but I think it's pretty remarkable. I would agree that it doesn't define his greatness, but it serves as a good reminder to go with all those Cy Youngs.

[Ksyrup]

Don't get my wrong, I'm not one of those people. While I agree that wins obviously are tied to the team you play for, the stat still has meaning to me. I'm one of those who wouldn't have voted for Randy Johnson last year simply because he barely had .500 record. I'm sorry he played for a crappy team, but them's the breaks, as they say. For him to be a serious CY contender last year, he would have had to achieve something between .500 and what, say, Steve Carlton achieved in 1972 with just as bad a team as the D-Backs were last year. He couldn't overcome his team, so he didn't deserve to win.

And on the flip-side, I wouldn't give the CY to someone like Pete Vuckovich, simply because he won a lot of game for a great team. But with Maddux, he won his games AND had great secondary numbers. And that 15+ win streak is really more impressive to me because it proves his durability than for the wins themselves.

[andy m]

against my Redbirds

wow, you own a baseball team?

[WSUCougar]

wow, you own a baseball team?
Yes. I'm the silent partner who made his billions in trout farms and turducken ranching.

[Cuckoo]

On an only barely related note, why is it that the Cubs can beat the Cards fairly regularly this year but can't beat anyone else? Does St. Louis just feel really sorry for them? :)

[MizzouRah]

I can't stand Maddux.. he's still a freakin <strike>douche</strike> whine bag. Wish we could beat him though.

Oh well, Cubbies suck!!

[ThunderingHERD]

I love Greg Maddux. But he won't return my phone calls. :(

[hoopsguy]

I think this is the first time I have ever seen anyone say that they hate Maddux. Kind of like hating Ripken in the back half of his career, when he was Mr. Baseball. Seriously, to me Maddux seems too bland in his interactions with the media to provide much basis for a negative opinion. Kind of a baseball nerd, a guy who knows a hell of a lot more about how to pitch than his teammates/opponents. I still love watching the guy pitch even now. It is just amazing to me that he is still getting people out with stuff that is probably in the bottom 1/3 of the league at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It is just amazing to me that he is still getting people out with stuff that is probably in the bottom 1/3 of the league at this point.

Just a side effect of being simply the best pitcher of his generation.
To watch him work, in his prime, was as good as baseball gets. Period.

[MizzouRah]

I think this is the first time I have ever seen anyone say that they hate Maddux. Kind of like hating Ripken in the back half of his career, when he was Mr. Baseball. Seriously, to me Maddux seems too bland in his interactions with the media to provide much basis for a negative opinion. Kind of a baseball nerd, a guy who knows a hell of a lot more about how to pitch than his teammates/opponents. I still love watching the guy pitch even now. It is just amazing to me that he is still getting people out with stuff that is probably in the bottom 1/3 of the league at this point.
Probably due to the fact I can't stand the Braves. When Maddux - Glavine - Smoltz - were getting calls that normal pitchers would never get, it was horrible to watch in my opinion.

I'm not doubting his greatness as a pitcher, but as a Cardinal fan I've never cared for the guy.

[Crapshoot]

Don't get my wrong, I'm not one of those people. While I agree that wins obviously are tied to the team you play for, the stat still has meaning to me. I'm one of those who wouldn't have voted for Randy Johnson last year simply because he barely had .500 record. I'm sorry he played for a crappy team, but them's the breaks, as they say. For him to be a serious CY contender last year, he would have had to achieve something between .500 and what, say, Steve Carlton achieved in 1972 with just as bad a team as the D-Backs were last year. He couldn't overcome his team, so he didn't deserve to win.
.

That's ridiculous - it is a function of environment, not the self. The absurdity of an individual award for individual merit based on team run support makes no sense.

[Crapshoot]

Just a side effect of being simply the best pitcher of his generation.
To watch him work, in his prime, was as good as baseball gets. Period.

I would argue that Pedro in 1999-2000 was actually the best any of us will ever see, but Maddux's ability to do it with his stuff is probably unmatched. The man never flinched, and was remarkably admirable for doing that.

[Ksyrup]

All individual awards given to team players have a component of the team in them, by their very nature. It is impossible to view the individual's achievement in a vaccuum; and IMO, nor should we attempt to.

And most importantly, the overall objective of the game is to win. Helping your team achieve that goal is what it's all about. That's why players are rewarded individually.

[hoopsguy]

I'm also not sure that Maddux was the best of his generation. A very compelling argument can be made for Clemens. Pedro and Big Unit both have had very strong 5-8 year stretches and their career work is quite strong as well. I don't think any of this takes away from his greatness.

[st.cronin]

It was actually really difficult to watch Greg Maddux pitch in his prime. If you weren't really sharp with the remote control, you would miss entire innings of his work. I think he probably had starts where there was more commercial time than time at bat for the opposing team.

[Fonzie]

I love Greg Maddux. But he won't return my phone calls. :(
Perhaps that's because of the restraining order?

[sterlingice]

Just a side effect of being simply the best pitcher of his generation.
To watch him work, in his prime, was as good as baseball gets. Period.
See, I never hear anyone say that. I hear people talk about Clemens as the best pitcher ever. Then there's the Pedro argument and even Johnson (despite the fact that his first good year wasn't until he was around 30). But I never hear people talk about Maddux- he's always everyone's second or third best and it always drives me up a wall. I'll take Maddux up against any of them (have, in many arguments) but he's not nearly as sexy a choice because he's never been a power pitcher.

SI

[Crapshoot]

See, I never hear anyone say that. I hear people talk about Clemens as the best pitcher ever. Then there's the Pedro argument and even Johnson (despite the fact that his first good year wasn't until he was around 30). But I never hear people talk about Maddux- he's always everyone's second or third best and it always drives me up a wall. I'll take Maddux up against any of them (have, in many arguments) but he's not nearly as sexy a choice because he's never been a power pitcher.

SI

Not true. A great pitcher, one of the 10 best all time without a doubt, but Clemens has been better- peak value and total career value. I think Maddux is a no questions asked HOF, but there's no shame in being second to Clemens.

[sterlingice]

Not true. A great pitcher, one of the 10 best all time without a doubt, but Clemens has been better- peak value and total career value. I think Maddux is a no questions asked HOF, but there's no shame in being second to Clemens.
There is no better peak value for Clemens. Due to his "good year followed by I could give a crap this year" pattern, there is no 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 year stretch where he has a better ERA+ than Maddux had in 1994-1995 up through 1994-1998.

SI

[st.cronin]

There is no better peak value for Clemens. Due to his "good year followed by I could give a crap this year" pattern, there is no 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 year stretch where he has a better ERA+ than Maddux had in 1994-1995 up through 1994-1998.

SI

And yet twice Clemens has won consecutive Cy Young Awards.