Who was the better pitcher for you
-
-
Johnson much tougher to hitComment -
Johnson won over 300 games, was more durable and didn't disappear and choke in the playoffsComment -
Kershaw got another 5 years left in himComment -
any guy with the nickname The Big Unit wins outComment -
Johnson easyComment -
The Big UnitComment -
JohnsonComment -
Hahaha--I remember that one Manny. That was one unlucky bird. Of all the exact spots in the universe it could have been, it had to be in the trajectory of a Johnson fastball. Hell, if it had been Charlie Hough or Jamie Moyer pitching, the bird probably just would have had a concussion.Comment -
The Big Unit. not even closeComment -
The Big Unit gets my voteComment -
Kershaw easily. His lifetime ERA is simply ridiculous for this era, he won five out of seven ERA titles and missed a sixth because he was 13 innings short of qualifying and excluding his rookie year, his ERA was 3.03 or less in 13 out of 14 years. No one in ages has pitched so well and for so long and this despite back problems for the last few years.Comment -
JohnsonComment -
It's easily Johnson even though Kershaw is a great regular season pitcher. Randy was frightening for hitters in the box just ask John Kruk.Comment -
My nod goes to Randy Johnson, but how the hell can you go wrong with either pitcher?
What Randy Johnson did in the 2001 WS was epic.
Hall of Fame Greg Maddux was lights on in the 1995 post season.
Pedro was lights out in pretty much every October game.
Kershaw who unfairly gets knocked for being a poor post-season pitcher was/is in reality a pretty good post season pitcher.
Kershaw was impressive last night and Kershaw was solid in the 2020 TBR World Series as well
Randy Johnson 2001 Postseason
Year Tm Lg Srs Rslt Opp W L ERA G GS IP H BB SO WHIP 2001 ARI NL NLDS W STL 0 1 3.38 1 1 8 6 2 9 1 2001 ARI NL NLCS W ATL 2 0 1.13 2 2 16 10 3 19 0.813 2001 MVP ARI NL WS W NYY 3 0 1.04 3 2 17.1 9 3 19 0.692 5 1 1.52 6 5 41.1 25 8 47 0.8
Clayton Kershaw Career Postseason
Clayton Kershaw will be remembered for his stellar, elite (I'm starting to dislike the word 'elite' because the word has been vastly diminished due to overuse) but it so applies here, regular season career.W L ERA G GS IP H BB SO WHIP 10 Yrs (20 Series) 13 12 4.19 37 30 189 153 50 207 1.074 1 NLWC 1 0 0 1 1 8 3 1 13 0.5 9 NLDS 6 4 4.02 15 13 85 70 19 100 1.047 7 NLCS 3 6 4.84 14 10 57.2 50 19 53 1.197 3 WS 3 2 4.46 7 6 38.1 30 11 41 1.07
Randy Johnson posted similar career regular season numbers as Kershaw's.
What's your preference, Randy Johnson was the better power pitcher, Kershaw was the better control pitcher.
What sets them apart is the fact Kershaw won three Cy Young Awards, Randy Johnson won five Cy Young awards, four of those five Cy Young Awards were in consecutive seasons (1999-2002)
Kershaw has won a regular season MVP award as well, Johnson has won a World Series MVP award.
Intangibles?
After Kershaw's 2015 season when he made all 33 of his starts he started breaking down.
Up until that season, he made each and every start in his first full seven seasons, except for the year before, then the year after 2015 he only came to approaching 30 starts just one.
That's exactly the time you can point to and say Kershaw is logging in way to many innings, that when you can say this guy might have nagging injuries and may not be 100 percent physically again.
After 2015 yeah, he's missed time due joint issues, back injuries that required cortisone shots, and other ailments as well.
Johnson was more durable, the four years he won four consecutive Cy Young's he made each and every start.
He made 35, 35, 35, and 34 starts logged in over 1000 innings, and he was 38 years old then.
Missed a chunk of time the following season, he hurt his shoulder, got it healed, came back, and made each and every start the following three seasons at age 40-42.
That's insane.
Given the fact that both had regular season careers the likes that may never be duplicated, both have been involved in World Series championships, my nod goes to Randy Johnson, reasons being Johnson was more durable, has more major awards, and IMO the better playoff performer.
There's only three answers to this question, Johnson was better, Kershaw was better, and they were both equally Hall of Fame great, and any one of those answers you can't argue against.
What do you want?
Durability and longevity?
Do you prefer a control pitcher, or a power pitcher?
There is no correct answer, both generation greats, both were greater in areas then the other, and vice versa.
I can't get past those four consecutive Cy Young awards and Johnson's 300 career wins.
The Hall of Fame has no criteria for enshrinement except for a few length of service requirements.
The unofficial, unwritten questions the writers who vote will tell you this, they look for stats in black bold face.
Those bold face stats means led the league in certain areas, like wins, ERA, etc.
The more stand out black stats on your career page, the greater your chances for election.
Look at both their career pages, you'll find both are littered in black.
The most important, but unwritten thing the voters ask themselves first is this.
Did the player dominate their position in the era they played in?
In the past quarter century, only five pitchers have dominated the pitching position in the era the played in.
They are starting pitchers, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Clayton Kershaw.
And relief pitcher Mariano Rivera, whose only blemish on his near perfect career came against Johnson's Diamondbacks. Ironic much?
Last item, I promise.
Here's a perfect example of dominance.
I'm going to post the seven year span where Kershaw won his three Cy Young's, and the six year span when Johnson won his four consecutive Cy Young's. Then ask yourself "was this dominance"?
Year W L ERA G GS CG SHO IP H BB SO WHIP 2011 2017 118 41 2.1 207 207 24 14 1452 1043 283 1623 0.913 Averages 17 6 2.1 30 30 3 2 207 149 30 232 0.913
Randy Johnson
Year W L ERA G GS CG SHO IP H BB SO WHIP 1999-2004 103 49 2.65 193 192 36 14 1389.2 1089 359 1832 1.042 Average 17 8 2.65 32 32 6 2 232 182 60 305 1.042 Comment -
randy johnsonComment -
Randy for sure.Comment -
Johnson was a little bit wild on purpose, I would’ve shit my pants facing him. Ask John “one nut” Kruk. I vote the big unit.
Comment -
slayer do u remember bob fellerComment -
In this era of more strikeouts vs Johnson's era of rampant steroids? Not sure I agree w/ that logic. Johnson is the most intimidating pitcher since Nolan Ryan and hasn't been one like him since. I can't imagine having to face him, especially as a lefty, with that arm angle, yikes! No disrespect to Kershaw, can't deny his numbers, but Johnson was always a must-watch and would be even more dominate today in my opinion.Comment -
kershaw showed tonite what happens to your club, when you can only pitch 5 innings in OctoberComment -
More intimidating? Absolutely. More of a must-watch pitcher? Yes. Better? No. Since 1920, Kershaw has the lowest ERA of any pitcher with at least 1,000 IP and only Jacob DeGrom is even close to him. During Johnson's Cy Young run from '99-'02, his lowest ERA was 2.32, Kershaw beat that six out of seven years during his run of ridiculous dominance.Comment -
Johnson, not even a debate in my opinion.המוסד
המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים
Comment -
Randy threw heat. He would blow hitters away. Kershaw cute in his prime but not over powering like Randy.Comment -
Brady had a team that couldn't lose while Manning was carrying a bunch of scrubs; that was proven in 2011 when the Colts found out what life was like without Manning. BTW, Manning was 3-2 against Brady in the playoffs.Comment -
^
Your reasoning, or logic here is flawed..
The Brady v. Manning argument is less compelling than the Brady's teams v.Mannings teams is.
There's a reason why when you're at home watching the game on the big screen, and at the end of the first half, right before the TV production team fades to black leading into commercials this is what you'll see and what you won't see.
This is what you WON'T see.
Manning's 17
Brady's 14
This is what you WILL see.
Indianapolis 17
New England 14
There's a reason why that is, you're a relatively smart man, I bet you can figure it out?
Plus, Manning and Brady are never on the playing field at the same time, they are if you consider they're out there for the coin toss, or shaking hands after the game.
Unless Tom Brady doubles as a defensive end, he is NOT competing heads up, directly, against Peyton Manning. and vice versa.
QB v. QB argument while semantically correct is misleading and not as complete as the Team v. Team argument.
Now, let's revisit your other point.
Riddle me this, since I don't know what your personal criteria is before you attach the term scrub to a player, but how exactly are WR's Pierre Garcon, Marvin Harrison, and Reggie Wayne, TE Dallas Green a collection of 'scrubs', IMO, each and every one of those players were hardly scrubs, not even remotely close to what I consider who or what is a scrub, but that's just me, maybe I live in Bizarro world where up is down.
What the teams that had the most success Peyton Manning played on, that being your fancy Indianapolis Colts (do you see what I just did there, did you, did you?) lacked waa a solid ground attack.
If you want to throw around the word 'scrub' you can safely say that the pride of my hometown UCONN Huskies Donald Brown was a scrub, I'd say Donald Brown was more of an NFL 'bust' but I'll allow scrub in this debate.
If Dan Orlovsky was the greatest QB that ever played for UCONN, and Donald Brown was the greatest RB that ever played for UCONN, what's that say for our beloved Husky football program?
That's like asking if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, than what is the Pennsylvania Turnpike paved with?
But that's another question for another day.
When it's all said and done, and there is nothing more to say or do except to say best of luck to your team formerly know as the Washington Redskins tonight, and if they should fall to one and five if they lose to 'da Bears, would you consider them a collection scrubs?
Inquiring minds need to know.Last edited by stevenash; 10-13-22, 03:35 PM.Comment -
As I stated above, we know what happened to the Colts when Manning had to sit the year out. Garcon, Wayne and Clark were all on the team and they finished 2-14 whereas when Brady sat out a year, the Pats still went 11-5. The Colts did have some good players but top to bottom they were garbage and Manning was carrying them to the playoffs almost by himself. Yes, if the Redskins go to 1-5 they can be considered a bunch of scrubs.Comment -
Harrison, Wayne, and Clark were all on the first of two Colts SB teams Manning played for.
(2006)
The second of the two Colts SB's that Manning participated in Marvin Harrison was gone, however Garcon played, and also caught the first TD pass of the game, aa game they lost to a team that had just as good a career as Manning did.
So, Manning was not throwing to a bunch of scrubs, huh?
The year after Manning, the two and fourteen season, the Colits started three different journeymen, career backup players.
They're mission in NFL life was to hold clipboards, and make sure they know the playbook in case the starting QB did go down.
And they were the great UCONN QB Dan Orlovsky, Curtis Palmer, and forty year old Kerry Collins, and the Colts still would have finished two and fourteen if those three were throwing to Jerry Rice, Steve Largent, and any other HoF WR you care to name.
I guarantee you that Colt team with Andrew Luck at QB wins much more than two games.
What did Luck to his first three regular seasons in Indy?
If you guessed, he and the Colts won eleven games three consecutive times, you just won some valuable prizes.
This is what you are doing here, and it's border line ignorant.
You're cherry picking one season, the season after Manning pretty much broke his neck, a season the Colt organization and anybody else could not anticipate, and in three months time expect them to replace Manning with a capable starting QB with anyone else besides three mediocre career backup QB?
You know that WAR metric you pretty much called stupid.
Manning's WAR in 2010 was about 7.8 if replaced with a backup such as Palmer
Manning's Colts won ten games his last season, he was replaced with Curtis Palmer, that won two games.
10-2=8
Manning's Value Over Replacement was 7.8. pretty accurate, huh?
Not a stupid metric, a metric all GM's lean on.
My God man, it's like dealing with Thomorino all over again.
Please don't try to tell me Moses Malone did not play center, and Bridgewater did win ten consecutive games for the Vikings.Comment -
Don't know how Malone or Bridgewater got here but I'll say it again: WAR is a garbage stat. Sure, you can cherry pick one instance in which it turned out to be accurate but I'm sure you could find examples where it was way off. As far as Andrew Luck, I'm aware that the Colts won 11 games with him and the reason why was because he was an incredible QB as well who may have been Manning's equal but never got the chance to prove it. As with Manning, Luck was carrying that team. What happened to the Colts when Luck missed a year? 4-12.Comment -
^
Stop, you're outclassed in this debate.Comment -
Kershaw maybe the Most overrated pitcher ever. Regular Season great when he is facing AZ, Rockies ect.Then Post season comes ouch nothing! Dodgers still looking for their first World Series since 1988 and Astros too.2020 and 2017 does not count!Comment -
^
LA won it all in 2020 defeating TBR.
I know, I had to eat a lot of shit defending the Snell decision
(Right Bucky)?Comment
