Indeed. I'm biased, but I'd take 1993-2004 Randy over both of them. Dominance is great, but dominance over most of a decade (with the first third in a hitter's park in the AL) is pretty much the definition of a HOFer. I'm still pissed that Randy got screwed out of the '04 NL Cy Young... would've been his sixth.

As long as we're cherry picking years, I'd take Maddux from 1992 to 2002 over those years from Randy. Threw slightly more innings in one less year (2576.1 vs 2550) while having a higher ERA+ (171 vs 166), higher K/BB (4.53 vs 4.27) and lower HR/9 (0.5 vs 0.8). Add in the fact that Maddux's two best years during that time are far better than anything Johnson ever has done in his career, and it's not really close between the two in my opinion. If you want to tack on another season for Maddux to make it an even number of seasons, the numbers still favor Maddux. Going from '91 to '02 this time, Maddux has far more innings (2839.1 to 2550), with basically an identical ERA+ (164 vs 166), slightly higher K/BB (4.32 vs 4.27) and slightly lower HR/9 (0.5 vs 0.8). None of this even mentions Maddux's glove, which was considered one of the best in the league.

 

To be fair to Johnson, this glosses over his incredible advantage in strikeouts (11.8 K/9 to Maddux's 6.7), but I think that advantage gets nulled a bit due to the increased walk rate (2.8 vs 1.5). Johnson also threw the same number of complete games as Maddux in those 12 season periods, despite having 49 less starts.

 

So really, what I'm trying to say is that while Randy Johnson was great during those years, I'd give the slight edge to Maddux. Both were fantastic pitchers in their prime though, you couldn't go wrong with either one.

 

Oh, and since I've posted a fair amount in this thread without saying it, congrats to Randy for the accomplishment. I don't really care at all about wins as a stat, but it's still a pretty remarkable thing for someone to do especially when you consider how hard it really is to do. Not only do you need to be a damn good pitcher, but you need to be on a good enough team that you won't get screwed out of wins. It's certainly not easy, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for getting there.

 

Also: I fully agree that Randy got screwed in 2004. I don't think it's even close between him and Clemens that year, Randy had a far better year while throwing a bunch more innings. Unfortunately for him, he got more than a run less per start from his offense than Clemens, leading to less wins.

Edited June 6, 200916 yr by Felix

As long as we're cherry picking years, I'd take Maddux from 1992 to 2002 over those years from Randy. Threw slightly more innings in one less year (2576.1 vs 2550) while having a higher ERA+ (171 vs 166), higher K/BB (4.53 vs 4.27) and lower HR/9 (0.5 vs 0.8). Add in the fact that Maddux's two best years during that time are far better than anything Johnson ever has done in his career, and it's not really close between the two in my opinion. If you want to tack on another season for Maddux to make it an even number of seasons, the numbers still favor Maddux. Going from '91 to '02 this time, Maddux has far more innings (2839.1 to 2550), with basically an identical ERA+ (164 vs 166), slightly higher K/BB (4.32 vs 4.27) and slightly lower HR/9 (0.5 vs 0.8). None of this even mentions Maddux's glove, which was considered one of the best in the league.

 

To be fair to Johnson, this glosses over his incredible advantage in strikeouts (11.8 K/9 to Maddux's 6.7), but I think that advantage gets nulled a bit due to the increased walk rate (2.8 vs 1.5). Johnson also threw the same number of complete games as Maddux in those 12 season periods, despite having 49 less starts.

 

So really, what I'm trying to say is that while Randy Johnson was great during those years, I'd give the slight edge to Maddux. Both were fantastic pitchers in their prime though, you couldn't go wrong with either one.

 

Yeah, Maddux does have the slight advantage with the numbers (and a huge advantage with the glove). The reason that I went with Johnson is because he had the ability to just blow hitters away. No offense to Maddux or his style of pitching, but I find more value in a dominant strikeout pitcher than a guy who's made his mark nibbling on the edges of the plate and getting those calls from the umps (and he consistently got more than the average pitcher). And that's not a slight at Maddux, just my personal preference. He got it done, and is arguably the greatest pitcher of our generation. Like you said, you couldn't go wrong with either.

Edited June 6, 200916 yr by WCSox

Carlton was a better lhp. Glavine was up there too.

 

If you look at all the numbers, Glavine is nowhere near Johnson's league.

If you look at all the numbers, Glavine is nowhere near Johnson's league.

Neither is Carlton, for what it's worth.

Congrats to Randy!