Domination or Lack of Competition?

[The Dude]

I know this a question that's probably been dealt with before on here, and that we're constantly debating in player arguements. I'm sure we've all thought about it, I know I have. But it really hit me the other day when I was redoing my "Cy Young Awards". As you may or may not know, my computer crashed last year previous to the summer and I lost all my baseball files. For some reason everything else was saved, but that folder labeld "Baseball" on my desktop dissapeared completely, so I've slowly been in the process of redoing many of the things I had done before. It's been really slow (College Work > Baseball Work. I know thats in the wrong order, right?).

So back to the main point.

Here are the important results dealing with this Baseball Idea.

1.Walter Johnson - 9 Awards
2.Lefty Grove - 8 Awards
3.Roger Clemens - 7 Awards
4.Randy Johnson - 6 Awards
5.Pete Alexander - 6 Awards
6.Robin Roberts - 6 Awards
7.Greg Maddux - 5 Awards
8.Christy Mathewson - 5 Awards
9.Warren Spahn - 5 Awards
10.Cy Young - 5 Awards

11.Sandy Koufax - 4 Awards
12.Dazzy Vance - 4 Awards
13.Dave Stieb - 4 Awards
14.Tom Seaver - 4 Awards
15.Bob Feller - 4 Awards

16.Pedro Martinez - 3 Awards
17.Johan Santana - 3 Awards
18.Steve Carlton - 3 Awards
19.Mordecai Brown - 3 Awards
20.Don Drysdale - 3 Awards
21.Jim Palmer - 3 Awards

Now, of course, I'm guessing someone will question these results and that's fine. But 1 award to the wrong person may skew this somewhat. But let me continue with my statement.

During Walter Johnson's 9 awards, this is who won in the National League for those years:
Pete Alexander - 4
Christy Mathewson - 2
Hippo Vaughn - 2
Dazzy Vance - 1

Now, the general consensus it seems around here is that Alexander and Mathewson are top tier guys (top 10), and Vance usually is between 10-25, the 2nd tier guys. Vaughn varies greatly I'm assuming. I had him in the top 50, witch are hall guys to me.

Now I want to pose a question: Is Hippo Vaughn considered a hall guy by some and not by others, because he wasn't as dominant, or is it because he was dominant in a league where there were more dominant players?

Next point. 1997: Clemens wins the award over Johnson. Johnson was 1 win behind Clemens, 1 strikeout behind clemens, and back .022 in WHIP to Clemens. All 2nd place to Clemens. He was also 28 behind in ERA+, but Johnson still had a 198 ERA+. Which I think the statement that had Johnson done this in almost any other year, he would have easily been the best.

So, let me continue on with this. In Johnson's 5 years leading in ERA+, that coincided with 5 of his awards. His average ERA+ for those years was 224. The 2nd finisher averaged 178 ERA+ For Clemens, all 7 of his awards coincided with 7 of his ERA+ crowns. His average ERA+ for those years was 185. The 2nd place finisher averaged 166 ERA+

Now logic says just by looking at these numbers, the pitchers during Johnsons time were better. But of course, logic doesn't apply here neatly, because during Clemen's times, there were more than double the amount of pitchers he has to fend off to be the best. Now, this is where this whole idea becomes cloudy, because it all has to deal with you own opinion. The end of segregation, the end of minor leagues having a numbe of great players, and the farming of talent from other countries has brough a wealth of great talent to the majors, that logically would improve the league's average. But is that amount offset by the expansion of how many more pitchers are needed to fill the league?

Clemens was 19 points ahead of his 2nd place competiter. Johnson was 46. Was Johnson that dominant, or was Johnson dominating a league which lacked competition in the starting pitcher department?

Let's compare the ERA+ leader in 1912, 1913, 1915, 1918, and 1919, using ERA.
1912:
Walter Johnson-1.39
Jeff Tesreau-1.96
1913:
Walter Johnson-1.14
Christy Mathewson-2.06
1915:
Walter Johnson-1.55
Pete Alexander-1.22
1918:
Walter Johnson-1.27
Hippo Vaughn-1.74
1919:
Walter Johnson-1.49
Pete Alexander-1.72

So it seems like Walter Johnson was the best ERA pitcher out of both leagues except fort 1915.

But again, was he that dominating, or was he dominating weaker hitters?

To be honest, I'm not really sure. I could see arguements for both ways, but I don't know that I could come up with any for certain.

Any thoughts?

[dgarza]

"But again, was he that dominating, or was he dominating weaker hitters?"

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You're using the same word to describe both sides. Can you clarify?

[BoofBonser26]

"But again, was he that dominating, or was he dominating weaker hitters?"

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You're using the same word to describe both sides. Can you clarify?
I'm pretty sure he means:

Was Johnson striking out Ruth-caliber players?

or

Was Johson striking out barely better than the minors guys?

[The Dude]

Say you have ... Tom Seaver pitch against the AL All-Star team from 1972, and he throws a CG Shutout. That's a dominating performance. He dominated that team.

Now say he pitches a CG Shutout against the 1899 Cleveland spiders. He dominated, but we can agree it's not the same as being dominant against the AL All-Star team.

So what I'm saying is, Walter Johnson was a dominant pitcher. But was he dominating weaker competition than the other league or other periods of time in baseball history. And if he was, was he dominant enough to overcome that change in competition strength.

...or just read Boof's post.