Maddux Or Clemens

I said if enough people voted in the poll that I'd give my loyal viewership my take on it. Well, that wasn't really the case but I'll give something. Only 5 people voted, 4 for Clemens and 1 for Maddux, that one for Clemens was mine too!

I'm so not the first to argue about this, this has and will now always continue to be a huge argument in the lines of Mantle v. Mays. Some cases can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here, so I think you get the point.

So I guess you know where I'm getting here but here we go...

To start with just your basic final stats with bold meaning advantage:
Clemens: 354 wins, 184 losses, 658 win/loss%, 4916.7 ip, 1580 bb, 4672 k, 3.12 ERA, 1.17 whip, 143 ERA+

Maddux: 355 wins, 227 losses, 610 win/loss%, 5008.3 ip, 999 bb, 3371 k, 3.16 ERA, 1.14 whip, 132 ERA+

Clemens has a ton more strikeouts but a ton more walks, he has a career 2.96 k/bb and Maddux has a 3.37. Maddux has a better GB/FB % , slightly worse LD%, a significantly better FB% (33.1% to 27.5%) but also a worse HR/FB ratio. It's almost like any advanced metric you use for one the other can counter. They have basically the same ERA's except that Clemens ERA+ is pretty significantly better, taking into account the majority of his career being played in the AL behind worse defenses. If you look at their FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) Clemens' slight lead grows a 3.09 career FIP and Maddux's 3.26. That's to say that Maddux's ERA is a little lower than it should be due to league and defense, while Clemens' is a little higher.

If you look at the hardware, Clemens has an astounding Cy Youngs (even though one or two of them may not have been deserving) and Maddux has only 4. However those 4 came all in a row, Clemens never won 3 in a row (most people don't) but he won 2 in a row twice. From his first season in 1984 to his last in 2007, Clemens was more or less very good, amazing considering that's 24 friggin' years. Maddux was kind of bad his first to years in 1986 and 1987 and not that great his last two years in 2007 and 2008, however from 1988 to 2006 he was unbelievable.

Getting back to Maddux's 4 in a row Cy Youngs, they illustrate a continued period of time where Maddux absolutely dominated. Not saying Clemens never did, but he never put together quite a streak like Greg, actually nobody ever did. From 1992-1998 Maddux posted an ERA more than one full run below the league average, the only pitcher in the history of the game to do that for 7 years. Clemens never did that even 5 times (however Mussina has). Clemens kind of had randomly dispersed unreal years able to pitch to a 223 ERA+ and 1.87 ERA in 2005 at age 42. Maddux had more or less the longest, most dominate prime of anyone in baseball history, really no worse than Pedro or Koufax.

Clemens is aided by his ability to pitch at the same level in his 40s, where Maddux was pitching with ERA+ right around 100 in his 40s, Clemens was remarkably in the mid 100s. Now, there's that little thing called steroids that probably helped Clemens. I'd be stupid not to mention it, but for this discussion we are only talking about who was the better pitcher, not who was the better pitcher without the help of drugs. If you can't let that go, this arguments useless, Maddux destroys Clemens. Where Clemens beats Maddux is the end of his career which is basically due to steroids most will believe, if that's out of the equation, we don't really have an argument, but it's not in my equation right now so it's still a sweet argument.

If your idea of a better pitcher is who for an extended period of time was better, that would go to Maddux where from 1992-1998 he dominated like no other. However, over the course of their careers Clemens was a better pitcher, for 24 seasons he was amazing, pretty remarkable. As a little side note thingy, what would happen if Maddux retired in 2004? From 2005-2008, the end of Maddux's career, he wasn't really that good a pitcher, he pitched a good amount of innings with an ERA over 4 hurting his career numbers. I wonder if those extra wins help his cause against Clemens, or if the increase in ERA hurts. If Maddux retired with an ERA lower than Clemens I think it would help. Funny to also think of the other side, if Clemens retired when he said he would with the Yankees he'd have one less Cy Young and be missing some pretty incredible ERA seasons that he had on Houston.

As I said in the beginning the one Clemens vote was mine, I feel he's the better pitcher. With a choice I'll take the guy that can strike guys out more, relying less on his defense. I sometimes hate making these points because it sounds like it's taking away from Maddux, but he was helped by his league and his defense I don't know how someone could argue against that. Clemens put up the stats playing on some crappy Boston and Toronto teams in the better league. Maddux for the most part pitched on a Braves dynasty. Also a little more about defense, Maddux was amazing with a record 18 gold gloves, way better than Clemens. But Maddux's defense would help his stats, and Clemens' would hurt his. It's already calculated. I guess you can make a point that Maddux's FIPs are higher than his ERAs because he was one of the reasons why. But, how much does a pitchers defense even if it's great affect that? Also it can underscore the better defense behind the pitcher in Maddux's case (Clemens had Jeter for god's sake!), and how the things Clemens does well doesn't require defense, which often signals a better pitcher.

A last little point that some people like to make is pitching on the biggest stage, in the postseason. Well it's kind of disheartening but neither pitcher was that amazing in the playoffs, both were actually worse in the postseason, Maddux 11-14 3.27 ERA 3.66 FIP , Clemens 12-8 3.75 ERA 3.53 FIP. If Maddux had a postseason resume like, and it kills me to say this, Curt Schilling it would give him the edge in my mind. Schilling was 11-2 with a 2.23 in the postseason, jaw dropping really. But without that, the stats just don't add up in my mind for Maddux. You can mention how Maddux was a better pitcher, how he knew how to pitch better, was smarter, and had the remarkable ability to know what was going to happen, and all that jazz, and I won't really argue against all that, but at the end of the day I'm going with Clemens.

Both amazing pitchers, easily top 10 probably top 5 of all time, and arguably top 2. The game could change and tomorrow people realize Maddux was even better than we think now. Maybe Clemens comes out and says how he used steroids his entire career and he owes everything to them, really taking him out of the picture. I don't know, but my gut tells me Clemens and some of the stats do too. Any thoughts?

P.S. This would take waaaaay too long if I had it all organized before hand, I kind of just went with it and this long rambling unorganized post is what I got and you all (4 readers maybe?) get to read. And thanks to baseballreference and fangraphs for the help.