Reply With Quotewtf pedro is a first ballot lock. from 97-03 he was the best pitcher of all time and the rest of his career was very good.
the original and best
post as much as you like as long as it's mildly informed and baseball-related. i would just prefer to cut down on "my team is the bestest, yay!" type posts.Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
sandy koufax only had 165. but not even he was as head-and-shoulders better than his contemporaries as pedro has been. in terms of career adjusted ERA+ (meaning, ERA normalized for league norms for each year and park effects), there is more of gap between pedro and walter johnson than between walter johnson and john franco. mets fans especially have a tough time realizing just how unbelievably good pedro was for the red sox. i would bet against ever seeing a pitcher dominate that much for that long again.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...s_career.shtml
calling them names is just disrespectful. especially pedro, who did more than anyone in bringing the mets back to legitimacy by signing here, regardless of whatever he did on the field, and who busted his ass for a year to fight back from surgery when he could have gone home and waited for his first ballot HoF election, but instead he pitched his ass off for a lost cause last year.In either case, neither of these guys are doing the Mets any good and I'd much rather have a slightly "lesser" player that's a lot more durable than either of these clowns.
like i said, the problem isn't with these guys (and throw duque in there too). they are what they are. the problem is RELYING on them without good enough backup plans.
Last edited by burgundy; 28 Apr 2008 at 04:01 PM.
lamentations of their women
wtf pedro is a first ballot lock. from 97-03 he was the best pitcher of all time and the rest of his career was very good.
metal = rude
Every time i go to my gf's parent's house i get in this argument with her dad. He says Koufax was better, but all the numbers show that Pedro was better. A lot better IMO. I even composed a gigantic email to him about it, with numbers and analysis. All he does is ask his golf buddies who they think was better and they all say Koufax
metal = rude
I love that Clemens has now been outted for cheating on his wife.
Karma's a bitch Roger!
lamentations of their women
yeah, pedro's peak crushes koufax's. i mean, their raw numbers are similar but when you compare them to league averages it's not even close. when koufax was at his peak the league era was a little over 3. when pedro was at his it was close to 5.
the original and best
at least the koufax vs. pedro argument is a legitimate one even if the answer is clear. comparing pedro to any other pitcher alive or dead is just fucking asinine.
metal = rude
I found the email I wrote. I'll paste it just because i find it so interesting. Most of it was copied from various links and I filled in the gaps myself:
I got bored at work today, so I went searching for some comparisons between Pedro and Koufax.
Feel free to skim this Mr. ***. I wrote/copied more than I expected to. Enjoy!
*******************************************************
*The following is from some baseball site I found: (pasted)
**********************************************************
I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at which pitcher had the better peak... Pedro Martinez or Sandy Koufax. To clarify, by peak I generally mean at least 4-7 years. For Sandy Koufax, that was 1962-1966. For Pedro Martinez it was 1997-2003. These are the years I'll focus on.
In many cases, I find that your opinion to this question will say a lot about how you view baseball. If you are more of an "old-school" fan that prefers to base most of their judgments on what they see, you'll probably go with Sandy Koufax. If you are more "sabermetrically" inclined and place greater emphasis on the statistical side of the game, you'll probably go with Pedro Martinez.
Comparing across eras is so difficult in baseball because even though the rules are the same, lots of things change. That is why it is especially important to compare these guys against their peers.
From 1962-1966, the league ERA in Sandy Koufax's league was about 3.29. From 1997-2003 in Pedro's league the ERA was about 4.65. So right there we begin to see the huge difference between the eras. In simple terms, Koufax pitched in the greatest pitching era of all-time, while Pedro pitched in one of the greatest hitters eras of all time.
Now let's take a look at some of the numbers for each.
Pedro Martinez (1997-2003)
- 1408 IP (201 per season)
- 2.55 ERA (ERA+ of 215)
- 252 K per year
- 11.28 K/9
- 45 BB per year
- 5.6 K/BB
Sandy Koufax (1962-1966)
- 1377 IP (275 per season)
- 1.99 ERA (ERA+ of 168)
- 289 K per year
- 9.46 K/9
- 63.2 BB per year
- 4.57 K/BB
What does this all mean? Well, the first thing is that Koufax pitched a lot more innings. But then, that was the norm back then, which makes it less impressive (in comparison). Still obviously a plus for Koufax though. Koufax has the lower raw ERA, but as the ERA+ shows Pedro's was a lot more impressive compared to his era.
Other numbers suggest that Koufax had a little better control, but Pedro made up for that by striking almost 2 more batters per 9 innings and having a better K/BB ratio.
Postseason numbers also play a role... in 3 postseason series Martinez was 3-0 with a 1.13 ERA. In 3 postseason series Koufax went 4-2 with a 0.94 ERA. So Koufax had more chances, but both guys were incredible.
Anyway, putting it all together, in my opinion Pedro Martinez had the best peak of any pitcher ever. He was more dominant when compared to his peers than Koufax, and that puts him in front for me. Also, if pressed, I'd probably say Pedro's 2000 season was the best pitching season ever.
***************************************************************************
The ERA+ statistic they talk about is (pitcher ERA)/(league average ERA) for each year with all ERAs corrected for ballpark effects. An ERA+ of 100 will be the league average pitcher. Pedro's peak season in 2000 he had an ERA+ of 285, in Koufax's peak season his ERA+ was 190. There are some other amazing numbers from Pedro's 2000 season pasted below. I happen to agree with the writer above that Pedro's 2000 was the greatest pitching season of all time.
Pedro's career ERA+ is 166. Second place all-time is Lefty Grove, at 148. Koufax is down at 31st place with 131, which ranks him below Bruce Sutter, John Franco, Tim Hudson, and Lee Smith. This means that over a career, Pedro's ERA has been thirty-five percent better than Koufax.
Koufax was also fortunate enough to pitch in the best pitcher's park of all time, when the mound was raised higher. If you look at his home and road splits he was not nearly the pitcher on the road that he was at home. His home park helped Koufax a lot. Pedro doesn't have this kind of split, he was dominant everywhere. Koufax also didn't have to deal with the juiced hitters, the bandbox parks, and the designated hitters. It is easy to throw no hitters when many all-star players from that era would be sitting on the bench today.
As for the rest of their careers outside the peak years, Pedro was better then too. The paragraph below goes into early career years, but in addition to this Pedro is still pitching in the majors right now (when healthy). Koufax was broken down and retired in his very early 30s.
*********************************
*early career comparison: (pasted)
*********************************
Not only was Pedro arguably at least as "transcendentally great" in his peak years as Koufax was during his own (except in CG/IP), but in his first six years Koufax's best didn't surpass Pedro's career worst, by and large. Pedro's career-low ERA+ was 117 in 1996; except for his rookie year (1955, ERA+ 135 but just 41 2/3 IP) Koufax's best before 1961 was 107. Same story with straight ERA and the difference becomes even more dramatic when comparing ERA to lgERA. Koufax's K/BB rate those first six years was far worse than Pedro's career worst, and whereas Koufax's best WHIP before 1961 was 1.284 in 1957, Pedro's worst of his career was 1.243 in his second year. Blame Dodger management for using Koufax inconsistently and/or blame Koufax for not focusing on control until 1961, but the fact is Koufax himself was so discouraged by the end of the 1960 season he literally threw his glove and spikes in the trash and considered retiring (per Leavey bio and other sources). Pedro has had the greater overall career.
(WHIP= (walks + hits) / innings pitched)
*************************************
*Regarding the number of complete games argument you brought up: (pasted)
*************************************
The number of Koufax's compete games was mentioned. As has also been mentioned in relation to that, the lower offense of the time period was crucial in allowing pitchers to throw so many complete games. To get an idea of the difference, we can compare pitch counts and complete games for both Pedro and Koufax over a period of a few years:
(Actual pitch counts for Koufax in select years can be found here)
Koufax had average pitch counts of 104, 111, and 110 in years 1962, 1963, 1964 He threw 20, 15, and 27 complete games in those years, respectively.
Pedro had average pitch counts of 114, 112, 109 in 1998, 1999, and 2000. He threw 3, 5, and 7 complete games in those years, respectively.
To put that into even better perspective, during that three year stretch Koufax threw a total of 62 complete games while starting 109 games. That's a completion rate of 57%. Pedro, during his three year stretch, started 91 games and completed 15 of them, a 16% completion rate.
So what we see is that even though Pedro actually averaged a higher pitch count than Koufax during their respective three year stretches, Koufax completed far more games. A set number of pitches just went further back then, and again, that gives Koufax a tremendous advantage when looking at complete games and total innings pitched. Put Pedro back in that era and he'd be completing games too. We already know he can throw enough pitches to do it; he's averaged more than the 111 pitches per start by Koufax in 1964 several times in his career.
******************************************************************************
*Miscellaneous stat's from Pedro's 2000 season: (pasted)
******************************************************************************
Imagine Carlos Delgado had batted .454 last year. Would the Toronto Blue Jays first baseman have won the American League’s Most Valuable Player Award? Do you think he would have received at least one first-place vote?
Oakland's Jason Giambi received the most votes cast by the Baseball Writers Association of America, but Boston pitcher Pedro Martinez -- whose 1.74 ERA was the equivalent of that lofty number above -- was the AL's MVP for the 2000 season.
Martinez finished fifth, behind Giambi, Frank Thomas, Alex Rodriguez and Delgado. Only two out of the 28 voters placed Martinez in their Top Three. Eight voters ignored him entirely.
... Martinez turned in the finest season of any major league pitcher since the mound was moved back to 60 feet 6 inches from home plate.
The American League ERA in 2000 was 4.91, so Martinez’s ERA of 1.74 was 64.5% lower than the league. If we applied that standard to batting average, a batter performing at 64.5% above the league average would hit .454.
Martinez went 41 innings without issuing a walk (August 2, 7th inning to September 4, 2nd inning). What if a walk was eight balls now [as it was in 1880 when Tim Keefe had the only ERA+ season that could rival Pedro's 2000 -- the plate was 45 feet from the mound]-- could Pedro go the entire season without passing a batter?
He allowed 5.31 hits per 9 innings and allowed only 6.636 walks and hits per nine innings. That broke Guy Hecker’s mark of 6.923, which had stood since 1882. They are the only two pitchers in history below 7.00.
On June 14, after twelve starts, his ERA was 0.99 (10 earned runs in 91.2 innings). His ERA never rose above 1.81 (September 14) and he finished at 1.74.
Martinez faced only three batters in 112 of his 217 innings. He faced 3 or 4 batters in 179 innings -- 82.5%. And he faced five or fewer batters in 206 of 217 innings -- a mind-boggling 94.9%.
His other 11 innings were: 6 batters six times, 7 batters 3 times, eight batters once and nine batters once.
Martinez registered at least one strikeout in more than 80% of his innings (177 of 217). He struck out the side 10% of the time (22 of 217). He never went more than two innings without at least one strikeout in an inning. A string of two K-less innings happened only four times:
April 4: 6th and 7th innings
May 17: 6th and 7th innings
June 8: 4th and 5th innings
August 2: 2nd and 3rd innings
Working in a league where the average team scored 5.3 runs per game, Martinez allowed more than 3 earned runs only twice in 29 starts (June 25 and August 24). He allowed 2 runs or less in 21 starts and 1 run or less in 17 starts.
Here are the numbers on his six losses:
0-6, 2.44 ERA -- 48 IP, 30 H, 13R, 8 BB, 60K
In these six games, while Pedro was on the mound, his teammates scored a total of 4 runs -- an average of 0.75 runs per nine innings.
Batting Against Pedro:
American Leaguers hit .167, 60 points lower than second-place Tim Hudson.
American Leaguers had a .213 on-base average, 78 points lower than second-place Mike Mussina.
American Leaguers had a .259 slugging percentage, 121 points lower than second-place Bartolo Colon.
Left-handed hitters had a .150 batting average, 56 points lower than second-place Roger Clemens.
Right-handed hitters had a .184 batting average, 26 points lower than second-place Orlando Hernandez.
With men on base, batters hit .160, 21 points lower than second-place Jeff Nelson.
His ERA at home was 1.84 -- second-place Mike Mussina’s home ERA was 2.90.
His ERA on the road was 1.66 -- second-place David Wells’s road ERA was 3.24. Only seven pitchers had a road ERA under 4.00.
He allowed 7.2 base runners per 9 innings -- second-place Mussina allowed 10.8 base runners. Only five pitchers allowed fewer than 12 base runners.
He allowed 1.33 walks per nine innings -- only David Wells allowed less, 1.21. But Wells allowed more hits than any other major league pitcher, 266.
Roger Clemens's ERA [second to Pedro] was more than twice Martinez's. That difference of 1.96 was the largest in history. Applying that difference to the rest of the qualifying pitchers, Clemens was actually closer to #38 [Rolando Arrojo, 5.63 ERA] than he was to #1.
******************************
Regards!
Sorry, I didn't think you'd get emo on me calling a pitcher who's earned 25 million dollars over the past two seasons to pitch 31 innings a "clown". My apologies. He pitched his ass off to the tune of 28 innings for $15,000,000.00 last year and you're making this out to be some heroic effort? Please.
I don't care what Pedro did 3 years ago. I care about this year. I'll look back on his career and what he did for the Mets when his career is done. In the here and now, this year and last, he's done more to hurt the Mets than help them.
lamentations of their women
i actually had pretty much the same argument with my dad a little while ago. he pretty much conceded when i showed him that pedro was doing basically the same thing as koufax except in a ridiculous offensive era. but i'm pretty sure in the back of his mind he still thinks koufax is better.
of course he's a cards fan and thinks david eckstein is a good player. old people are beyond help imo
the original and best
without signing pedro the mets don't sign beltran and then trade for delgado and loduca and be in a position to win in 2006 or even collapse in 2007 and then trade for johan santana. they would be winning 70-80 games a year and signing guys like gil meche and kyle lohse and calling them potential aces. to say nothing of the tremendous boost he has given the mets' development efforts in the dominican where he is regarded as quite literally a national hero. if pedro never pitched an inning for this team after 2005 his signing would still have been worthwhile. and i think he will return to the rotation this year and be a very big part of this team yet.
it is actually 160 now. (yes i understand you excerpted from something written a while ago.) which is still cartoonishly better than lefty grove with 148.
i LOVE when mets fans cry about luis castillo and his insane contract and wish we had signed eckstein instead.
LOVE IT.
---
also, pedro has the third best career WHIP in history, and the two guys who beat him out retired before 1920. also, apart from him, the top 7 guys are in the HoF.
Last edited by burgundy; 28 Apr 2008 at 05:02 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks