Pedro

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I submit that Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time through 10 seasons.

In his ten seasons, he has pitched 1800 innings. His ERA+ is by far the best of all time, no one is within 20 points of him. His career W-L record is the third highest of all time. He has led the league in ERA and ERA+ 3 times and been second once.

Pedro has 3 Cy Young awards and finished 2nd once in his 10 seasons. His WHiP is the 3rd highest of all time and his hits/9 innings is second highest ever. His K/9 innings is also second highest of all time.

No pitcher in baseball history has been this great in his first 10 seasons. If Pedro's career ended tomorrow, he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

[moose]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
I submit that Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time through 10 seasons.

In his ten seasons, he has pitched 1800 innings. His ERA+ is by far the best of all time, no one is within 20 points of him. His career W-L record is the third highest of all time. He has led the league in ERA and ERA+ 3 times and been second once.

Pedro has 3 Cy Young awards and finished 2nd once in his 10 seasons. His WHiP is the 3rd highest of all time and his hits/9 innings is second highest ever. His K/9 innings is also second highest of all time.

No pitcher in baseball history has been this great in his first 10 seasons. If Pedro's career ended tomorrow, he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

I submit that there is no such thing as a "greatest pitcher of all time," only because what it means to be a big league pitcher has changed so much over the years.

I think we might be able to call Pedro the most DOMINANT pitcher of all time, compared to league. More dominant than Koufax.

The pitcher's job is to prevent runs. That's why I don't care too much about his whip or K/9, or even hits/9, etc too too much. I mean, they're indicators of worth, but to me ERA (or even just Runs against) *IS* a pitchers' worth**.

...And if you consider a player within the context of his league, Pedro's been one of the most dominant, if not THE most dominant, run preventer of all time. I'd elect him in a heartbeat, if given the chance today.

and i hate him, too. damned red sox!

** - I also consider innings pitched per start, because it tells you how much mileage you're getting out of that run preventer

[sweaver]

Ok, so where's the numbers for other pitchers in their first 10 seasons?

[Max Power]

Well, if you use 1600 IP as a cutoff, coming into this season, he has some pelts on his belt - - -

1900-2001

BASERUNNERS/9 IP              DIFF  PLAYER LEAGUE
1    Pedro Martinez            3.45   9.59  13.05 
2    Mike Mussina              2.72  10.58  13.31 
3    Walter Johnson            2.33   9.85  12.18 
4    Curt Schilling            2.27  10.40  12.67 
5    Cy Young                  2.19   9.33  11.51 
6    Bret Saberhagen           2.18  10.47  12.65 
7    Greg Maddux               2.15  10.30  12.45 
8    Carl Hubbell              2.14  10.62  12.77 
9    Ed Walsh                  2.13   9.16  11.29 
10   Addie Joss                2.11   8.94  11.05 

ERA                           DIFF  PLAYER LEAGUE
1    Pedro Martinez            1.79    2.66   4.45
2    Lefty Grove               1.36    3.06   4.42
3    Roger Clemens             1.28    3.10   4.38
4    Randy Johnson             1.25    3.13   4.38
5    Hoyt Wilhelm              1.24    2.52   3.76
6    Greg Maddux               1.19    2.84   4.03
7    Lefty Gomez               1.16    3.34   4.50
8    Mike Mussina              1.12    3.49   4.61
9    Kevin Brown               1.11    3.18   4.29
10   Whitey Ford               1.10    2.74   3.84

STRIKEOUTS/9 IP               DIFF  PLAYER LEAGUE
1    Randy Johnson             5.00  11.17   6.18 
2    Nolan Ryan                4.24   9.55   5.31 
3    Pedro Martinez            4.06  10.53   6.47 
4    Sandy Koufax              3.71   9.27   5.57 
5    Rube Waddell              3.42   7.11   3.69 
6    Dazzy Vance               3.29   6.20   2.91 
7    J.R. Richard              3.22   8.37   5.14 
8    Sam McDowell              3.13   8.86   5.73 
9    Roger Clemens             2.70   8.61   5.91 
10   Sid Fernandez             2.51   8.40   5.90 

STRIKEOUTS/WALKS              DIFF  PLAYER LEAGUE
1    Pedro Martinez            2.36   4.24   1.88 
2    Cy Young                  2.30   3.74   1.43 
3    Bret Saberhagen           1.89   3.64   1.75 
4    Curt Schilling            1.85   3.78   1.93 
5    Mike Mussina              1.73   3.44   1.71 
6    Dennis Eckersley          1.68   3.25   1.57 
7    Christy Mathewson         1.68   2.96   1.29 
8    Deacon Phillippe          1.60   2.88   1.28 
9    Ferguson Jenkins          1.53   3.20   1.67 
10   Walter Johnson            1.43   2.57   1.14 

[soxfan121]

I was having a modified version of this conversation at Wrigley Field this weekend - only we were talking Pedro vs. Koufax. It was the general consensus that because of the "era" each pitched in that Pedro was more dominant than Koufax.

Having had the pleasure of watching Pedro for the last 5 years, I can say he is the best I've ever seen. Clemens has been very, very good for a long time, but simply cannot match the sheer dominance of Pedro at his peak. Pedro, in this offensive era, has been the antidote to offense; he, unlike RJ, Clemens, Schilling and others is less likely to be scored upon, less likely to give up hits, and less likely to walk anyone. The only reason his W-L record in not more impressive is that he is at the bottom in run support provided over that same time period.

Pedro is a first-ballot HOF'er, no question. There has been no more dominant pitcher in an offensive era than Pedro Martinez.

[KCBOOMER]

We tend to denigrate wins as an important statistic because of other factors. We also over emphasize other statistics because we think they are more neutral.

We look at Pedro's dominance (and he has been dominant) and forget that he has pitched in what certainly is the decade in which the most batters stuck out and in which the average ERA was the highest. Doesn't it strike you as suspect how well guys pitching in the 1990's did on the lists Steve generated? What Pedro has done is dominate a very weak group.

If you looked at wins for a pitcher by age 30 you will see that Pedro is 86th and sooner or later it comes down to winning. Do you really think that of those 86 guys you would only pick two of them over Pedro? You Jest.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
We tend to denigrate wins as an important statistic because of other factors. We also over emphasize other statistics because we think they are more neutral.

We look at Pedro's dominance (and he has been dominant) and forget that he has pitched in what certainly is the decade in which the most batters stuck out and in which the average ERA was the highest. Doesn't it strike you as suspect how well guys pitching in the 1990's did on the lists Steve generated? What Pedro has done is dominate a very weak group.

If you looked at wins for a pitcher by age 30 you will see that Pedro is 86th and sooner or later it comes down to winning. Do you really think that of those 86 guys you would only pick two of them over Pedro? You Jest.

Actually, Boom, he's now tied for 77th.

And, of course, you know you are lumping him in with guys that pitched on two and three man staffs, started 40+ or more games a year, pitched in relief between starts, didn't have to bear down against each and every hitter in every at bat, etc. etc. etc.

[moose]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
If you looked at wins for a pitcher by age 30 you will see that Pedro is 86th and sooner or later it comes down to winning. Do you really think that of those 86 guys you would only pick two of them over Pedro? You Jest.

didnt pitchers used to start more? isn't saying "most wins before 30" kinda silly, since some pitchers might be great 23-29, others might be great 25-35, and yet others might be randy johnson-esque?

Wins, like RBI, are too dependent on team context.

Anyway, if you're going to look at wins, why bother with raw totals? Pedro has the 3rd best W-L % EVER, coming into this season, behind Al Spalding and Spud Chandler. Now, I still am not a fan of W or even W-L%, but that's pretty impressive nonetheless...

And if you don't want to look at eras, because you think the ERAs now are too high, how about this:
Of ALL of the pitchers in baseball history, only ONE** who pitched after 1929 has a lower career ERA than Pedro (Hoyt Wilhelm, a reliever).

Granted, he hasn't hit a decline phase to bring his #s back, but even if you ignore the offensive explosion and 4 years with the DH, that's nuts. That means that other than the pre 1900 guys, and the dead ball guys, pedro let in fewer earned runs per nine innings than any pitcher, save wilhelm. and he's tops amongst starters.

**Babe Ruth and Pete Alexander both have lower career ERAs than Pedro, and pitched in a combined 11 games after 1929, with 4 starts. I didn't include them since they did their substantive pitching pre-1930. It might be fair to put Pete on the list, though, since half of his career was outside of the dead ball era. But even if you set the cutoff at 1919, it's very, very few.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by moose
Didnt pitchers used to start more? isn't saying "most wins before 30" kinda silly, since some pitchers might be great 23-29, others might be great 25-35, and yet others might be randy johnson-esque?

If course they started more and this makes them more valuable. A guy that goes out every fourth day and pitches well is more valauble than a guy who pitches well every fifth day. Before his 30th birthday Koufax started 273 games while Pedro got to 229. Which is better for his team???

Pedro is only 30 so I had to stick to that guide
line.

Everytime I hear an argument about winning being a team dependent thing I can't help but smile. You are right it is a team thing but it is also the only thing. If you want the guy with the glossy artificial stats instead of a guy who will help your team win an extra five to ten games a year so be it.

[SmedIndy]

You're holding factors out of Pedro's control against him. No one pitches as much as they did then. But that doesn't make pitchers like Pedro less valuable. In fact, they could be more valuable than they were in the day.

Seasonal pitching wins are not meaningless, but when a schlub can go 16-9 because of a great offense, while someone goes 10-16 because his team doesn't score any runs doesn't mean the 10-16 team isn't valuable. It's because his team stinks behind him.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER


If course they started more and this makes them more valuable. A guy that goes out every fourth day and pitches well is more valauble than a guy who pitches well every fifth day. Before his 30th birthday Koufax started 273 games while Pedro got to 229. Which is better for his team???

Pedro is only 30 so I had to stick to that guide
line.

Everytime I hear an argument about winning being a team dependent thing I can't help but smile. You are right it is a team thing but it is also the only thing. If you want the guy with the glossy artificial stats instead of a guy who will help your team win an extra five to ten games a year so be it.

And what did Koufax do after age 34?

Those 'glossy artificial stats' are the only things that a pitcher can directly control. He cannot control runs his team scored, nor can he control unearned runs. Give me the pitcher that prevents baserunners over the guy who racks up wins despite allowing 13.2 baserunners/9IP

[moose]

Originally posted by TGwynn19
Give me the pitcher that prevents baserunners over the guy who racks up wins despite allowing 13.2 baserunners/9IP

i agree in principle, but i'd say:
give me the pitcher that prevents runs over everyone else

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by TGwynn19
[BAnd what did Koufax do after age 34?
[/b]

Possibly you missed the subject of this thread. It is about Pedro before age 30.

In a small sample luck plays a part, but once you get to a large sample luck is pretty washed out. Luck in this case is the team effect.

You do have to hold it against today's pitchers that they only pitch every 5th day. You simply can't ignore it. Could Pedro stand up to the rigors of a four day rotation? I don't know but I can't act like he did.

[Skip]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Possibly you missed the subject of this thread. It is about Pedro before age 30.

Well, no ... it is actually about Pedro in 10 seasons, though that keeps both he and Koufax under 30.

I think Pedro in 10 seasons, counting this (yet to be finished) year as the 10th over the cup of coffee in 1992, is incredible, and does outweigh Koufax. Now he just needs to have his arm fall off in mid-pitch or something to garner the sympathy Koufax got ... or have a postseason or two capturing the eyes of the fans ... or continue to pitch several more years ... to be considered a greater pitcher than Koufax.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER


Possibly you missed the subject of this thread. It is about Pedro before age 30.

In a small sample luck plays a part, but once you get to a large sample luck is pretty washed out. Luck in this case is the team effect.

You do have to hold it against today's pitchers that they only pitch every 5th day. You simply can't ignore it. Could Pedro stand up to the rigors of a four day rotation? I don't know but I can't act like he did.

Could Koufax stand up to the rigors of how Kid Nichols or Cy Young was used?

Could Koufax pitch every day like Old Hoss did for Providence in 1884? Same arguement.

Using your logic, Old Hoss' 1884 season was the greatest season ever.