These are the #s that seperate pedro from Koufax: pedro: Postseason ERA 3.40, 30 ER in 79 1/3 innings. Koufax: Postseason ERA .95, 6 ER in 57 innings.
Smoltz and Schilling doesn't even belong in this discussion, and while postseason numbers are important it shouldn't overshadow everything else in his career which is why neither Smoltz/Schilling sniff Pedro's career. And as for Smoltz, he has more than double Pedro's appearances so it is tough to compare the 2
http://forums.theganggreen.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=551506 I said that wrong. I didn't mean to imply that you wanted to get rid of the adjusted numbers, just that doing so is a bad idea. I don't see how adjusted numbers can hurt a player though, since the reason they are adjusted is to show a player's performance compared to his peers. I'm not a mathematician, but that doesn't make sense to me. All it means is that Koufax was a great pitcher in an era of great pitchers, with many advantages over pitchers of today. Pedro is a great pitcher in an era of great hitters and none of the advantages Koufax had. I used only career numbers because I don't know where to find (or the energy to calculate) cumulative league ERA's for just those years. If you could tell me where you found that, I'd like to know. I'd also be interested in how Pedro's ERA stacked up to the league in the 4 years I picked for him. While I don't have the exact number of the difference, I can say that in the 4 years you picked, Koufax posted ERA+ numbers of 161, 187, 160, and 190. Pedro from 1997 to 2000 posted ERA + numbers of 221, 160, 245, and 285. It's not even all that close. Pedro led the league in ERA 4 straight years, and 5 out of 6, finishing 2nd in the year he moved to the AL and had to adjust to the league. He's been in the top 10 eight times and the top 4 seven times. Koufax was in the top 10 six times, and the top 4 just five times. Wins are almost as much a team stat as an individual stat. Pedro won the TC in '99, and the other two years that he led in both ERA and K's ('00 and '02) he won 18 and 20 games, certainly not bad, and both could have easily been enough to win the TC. It most certainly IS fair. If Koufax pitched today he would not come CLOSE to those innings totals and wouldn't make that many starts either. The innings per start for the two are almost identical, and Pedro was in the top 2 in complete games twice over those 4 years I mentioned. In the four years you mentioned, koufax was top 2 in complete games 3 times, but both were in the top 4 three times. Pretty similar relative to the era. And people WERE throwing innings at pretty much the same rate Koufax was. In 1963 he was 3rd in the league in innings and there were 2 other pitchers with at least 300 innings and 5 with 275+. In 1964 Drysdale (who also led in '63) led the league with over 300 innings, and there were again 5 pitchers with 275+. Koufax was not one of them. In 1965 He led the league with 335, but Drysdale AGAIN was over 300 and there were 8 pitchers over 275. In 1965 he again led with 323, but there were 2 others over 300 again, and 4 over 275, including Drysdale. So to say no one was doing similar things is untrue. Which is exactly why using wins is a terrible way to evaluate a pitcher. If you put Pedro's stats in context with the 1968 Dodgers (I know it's not in the years we're talking about, but that's the year from baseball reference and its close) Pedro would have posted the following line: 86-19, 1.29 ERA, 0.69 WHIP. Koufax would have: 101-32, 1.58 ERA, 0.89 WHIP. Koufax would have more wins, but also more losses, and it's pretty clear that Pedro's numbers are better overall. Part of that is team related, but I can't comment on this part really because I don't have access to adjusted postseason numbers. I do know that the 1998 and 1999 Indians, the 1999, 2003, and 2004 Yankees, and 2004 Cardinals had pretty good offenses, and were likely better than any that Koufax faced. Koufax's opponents in the postseason had a high of .258 in team batting average while Pedro's had a low of .268. Whether Pedro was better or worse relative to the league, I don't know. This isn't meant the way it will probably sound, but how much of Pedro did you watch in Boston? I'm not nearly old enough to have seen Koufax, but I have never seen anyone come close to dominating hitters like Pedro did in a Red Sox uniform. Not just his numbers, which are astounding, but just watching batters flail at his changeup, or have their knees buckled by his curve. It was pure domination just about every pitch of every game. That, added to the superior numbers, is why I think Pedro is the best ever. Like you say though, in the end it is a matter of opinion, and maybe Koufax had a similar aura, I don't know. Baseball is a game of numbers though, and Pedro's are simply better.
In 1999 he allowed 5 hits and struck out 23 in 17 innings and had a career 1.13 ERA in the postseason. By the time he got back in 2003 he had a tear in his rotator cuff and wasn't the same pitcher he was in '98 and '99. Other than the two Yankees series' in '03 and '04 he's been pretty lights out, and those were against an amazing lineup, and after his peak. Again, Koufax didn't face lineups NEARLY the caliber that Pedro did.
That's the breaks. pedro was still a big time reg season pitcher in '03 and '04 so he really didn't have excuses for his postseason failures. He was great in 1999 but average in '98 and average '03 and '04 including blowing Game 7 of the 2003 WS. A 3.86 ERA is not lights out and that's what he had in the '98 ALDS and '03 and '04 ALDS. he must wasn't a big time pressure pitcher which is why I cannot put him at the top. For a 4-5 year priod he was as good as anyone but that didn't last long enough coupled w/ postseason struggles he does not belong at the top.
He was still good but not what he was. He was also a much different pitcher. His velocity was down significantly and he was no longer a control pitcher with power pitcher's stuff, which is what made him so unhittable. Find me the league average ERA for those years in the postseason. I'm willing to bet it's higher than 3.86.
He had a 2.22 ERA in the 2003 reg season then a 4.77 ERA in the 2003 postseason. Koufax had a 4.05 ERA in '59 and 100E ERA in th '59 WS, 1.88 ERA in '63 reg then 1.50 ERA in the WS, 2.04 in '65 reg then .38 in the WS, 1.73 in '66 reg then 1.50 in WS. Every year his ERA went down in postseason. Pedro has also pitched in 4 postseasons and only in 1999 did his ERA go down in postseason.
Um, good post I guess, but what does it have to do with the fact that Pedro was a different pitcher after his rotator cuff injury? Or the league ERA in the postseason? How about next time you address the actual post?
I'm not going to bother trying to refute all of your points, since my point was never that Pedro has no case, but rather that Koufax also has an excellent case. I am well aware of the potential weaknesses of using wins to assess pitcher quality, but that certainly does not justify ignoring them - ultimately winning is the name of the game (and note that I never said that no other pitcher was pitching as many innings as Koufax - what I said that no other pitcher was getting the complete games, wins, and shutouts that Koufax was getting, which is entirely the point, and shows just how much better he was than everyone else). Using Drysdale as a comparison weakens your argument, not strengthens it - in a 14 year career with the Dodgers, Drysdale only had three seasons where his record was more than 4 games over .500 (one of which was in Brooklyn in 1957, so the whole "great pitcher's park" thing doesn't apply there). Drysdale was a horse, but no one on the planet thought that he was an elite pitcher in the class of Koufax, the proof being that other than in 1962 (when he won the Cy Young) he never got a single vote for Cy Young in his entire career. The fact that Koufax was so much better than a Hall of Famer like Drysdale helps show just how good he was. The point I really don't understand at all is how passionate you seem to be in dismissing Koufax's run as being even remotely competitive with Pedro's, and that to me is absurd. Would you dismiss such a contention of domination for a batter who had three triple crowns in four years because you don't think batting average is a perfect statistic, for example? IMO absolutely nothing you have said even comes close to settling this convincingly. Why is that such an unpalatable thought to you? Baseball is a game with more randomness than any other game - hard hit balls right at a player, dribblers and pop flies perfectly placed, a 500 foot HR being worth 1 run while a 310 foot HR is worth 4, etc. As a result, no matter how good you are, there are limitations on how good your results can be. In the 85+ years since the modern era of baseball began in 1920, exactly one starting pitcher has ever had a season ERA less than 1.50 (and that, of course, was in a year where hitting was historically bad for the modern era). That's not because the pitchers weren't any good - it's because no matter how good he is, a pitcher is going to give up a run here or there. Since there is effectively a lower bound on ERA of around 1.50 under any circumstances, if the league ERA is lower, there is less room to maneuver for a dominant player to show that dominance. If the greatest pitcher who ever lived happens to play when hitting was down, adjusted statistics will diminish his relative dominance through no fault of his own, because there's only so low his ERA can effectively go.
I don't think Bob Gibson gets enough credit. Long term he may not have the stats, but he singlehandedly made the league lower the pitching mound. He was absolutely dominant. If not for the league lowering the mound, I think there wouldnt even be a discussion of who is the best.
he was still a top pitcher after that and had great reg seasons then struggled in october. Stop ignoring these facts, the man was big game pitcher ONE time in his career- the '99 postseason. It's the same reason I can't put Clemens in as #1 b/c he too struggled in big gamesw BUT he has alot more excellent big game performances than Pedro.
Speaking of Pedro and Roger: Martinez said he watched Clemens pitch for Double-A Trenton this week and added, "Without a doubt, I can do that now," Martinez said."The Roger that I knew, that's not him." http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/blog/2007/05/the_return_of_pedro.html
Why is that greasy little coward talking about Clemens? Does he realize what Clemens is doing know is basically Spring Training? The performance isn't a big deal, he's just trying to get his arm ready to pitch in the big leagues. I like this quote: does that mean he's up to about 155 lbs?
Postseason leaders in ERA (minimum 30 innings) 1. Mariano Rivera- 0.80 2. Harry Brecheen- 0.83 3. Babe Ruth- 0.87 4. Sherry Smith- 0.89 5. Sandy Koufax- 0.95 6. Monte Pearson- 1.01 7. Christy Mathewson- 1.06 8. Blue Moon Odom- 1.13 9. Eddie Plank- 1.32 10. Bill Hallahan- 1.36 11. Clay Carroll- 1.39 12. Mickey Lolich- 1.57 13. George Earnshaw- 1.58 14. Spud Chandler- 1.62 15. Scott McGregor- 1.63 16. Jesse Haines- 1.67 17. Max Lanier- 1.71 18. Stan Coveleski- 1.74 19. Lefty Grove- 1.75 20. Orval Overall- 1.75
There's no way that guy is over 200 lbs, if he is over 200 lbs he's doing steroids b/c he's always been around the 160-165 mark.
You obviously didn't see him last night. He looked much bigger, they said he changed his workout routine to include less running and presumably more lifting. The numbers below are from espn.com... last night they said he added 14 pounds of muscle so that put's him over 200. I'm 6 foot 210... nobody has ever accused me of being small. :lol: Proper Name: Pedro Jaime Martinez Born: October 25, 1971 Manoguayabo, Dominican Republic Height: 5-11 Weight: 193 lbs. Age: 35 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4875
He's always been about 160 lbs, he's doing something if he's over 200 lbs. Especially for a little guy like him it's very difficult to add 14 lbs of muscle in that short period of time let alone 30-40 lbs- if he's even at 193 he's up to something.
Maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. Every website I've visited has him listed between 190-195 and 5 foot 11. He's not a little guy and it's not that difficult to add 14 pounds of muscle in 9 months when you completely change your work out regiment. Show me one site that has him listed below 170....
