re: koufax or Pedro?

i saw a discussion on a baseball website that i completely agree with: pedro is better and "koufax cant hold a candle to him." when you take into account the park they played in and the era they played in it really isnt that close. just take a look at pedro's era park adjusted and compare to koufax.


Pat

In 1999, I thought Pedro had the best year of any pitcher I had ever seen. Then he went out and topped that with his 2000 season, which was the greatest single-season performance by a pitcher in baseball history.


Pedro's ERA in 2000 was 1.74. The second-best ERA in the league that year belonged to Roger Clemens, who posted a 3.70 ERA. The league ERA was 4.91. Pedro set the all-time records for greatest differential between the ERA leader and the league ERA, as well as the greatest differential between the ERA leader and the second-best ERA. In other words, he wasn't just the best pitcher, he was the best by the greatest margin in history. Of course, all of his other statistics (strikeouts, walks, WHIP, W-L) were dazzling as well.


Of course, statistics only begin to tell the story of Pedro. The man is truly an artist.


It's a shame Pedro hasn't been more durable, or his numbers would be even more amazing. At his best, he was better than anyone who has ever pitched. But he will never accumulate career numbers that approach Roger Clemens' statistics, because Clemens has been more durable, and Pedro is not likely to pitch nearly as long as Roger.


For one season or one game, I would take Pedro. For a career, its a little too early to say, and I have to admit you could make a strong case for Roger Clemens, Sandy Koufax, and a few others.

Pat,


Did you see the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway? Pedro had the best stuff I have ever seen that night. He pitched two innings, no hits, no walks, and struck out 5 of the 6 batters he faced. Of course he's had many other great games--I remember a one-hitter against the Yankees in which he struck out 17--but I have never seen anyone with better stuff than he had that night.

The September 1999 game at Yankee Stadium is the most brilliantly pitched game I've ever seen. He went on the road in the middle of a pennant race and thoroughly dominated the best team in the world. My favorite moment of that game was watching Bernie Williams swing at a Martinez curve and miss by what looked like 8 or 9 inches. Even the Yankee fans were cheering for Pedro in the final innings. They knew.


And, of course, there was the Game 5 of the 1999 ALDS against Cleveland where he came into an 8-8 game in the 4th inning despite his "season ending" injury from five days earlier. So what if he can't even hit 87 on the radar gun? Six no-hit innings in Boston's biggest game in 13 years. Ho hum.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/scores99/99284/99284301.htm


Here is the most important part:


BOSTON ip h r er bb so hr era

Saberhagen 1 4 5 5 1 0 2 27.00

D Lowe 2 3 3 3 0 2 1 4.32

P Martinez (W, 1-0) 6 0 0 0 3 8 0 0.00


His 6 no-hit innings in relief with a pulled muscle was one of the most clutch performances I've ever seen. Cleveland scored 8 runs the first 3 innings, then didn't get a hit the rest of the game, thanks to Pedro.

I think his greatest performance was in the playoffs against Cleveland. All hell had broken loose; the previous game was 22-7 of something like that and the 5th game was a free-for-all, I believe 8-8 in the 4th inning. No pitcher could get anyone out. I believe Pedro came in and retired all 18 batters he faced, or something like that. Game, set, match. Got Mike Hargrove fired.


He's as good a pitcher as there ever was.

I believe the Yankees failed to put a ball into play in fair territory for the last 5 innings of that game. Amazing.

Didn't see this post when I was guessing/remembering that he retired the last 18 in a row. He did walk 3, but pitching no-hit ball given the offensive environment of those last two games, in the cluth, injured. . .wow!

I agree Game 5 was his greatest performance. And the amazing thing about that performance was that he was injured and his fastball was only being clocked in the high 80s (vs. high 90s). So even without his fastball, he still no-hit the best hitting team in baseball (which was red-hot, as you mentioned) for 6 innings.


I'll never forget that game.

Andy-When I read your post I thought "Did that really happen?" Well, I found the proof. One Brosius line drive out was the best they could after the 4th inning.


http://majorleaguebaseball.sportsline.com/u/sports/mlb/1999/0910/gamecenter/MLB_19990910_BOS@NYY.htm (http://majorleaguebaseball.sportsline.com/u/sports/mlb/1999/0910/gamecenter/MLB_19990910_BOS@NYY.htm)

See, that's two things Brosius messed up. One, he makes me a liar by putting a ball into play when I said I thought nobody did. And two, he loses the World Series for the Yankees by not throwing to first to complete a double play on the second bunt in the 9th inning of game 7 against the D-backs last year.

Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher I've ever seen. I'll take his 1961-1966 seasons anytime. You all mention some great Pedro feats well Sandy had more than his share as well.

Indeed he did, but considering the offensive context and the effects of the ballparks they pitch in, it's clear Pedro is the greater pitcher.


In 1963, for example, when Koufax led the league with an ERA of 1.88, the overall ERA in the National League was 3.29 and Dodger Stadium reduced offense more than any park in the league, even more so than the notoriously hard-to-hit-in Astrodome.


In 2000, when Pedro had an ERA of 1.74, the overall ERA in the American League was 4.92 and Fenway Park increased offense more than any other park in the league except for the Metrodome.


In 1963, Koufax held opposing batters to a batting average of .189 in a league that batted .246 and an on-base percentage of .230 in a league where the on-base percentage was .308. He allowed 8.0 runners per 9 innings in a league where the average was 11.4.


In 2000, Pedro held opposing batter to a batting average of .167 in a league that batted .276 and an on-base percentage of .214 in a league where the on-base percentage was .352. He allowed 7.2 runners per 9 innings in a league where the average was 13.8.


Bill James adjusted ERAs for the offensive context of the times and the ballparks in which the pitchers pitched, and Pedro comes out #1 alltime. Koufax doesn't make the top ten. And James is not anti-Koufax: he ranks him as the #10 pitcher of all-time (and Pedro #29 [through 1999]).


Hey, Koufax was no slouch, but in their primes, I'll take Pedro.

Truly good to discuss baseball with a great baseball fan and a very, very knowledgable one as well (certainly more knowledgable than me I might add). Generally speaking I'll concede that baseball stadiums today are much more hitter friendly. Hoever, I think the talent level per team especially in the starting pitching department is somewhat less. Hard to prove either way and I also concede that the talent pool that baseball teams draw from now has been expanded a great deal. If you take the Pedro 1.74 ERA vs 4.92 AL league wide and adjust it for a 3.29 league wide he'd have a 1.16 ERA in the Koufax era. This seems a little too low even if he is a much better pitcher than Koufax which I doubt. If he is better certainly not by .62 runs a game. Looking at it another way, Sandy Koufax would have had an era of 2.81 in 2000.


When I do this sort of comparision it tells me that a linear type of extrapolation is not the best way to look at the problem. Without going into it now, because in all honesty I need to think about it further, a few ideas I would have revolve around the distribution of ERA's among starting pitchers and the effect relief pitching has since starters went longer (an assumption on my part) back in the early 60s. BTW I'm going to have to get that Bill James book my head hurts from getting beat with it LOL /images/smile.gif.

I wonder where James would rank Pedro now, after his incredible 2000 season, and another great year last year (of course he missed most of 2001 with injury, but was great when he was in there).


Pedro is first all-time in ERA+ (i.e. as a ratio from the league ERA, but without adjusting for his home ballpark) by an enormous margin. An ERA+ of 100 means that a pitcher's ERA is equal to the league ERA, higher than 100 is better, less than 100 is worse. For example, a pitcher with an ERA of 3.00 in a league with an ERA of of 4.00 would have an ERA+ of 1.33. Pedro's career ERA+ is 1.68; second place is 1.48, an enormous gap. If you factor in Fenway as his home ballpark for the bulk of his career, his margin would be even greater.


Until this thread was started, I knew Pedro was great, but I didn't realize how great. I am now convinced he is the best pitcher ever. How long he continues these feats is questionable, but to date nobody can touch his accomplishments.

1.Walter johnson

2.Lefty Grove

3.Roger Clemens

4.Pedro Martinez

5.Satchel Paige (a strange pick I know but i think it is true)


Pat

Its tough for me to say anything about Johnson, Grove or Paige since I never saw them pitch (I don't know how old you are Pat, but I am guessing you never saw them pitch, either). What I do know is that they were all great pitchers, but statistically, none of them dominated their league to the extent Pedro has dominated his. Left Grove came the closest.


As for Clemens, I've watched him more than any other pitcher. The fact that I watched him in 1984 and said, "This guy could be a 20-game winner," then watched him win 20 and a Cy Young 2 years later, then watched him win 5 more Cy Youngs, the most recent in 2001, amazes me. No modern pitcher has ever been that great for such an extended time period.


That being said, he simply is not as dominant as Pedro. He's been great for longer than Pedro, and longer than Pedro is ever likely to pitch (though Pedro is 11 years younger, it is extremely doubtful he'll still be pitching at age 40), but he hasn't been quite as great as Pedro--Pedro has a better winning percentage (3rd all time) and a much better ERA (2.66 vs. 3.10). In adjusted ERA, Pedro is first all time, Clemens is 7th--nothing to shake a stick at, but not as good as Pedro. Performance in the clutch and intangibles are on Pedro's side as well.


So it depends what your criteria. If you like longevity, Clemens is your man. If you like a stronger performance for a shorter timeframe, Pedro is your guy.


If I could take any pitcher for 20 years, I would take Roger. If I could take any pitcher for 10 years, or any shorter time period, I would take Pedro.

Tim Keefe, who threw 68 complete games in 1883 (619 innings), won 41 games, posted a 2.41 ERA and struck out 361 batters?

he is not near the top 10 and probably not even top 20. maybe somewhere between 20-30 and certainly ahead of so called greats like nolan ryan. no slight to him of course. but even with the wins the fact remains that he pitched his entire 14 year career in the dead ball era. i would even rank dazzy vance ahead of him, although i may be the only one.


pat

Interesting you mentioned Ryan, and I am glad you did. It is laughable that he was the leading vote-getter on the All-Century Team. He is unquestionably the most overrated pitcher in history.


He never won the Cy Young Award, and was never at any point the "best pitcher in baseball." He is not even among the top 10 pitchers I've ever seen, and I've only followed baseball since the late 70s.


Don't get me started on Cal Ripken, Jr...

Sort of amazing that many Red Sox fans are still accomodating themselves to the so-called "new" Pedro, feeling that his best years are behind him and that he'll never be quite as good as the "old" Pedro.


John

Pedro for the last month+ has been 90% of what he was in 2000, that is, 90% of the best pitcher in history.


I think the difference between Pedro now and Pedro then is that he is more cautious now, because of his rotator-cuff injury last year, and is afraid to really cut loose with his fastball. He used to have the best control, the best changeup, a great curveball, and a great fastball. He still has all of those, except his fastball has dropped to "very good", based purely on the radar gun.


Personally, I don't think he'll ever be as great as he was in 1999-2000 again, but I still think he is the best pitcher in baseball. He's like Greg Maddux now, but with a better fastball... I sure hope he proves me wrong.

as fate would have it i was emailed this today. it is not park adjusted but is just how much better a career era is than the league:


The top 10 for the best difference between a pitcher's ERA and his career average--


DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE

1 Lefty Grove 1.36 3.06 4.42

2 Randy Johnson 1.26 3.10 4.36

3 Roger Clemens 1.26 3.13 4.38

4 Hoyt Wilhelm 1.24 2.52 3.76

5 Greg Maddux 1.21 2.83 4.04

6 Lefty Gomez 1.16 3.34 4.50

7 Whitey Ford 1.10 2.74 3.84

8 Kevin Brown 1.09 3.20 4.29

9 Walter Johnson 1.07 2.17 3.24

10 Mike Mussina 1.03 3.58 4.61

Namely, Pedro.


If you adjust for ballparks when comparing a pitcher to the league ERA, Pedro is the all-time leader in adjusted ERA. I haven't calculated his stats without adjusting for his ballpark, but I guarantee you he is still first; a quick perusal of the numbers should convince you of the same, but if necessary I can do the math when I have a few minutes and come up with the exact number.


Here is a link to the career leaders in Adjusted ERA:


http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_career.shtml


By the way, Pedro is also first in the modern era in WHIP ((BB+H)/IP)) (only two old-timers are ahead of him).


I suspect Mussina's ranking will fall after this year...