Pedro is still a punk

[RedskinsDave]

And the biggest one in the majors. Why he doesn't get fined for plunking people is beyond me. If my batters were getting hit like that, I would bean him with my best fastball. The only way he will learn is if someone injures him or rushes the mound and beats him down. I am so tired of his crap.

[Dept_of_Defense]

Pedro is lucky Guillen didn't beat the ump and catcher to the mound last night.

[MONK_in_HOF]

And the biggest one in the majors. Why he doesn't get fined for plunking people is beyond me. If my batters were getting hit like that, I would bean him with my best fastball. The only way he will learn is if someone injures him or rushes the mound and beats him down. I am so tired of his crap.

That is what I don't understand. Now that Pedro is in the NL, if he is throwing at your players, why not throw at him? Instead they went after Wright, who they couldn't even bean. I would love to see Pedro's reaction to catching a fastball square in the back.

[MoeRedskins]

I think it was crap that Rodireguez and Robinson got ejected for beaning somebody after the warning, but the Mets pitcher didn't after he beaned somebody after recieving a warning.

[dukeuch]

And the biggest one in the majors. Why he doesn't get fined for plunking people is beyond me. If my batters were getting hit like that, I would bean him with my best fastball. The only way he will learn is if someone injures him or rushes the mound and beats him down. I am so tired of his crap.

Roger Clemons too?

[BostonSkins]

Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time. He's effective because he uses the inside part of the plate, and the intimidation of hit batsmen is part of his effectiveness.

Guillen is a headcase.

[RedskinsDave]

Clemens doesn't hit nearly as many people and I don't think anyone would be real quick to rush the mound all the same.

[dukeuch]

Clemens doesn't hit nearly as many people and I don't think anyone would be real quick to rush the mound all the same.

Clemons hits plenty of people, maybe not as many as he used to when he was in the AL, however. Joe Torre ripped him big time for being a headhunter...until he became a Yankee, that is. Remember how in the Yankees/Mets World Series he only started in Yankee Stadium? That, my friend, is a chicken**** punk.

[RedskinsDave]

Great, who cares? I'm not the president of ClemEns fan club either. If you're trolling for a fight, look elsewhere. The thread is on Pedro being a punk.

[smoak]

I didn't see the plunking, but in general it is an important part of the game. Unless Pedro is headhunting, who cares??? The real issue is that AL pitchers are not forced to bat. That would solve all the bolness right there. Frankly, most batters deserved to get drilled from time to time.

(Can you tell I used to pitch and wasn't much of a hitter?)

Seperate issue:
If Barry stepped to the plate against me wearing all that body armor, I'd nail him fast balls every time up top the plate. He is one player where I condone aiming for the freakishly large head.

[dukeuch]

Great, who cares? I'm not the president of ClemEns fan club either. If you're trolling for a fight, look elsewhere. The thread is on Pedro being a punk.

Not trolling for a fight at all. I just don't get how similair behavior by other players doesn't elicit the same response. One guy who pitches tight is "a punk", another guy who pitches tight is "a battler who owns the inside". It happens all the time. Pedro, in my opinion, is just one example.

[RedskinsDave]

Well Clemens averages 7 a year over his career and Pedro averages 10. Pedro went from hitting 16 guys his last year in Boston to 4 last year with the Mets. What does that tell you? Also, I think power pitches who throw inside hit more guys on accident than a spot pitcher like Pedro who does. Also the size a demeanor of the guy makes a difference. Clemens is big and tough. Pedro isn't.

[smoak]

Well Clemens averages 7 a year over his career and Pedro averages 10. Pedro went from hitting 16 guys his last year in Boston to 4 last year with the Mets. What does that tell you? Also, I think power pitches who throw inside hit more guys on accident than a spot pitcher like Pedro who does. Also the size a demeanor of the guy makes a difference. Clemens is big and tough. Pedro isn't.

Exactly! Make AL pitchers bat. If you are going to plunk a guy, make sure it is for a good reason.

[dukeuch]

Well Clemens averages 7 a year over his career and Pedro averages 10. Pedro went from hitting 16 guys his last year in Boston to 4 last year with the Mets. What does that tell you? Also, I think power pitches who throw inside hit more guys on accident than a spot pitcher like Pedro who does. Also the size a demeanor of the guy makes a difference. Clemens is big and tough. Pedro isn't.

It tells me that Pedro hits one more batter than Clemens every twelve games or so, and that (I'm guessing here) like Clemens, Pedro hits fewer batters in the NL, where he has to bat, than he did in the AL, where he didn't.

So being bigger, and more likely able to kick the other guys butt, makes you less a punk when you hit someone? I'd think it would go the other way.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Pedro is a punk. I was listening to the game on the radio yesterday and I thought Jose Guillen might charge the mound. The umpires from this series are a bunch of buttheads. Frank Robinson said 6 Nats got beemed with zero ejections and only one guy from NY gets beemed and boom, our guy gets thrown out. Is that true? If so, do you think the Umps are being influenced by the NY crowd/media?

BTW, Frank Robinson rules!

[dukeuch]

Well Clemens averages 7 a year over his career and Pedro averages 10. Pedro went from hitting 16 guys his last year in Boston to 4 last year with the Mets. What does that tell you? Also, I think power pitches who throw inside hit more guys on accident than a spot pitcher like Pedro who does. Also the size a demeanor of the guy makes a difference. Clemens is big and tough. Pedro isn't.

Oh yeah, what's the comprison of innings pitched/year between the two? Do they hit the same number of guys/inning?

[Ibleedburgundy]

It tells me that Pedro hits one more batter than Clemens every twelve games or so, and that (I'm guessing here) like Clemens, Pedro hits fewer batters in the NL, where he has to bat, than he did in the AL, where he didn't.

So being bigger, and more likely able to kick the other guys butt, makes you less a punk when you hit someone? I'd think it would go the other way.

I think your math is off. Pedro only plays in approximately one out of every five games (32-34 starts). Depends on how you look at it, hit batters per start or per inning would be the crucial stat I think.

To average 3 more per year over your career is significant.

[dukeuch]

I think your math is off. Pedro only plays in approximately one out of every five games (32-34 starts). Depends on how you look at it, hit batters per start or per inning would be the crucial stat I think.

I think my math is pretty close; three more a year spread out over 34 games is one more every 11.33 games. OK, so I'm off when I say "every 12". Is that that what you mean when you say my "math is off" or were you talking about something else I'm missing?

[Ibleedburgundy]

I think my math is pretty close; three more a year spread out over 34 games is one more every 11.33 games. OK, so I'm off when I say "every 12". Is that that what you mean when you say my "math is off" or were you talking about something else I'm missing?


Oops, my bad. MY math was off.

[MONK_in_HOF]

Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time. He's effective because he uses the inside part of the plate, and the intimidation of hit batsmen is part of his effectiveness.
Guillen is a headcase.

While I don't think Pedro is the best of all time, I agree pitching inside to intimidate batters is crucial. I just think in the NL if a P is thought to intentionally have beaned a few of your guys, then why not bean him instead of some position player. I know this is how it is traditionally done and how it has to be done in the AL, but I just don't understand it. If I were a manager I would bean the other pitcher.

[BostonSkins]

While I don't think Pedro is the best of all time, I agree pitching inside to intimidate batters is crucial. I just think in the NL if a P is thought to intentionally have beaned a few of your guys, then why not bean him instead of some position player. I know this is how it is traditionally done and how it has to be done in the AL, but I just don't understand it. If I were a manager I would bean the other pitcher.

Since pitchers usually have very low batting averages, you would be putting a guy on base who would probably not reach, with the top of the order coming up behind him. Instead, plunk the guy that has the most success against your pitcher since he has the best chance of reaching base anyway.

[RedskinsDave]

Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time. He's effective because he uses the inside part of the plate, and the intimidation of hit batsmen is part of his effectiveness.

Guillen is a headcase.

I hope this post was a joke.....

[RedskinsDave]

For the second time now, the thread is not for Yankee haters to compare Pussdro to another jerk. It's about Pedro and the fact that he is should take a beating for the way he pitches.

[MONK_in_HOF]

Since pitchers usually have very low batting averages, you would be putting a guy on base who would probably not reach, with the top of the order coming up behind him. Instead, plunk the guy that has the most success against your pitcher since he has the best chance of reaching base anyway.

Good point. I guess there are a lot of variables that would factor into it.
1. What inning it was when the P came up next
2. How close the game was
3. How many outs in the inning already
4. How many already on base
5. How intentional the beaning was thought to be (is there a history there?)
; there actually is a history of Pedro beaning Guillen often. He has plunked him 5 times out of the last 40 times faced (according to WTEM).

I probably wouldn't retaliate and bean the pitcher if he was leading off the inning in a close game, but that is the only time I wouldn't. Given last nights situation, being that it was early in the year I would have beaned Pedro.

[MoeRedskins]

Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time. He's effective because he uses the inside part of the plate, and the intimidation of hit batsmen is part of his effectiveness.

Guillen is a headcase.

While Pedro is a good pitcher who once was one of the most dominent in the sport, its a terrible strech to say he was the greatest pitcher of all time. In fact its flat out wrong. And Pedro is effect b/c he has so much good stuff. Two plus plus fastballs, a plus change up, and a plus plus curveball are what made Pedro go good.

[Skaggsrules]

I, a Mets fan, understand while Guillen was upset, if I had been hit three times in two games, I too would be upset, but look at who hit him...Brian Bannister in his first MLB game in New York, he too admitted to the jitters, and he was off, I've watched Bannister for a while, and he's never that wild....100 pitches, 52 strikes, he was bound to hit someone, and he hit a few....Pedro hasn't been pitching a lot over the past few months, I didn't think he should pitch....his reputation is of someone who would hit someone anytime he would want...but people saying Pedro intentionally hit Guillen need open their eyes, the first one was him trying to add some heat to his fastball, and you tend to lose control, especially since he hasn't thrown at game speed, in an actual situation that much....the next one wasn't even close to intentional, he was going inside, grazed the arm, if Pedro was going to drill someone, he'd hit them in the back, or the middle, not behind them or off the arm. Guillen had just as much right to charge Pedro as the guy who charged Pedro after he hit a him in the 7th to end Pedro's perfect game, while in Montreal.

[BostonSkins]

Pedro IS the greatest pitcher of all time.

You will not find a more dominant pitcher in the history of baseball. Especially considering he did this during the "steroid era" of inflated offensive numbers.

[RedskinsDave]

Pedro IS the greatest pitcher of all time.

You will not find a more dominant pitcher in the history of baseball. Especially considering he did this during the "steroid era" of inflated offensive numbers.

Smoke up Johnny.

[BostonSkins]

Alright then, name a better pitcher than Pedro. Just come up with one, I'd like to see where you guys stand on this since apparently I am "crazy" or "must be high" to say Petey is the greatest of all time.

[ihatedallas]

Pedro IS the greatest pitcher of all time.

You will not find a more dominant pitcher in the history of baseball. Especially considering he did this during the "steroid era" of inflated offensive numbers.

Clemens dominated before, during, and after the seroid era....

[BostonSkins]

yup, the 4.60 ERA he put up in '99 was extremely dominating, as was the 4.35 in '02.

Clemens has to run to the National league to be successful, and even then he still can't win a big game. He has consistently come up short in the playoffs.

Next please....

[RedskinsDave]

yup, the 4.60 ERA he put up in '99 was extremely dominating, as was the 4.35 in '02.

Clemens has to run to the National league to be successful, and even then he still can't win a big game. He has consistently come up short in the playoffs.

Next please....

I must have missed where the Mets played in the AL.

[BostonSkins]

I must have missed where the Mets played in the AL.

Pedro had his most successful years in a Red Sox uniform, including the greatest season ever by a pitcher in '99.

His one "bad" year, the Sox won the World Series.

EDIT: Still waiting for you to name a better pitcher....

[MoeRedskins]

Sandy Koufax was pretty good, Cy Young wasn't half bad, Walter Johnson had his moments, Gaylord Perry has an embrassing name. Now I'll go research some guys and be back.

[Skaggsrules]

Bob gibson was a good pitcher

[ihatedallas]

yup, the 4.60 ERA he put up in '99 was extremely dominating, as was the 4.35 in '02.

Clemens has to run to the National league to be successful, and even then he still can't win a big game. He has consistently come up short in the playoffs.

Next please....
he played with the blue jays, red sox, and the yankees, how can you say he's only been succesful in the NL?

[RedskinsDave]

Pedro had his most successful years in a Red Sox uniform, including the greatest season ever by a pitcher in '99.

His one "bad" year, the Sox won the World Series.

EDIT: Still waiting for you to name a better pitcher....

Oh I'm staying with Roger. Let me know when Nancy Martinez makes it to 42. I also think Randy Johnson has been better in this era.

Please throw me out some typical Red Sox know-nothing sabermetrics like your schmuck Bill James would do. I love that kind of crap since I actually watch baseball.

Baseball-reference.com uses a 13 category formula to determine a pitchers ranking and they came up with these guys as similar to Pedro:


Sandy Koufax (/k/koufasa01.shtml) (878) *
Curt Schilling (/s/schilcu01.shtml) (863)
Sam Leever (/l/leevesa01.shtml) (852)
Dwight Gooden (/g/goodedw01.shtml) (851)
Jack Chesbro (/c/chesbja01.shtml) (850) *
Ron Guidry (/g/guidrro01.shtml) (847)
Bob Caruthers (/c/carutbo01.shtml) (841)
David Cone (/c/coneda01.shtml) (831)
Dazzy Vance (/v/vanceda01.shtml) (829) *
Larry Corcoran (/c/corcola01.shtml) (828)I'm willing to bet the second best pitcher ever is Curt Schilling. LOL

[LATrueRedskin]

Pedro is a punk. I was listening to the game on the radio yesterday and I thought Jose Guillen might charge the mound. The umpires from this series are a bunch of buttheads. Frank Robinson said 6 Nats got beemed with zero ejections and only one guy from NY gets beemed and boom, our guy gets thrown out. Is that true? If so, do you think the Umps are being influenced by the NY crowd/media?

BTW, Frank Robinson rules!

Yeah that's ridiculous. A Nats pitcher protects his teammates and retaliates, and gets thrown out immediately after Pedro goes on his stint. What's with the double standard? Just because Pedro is a "high profile" player, he gets to stay in the game and continue whacking hitters with 90 mphers.

[dukeuch]

Clemens dominated before, during, and after the seroid era....

Hey, this thread is NOT for comparing another pitcher to Pedro. I already got in trouble for mentioning Clemens.

[dukeuch]

Pedro had his most successful years in a Red Sox uniform, including the greatest season ever by a pitcher in '99.

His one "bad" year, the Sox won the World Series.

EDIT: Still waiting for you to name a better pitcher....

I think Pedro is great, but off the top of my head both Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax had single years better than Pedro's '99.

[BostonSkins]

Gibson and Koufax both pitched off of higher mounds and in the "dead ball" era. If you look at the average major league ERA during that time and compare it to what Pedro did it's a close call. I happen to feel that Pedro is the GOAT, but you could make an argument for those 2 guys (koufax and gibson).

Randy Johnson is about as close to Pedro as you're going to get in this generation, but even he has a higher career ERA than Petey.

[828791Redskins]

Gibson and Koufax both pitched off of higher mounds and in the "dead ball" era. If you look at the average major league ERA during that time and compare it to what Pedro did it's a close call. I happen to feel that Pedro is the GOAT, but you could make an argument for those 2 guys (koufax and gibson).

Randy Johnson is about as close to Pedro as you're going to get in this generation, but even he has a higher career ERA than Petey.

Clemens Clemens Clemens!

[dukeuch]

Gibson and Koufax both pitched off of higher mounds and in the "dead ball" era. If you look at the average major league ERA during that time and compare it to what Pedro did it's a close call. I happen to feel that Pedro is the GOAT, but you could make an argument for those 2 guys (koufax and gibson).

Randy Johnson is about as close to Pedro as you're going to get in this generation, but even he has a higher career ERA than Petey.

Yeah, but you also have a lot more teams now, which need to fill out rosters with a lot of guys who back then would have been career minor leaguers, both pitchers and hitters.

I'm also talking about your "single year" claim.

[Keino]

Gibson and Koufax both pitched off of higher mounds and in the "dead ball" era. If you look at the average major league ERA during that time and compare it to what Pedro did it's a close call. I happen to feel that Pedro is the GOAT, but you could make an argument for those 2 guys (koufax and gibson).

Randy Johnson is about as close to Pedro as you're going to get in this generation, but even he has a higher career ERA than Petey.

You're joking right?

I can rattle off 10 pitchers greater than Pedro who didn't play in the High mound era (BTW - The dead ball era was prior to the 1920's).

Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Maddux, Brett Saberhagen, Bruce Suter, Jim Palmer, Doc Gooden, Juan Marichal, Catfish Hunter and the list goes on and on. All of these dudes have as strong of an argument as Pedro, if not stronger.

[Biggie]

I would've liked to see Frank Robinson charge the mound and beat the living crap out of Pedro, but then he would've gotten suspended. I bet the Mets manager would have gotten a pat on the back if he came out and hit someone from the Nats, since apparently you can bean our players with fastballs and get no punishment.

[bfauble83]

Suspensions...


http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060408&content_id=1390727&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was


:banghead:

[BostonSkins]

Huh, I was wrong about the Dead Ball Era. It doesn't change the fact that they were pitching off higher mounds.

Anyone who thinks Clemens is a better pitcher than Pedro has no idea what they are talking about and shouldn't be allowed to watch baseball anymore.

Just watch them pitch, Pedro is an artist, Clemens is a con-artist.

[RedskinsDave]

Huh, I was wrong about the Dead Ball Era. It doesn't change the fact that they were pitching off higher mounds.

Anyone who thinks Clemens is a better pitcher than Pedro has no idea what they are talking about and shouldn't be allowed to watch baseball anymore.

Just watch them pitch, Pedro is an artist, Clemens is a con-artist.

Great argument. :rolleyes: Because I say it is so, it is so. HA HA HA Clear the chowdah.

[lavarsamonster]

Huh, I was wrong about the Dead Ball Era. It doesn't change the fact that they were pitching off higher mounds.

Anyone who thinks Clemens is a better pitcher than Pedro has no idea what they are talking about and shouldn't be allowed to watch baseball anymore.

Just watch them pitch, Pedro is an artist, Clemens is a con-artist.


are you nuts, pedro is a great pitcher and all but you cant deny a whole body of work clemens has put together lets compare...

Pedro - 198-84 .702 win perc., 3 cy youngs, about 220 K's on avg per year.
1 world series, 2 20-win seasons
Clemens- 341-172 .664 win perc., 7 cy youngs 1 mvp, 225 K's on avg, 2 world series, 6 20-win seasons


you have a distorted view of pedro because you are probably just upset that clemens left boston before winning a series and went on to become a yankee, nothing wrong with a little hatred towards him for that but dont let it skew reality for you

[rskinsfan10]

Wow....

[Dept_of_Defense]

I can't believe they announced the Nationals that are suspended, but.....no Mets?!?! How can they not announce the suspensions for NY? Are there even going to be any?

[csquared]

Huh, I was wrong about the Dead Ball Era. It doesn't change the fact that they were pitching off higher mounds.

Anyone who thinks Clemens is a better pitcher than Pedro has no idea what they are talking about and shouldn't be allowed to watch baseball anymore.

Just watch them pitch, Pedro is an artist, Clemens is a con-artist.
Cmon man lay off the Sam Adams for just a moment and listen to yourself. Pedro is a good pitcher but Clemens is one of the best ever."Con Artist" or not you cant deny the mans career stats.His stats tower over Pedros stats. Pedro also wont be pitching into his 40's like Clemens has been able to do. Pedro has maybe a year or 2 left and he is gone. And at that point his stats still wont be anywhere near Clemens.

[dukeuch]

Cmon man lay off the Sam Adams for just a moment and listen to yourself. Pedro is a good pitcher but Clemens is one of the best ever."Con Artist" or not you cant deny the mans career stats.His stats tower over Pedros stats. Pedro also wont be pitching into his 40's like Clemens has been able to do. Pedro has maybe a year or 2 left and he is gone. And at that point his stats still wont be anywhere near Clemens.

That's a hell of a claim. Evry year folks looks at Pedro's injuries and say "he's done" and every year he gets healthy and pitches well. Don't be surprised if he pitches well for another 5 years.

[csquared]

Which wouldnt suprise me BUT, he doesnt have the heart Clemens had.Pedro is basicly pitching because he gets paid.If he had any heart he would have stayed in Boston to win again.

[RedskinsDave]

Pedro better be hit today. It also should be a head shot, not some toss at his child-bearing hips.

[csquared]

Armas better get him right in the middle of the numbers smack dab on his back.

[828791Redskins]

Huh, I was wrong about the Dead Ball Era. It doesn't change the fact that they were pitching off higher mounds.

Anyone who thinks Clemens is a better pitcher than Pedro has no idea what they are talking about and shouldn't be allowed to watch baseball anymore.

Just watch them pitch, Pedro is an artist, Clemens is a con-artist.

Just google "greatest pitcher ever" or "best pitcher ever" and see what you get. You may want to go with the consensus on this one or you can just look silly. You're probably the only person i've ever heard says Pedro is better than Clemens.

[csquared]

Those Boston fans are still sour he left when he did.He is the best pitcher of my time at least and im 27.

[RedskinsDave]

One at bat for Petey and not even a pitch inside. That's crap, not to mention he was even walked. Frank has disappointed me here.

[RedskinsDave]

Nothing the second time up either. Armas is soft.

[bfauble83]

4-0 in the 1st...:banghead:

[Keino]

Nothing the second time up either. Armas is soft.

You will be proud to know that when I pitched for Good Counsel, I had no problem plunking an O'Connell kid who was talking trash.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I would imagine the Nats were warned about plunking Pedro in this game. It would have been too obvious. Wait for everyone to forget about it and then do it. If they don't retaliate at some point this season I'll be disappointed.

[RedskinsDave]

You will be proud to know that when I pitched for Good Counsel, I had no problem plunking an O'Connell kid who was talking trash.

It's part of the game. Of course I assume O'Connell still won since you guys had some rough years.

[Keino]

It's part of the game. Of course I assume O'Connell still won since you guys had some rough years.

I was 5-2 lifetime against O'Connell.

We won the WMAC Chip my JR year, and I was 9-1 as a Pitcher. Pitched 6 2/3 Perfect innings of relief against Gonzaga that year and beat DeMatha.

My lone loss was to O'Connell in a 2-1 game at their place. (I hated them) I plunked a few O'Connell players and 2 DeMatha players. They were crowding the plate ;)

In my 3 years on Varsity, we never finished worse than 3rd in the Conference.

Mike Venafro who made it to the show, was Paul VI's best pitcher and we used to battle (Pitched a 1-hitter against them). If I were a left and not a righty I would've gotten some looks. Not much room for a Righty who maxes out in the low 80's.

[RedskinsDave]

I was 5-2 lifetime against O'Connell.

We won the WMAC Chip my JR year, and I was 9-1 as a Pitcher. Pitched 6 2/3 Perfect innings of relief against Gonzaga that year and beat DeMatha.

My lone loss was to O'Connell in a 2-1 game at their place. (I hated them) I plunked a few O'Connell players and 2 DeMatha players. They were crowding the plate ;)

In my 3 years on Varsity, we never finished worse than 3rd in the Conference.

Mike Venafro who made it to the show, was Paul VI's best pitcher and we used to battle (Pitched a 1-hitter against them). If I were a left and not a righty I would've gotten some looks. Not much room for a Righty who maxes out in the low 80's.

Were you at Carroll or Counsel? I must have confused your school.

[Keino]

Were you at Carroll or Counsel? I must have confused your school.

Counsel. I'm a Falcon baby, not a Lion.


Carroll's last year at being remotely competetive in baseball was my Soph year. My Jr. year they had Marvin Graves as a pitcher, but anyone can hit hard and Straight heat.

[dukeuch]

Which wouldnt suprise me BUT, he doesnt have the heart Clemens had.Pedro is basicly pitching because he gets paid.If he had any heart he would have stayed in Boston to win again.

You mean the way Clemens stuck in Boston, er, Toronto, er, NY, er, Houston?

[BostonSkins]

are you nuts, pedro is a great pitcher and all but you cant deny a whole body of work clemens has put together lets compare...

Pedro - 198-84 .702 win perc., 3 cy youngs, about 220 K's on avg per year.
1 world series, 2 20-win seasons
Clemens- 341-172 .664 win perc., 7 cy youngs 1 mvp, 225 K's on avg, 2 world series, 6 20-win seasons


you have a distorted view of pedro because you are probably just upset that clemens left boston before winning a series and went on to become a yankee, nothing wrong with a little hatred towards him for that but dont let it skew reality for you

How are Clemens' stats better? He has a lower career winning percentage, higher career ERA and WHIP. Pedro also leads clemens in K/9 Clemens=8.61 k/9 to Pedro's 10.26.

To say that Roger Clemens isn't motivated by money is assinine at best. He has gone everywhere for the money, except for the one year in Houston where he took the hometown discount. Then the next year he wanted 19 million...what a guy!

Clemens is very good, but he's no Pedro.

[Keino]

How are Clemens' stats better? He has a lower career winning percentage, higher career ERA and WHIP. Pedro also leads clemens in K/9 Clemens=8.61 k/9 to Pedro's 10.26.

To say that Roger Clemens isn't motivated by money is assinine at best. He has gone everywhere for the money, except for the one year in Houston where he took the hometown discount. Then the next year he wanted 19 million...what a guy!

Clemens is very good, but he's no Pedro.

Um, How about the 300 + wins. Or maybe the fact that no team is his "Daddy". Or the number of 20 win seasons. Or the fact that even pushing 40, Clemens is still as effective as Pedro has ever been.

Im sure a few of those 7 Cy Youngs were earned while Pedro was in the league.

[BostonSkins]

Um, How about the 300 + wins. Or maybe the fact that no team is his "Daddy". Or the number of 20 win seasons. Or the fact that even pushing 40, Clemens is still as effective as Pedro has ever been.

Im sure a few of those 7 Cy Youngs were earned while Pedro was in the league.

Sorry for using actual statistics to back up my argument.

Most of Clemens' Cy Young's have come in a different league than Pedro. The award is subjective though, actual numbers prove Pedro is a better pitcher, not post game comments, not awards.

Clemens has a longer career so you would expect him to have more career wins. That is why I used winning percentage.

In no statistical category is Clemens a better pitcher. I am sorry that Pedro got you guys upset by hitting a batter or two but don't let it cloud your judgement.

[ihatedallas]

at the end of Clemens first 14 seasons, he had 213 wins....after Pedros, 197.
Thats how you have to look at it, becuase theres an almost 10 year gap between the 2 players.

[Keino]

Sorry for using actual statistics to back up my argument.

Most of Clemens' Cy Young's have come in a different league than Pedro. The award is subjective though, actual numbers prove Pedro is a better pitcher, not post game comments, not awards.

Clemens has a longer career so you would expect him to have more career wins. That is why I used winning percentage.

In no statistical category is Clemens a better pitcher. I am sorry that Pedro got you guys upset by hitting a batter or two but don't let it cloud your judgement.


HUH? The number of Cy Young awards (THe award given to each league's best pitcher) is not a statistic?

6 20 win seasons is also a statisitc, it just doesnt support your argument.

As for the wins vs wining percentage argument, they speak to different aspects. One player has shown sustained excellence for a number of years, as evidenced by the more than 300 wins (Automatic for HOF with that number BTW), while the other, peaked in 98 when he won his last Cy Young and hasn't been the same player since. He won't make it to 300, because he won't play long enough to do it. He's 34 and needs to win 143 more games in 8 years to match Clemens. That means about 18 wins per year. He is simply no longer capable of that type of production. When the totality of their careers is viewed side by side, nobody will view Pedro as a better pitcher.

Pedro's productions has tapered off. I realize this may be hard for you to accept, but he will not win 15 games as a Met. Just like Doc Gooden, for a few years, Pedro was definately the better of the two, yet nobody will view Doc as a greater pitcher when it is all said and done.

[redskin_rich]

I agree with the title of this thread.


BTW, has Pedro beat up any old men lately?

[RedskinsDave]

Let's not forget Mrs. Martinez, that your husband's winning percentage may be influenced by the fact that he pitches hard into the season, takes a few weeks off and then comes back to pitch hard again. I knew they legalized that kind of marriage up there but I had no idea Pedro took advantage of it.

[dukeuch]

I agree with the title of this thread.


BTW, has Pedro beat up any old men lately?

When has he ever? Oh, you mean when that nutty Gerbil came running at him throwing a puch, and he sidestepped him and pushed him down? Hey, nobody wants to get puched, even by an old man. At least he didn't throw a broken bat at a guy running out a grounder (how dare Piazza break a bat at me?).

[dukeuch]

Pedro's productions has tapered off. I realize this may be hard for you to accept, but he will not win 15 games as a Met. Just like Doc Gooden, for a few years, Pedro was definately the better of the two, yet nobody will view Doc as a greater pitcher when it is all said and done.

My origianal dog in this whole thread was that Pedro, by virtue of hitting batters, is no more a punk than Clemens, who also hit a lot of batters. Joe Torre definately thought Clemons was a punk until he became a Yankee.

So I am not even saying that Pedro is better than CLemens, but Pedro is pretty darn close, and in some statistical categories is better. Personally, I think ERA is the best measure if you are going to pick just one. Pedros career era is better, and his era since 1998 is a lot better. Pedro's era since 1998 has been over 3.00 twice, 3.90 once and 3.04 last year. yeah, he's had some nagging injuries, but he keeps coming back. Every year they say he's done, and every year he has a good year.

[Keino]

My whole point is that in 10 years this is not even a discussion.

[RedskinsDave]

My whole point is that in 10 years this is not even a discussion.

Exactly. Pedro will be more compared to the other guys who only pitch 25 games a year.

[BostonSkins]

If Pedro ever had a year like Clemens' 2002 in pinstripes people would be beside themselves.

A 4.35 ERA?!?!?!?!? 13 - 6. People would have been jumping off bridges if Pedro had a season like that.

Pedro's worst year ever was 2004 and he was 16-9 with a 3.90 ERA.

Pedro has made at least 29 starts every year since 1995 with the exception being 2001 when he was injured. He has started roughly the same number of games as Clemens since 1995 (346 for Clemens vs. 328 for Pedro)

Or you could just continue to make comments that can't be backed up by statistics.

[Keino]

If Pedro has a year like that after pitching at a high level for 19 seasons, I can't see people being all over him.

People are all over Pedro because he lacks heart.

[dukeuch]

Exactly. Pedro will be more compared to the other guys who only pitch 25 games a year.
RD & Keino:

Well, Pedro averages 29 starts a year if you toss his first two years where he started a total of 3 (he was a reliever his second year). Clemens averaged 30.5 starts a year.

I'll wager there are a lot of 25 start per year pitchers who would love to win as many games as Pedro has/will. I'd would not be surprised if the is NO pitcher who averaged 25 starts a year and has as many wins as Pedro has now.

If Pedro averages 16 wins per year for the next six years, he's basically at 300; auto HOF. That's no ordinary pitcher.

Keino: Pedro won't win 15 games as a Met? Name the bet, I'll take it, then look at his stats for last year and send me a check. The Mets are a lot better than they were last year, too.

BTW: How has Maddux's name not come up in comparison to "Clemens, the best pitcher of all time"? Maddux is going to end up winning more than any of these other guys.

[Keino]

RD & Keino:

Well, Pedro averages 29 starts a year if you toss his first two years where he started a total of 3 (he was a reliever his second year). Clemens averaged 30.5 starts a year.

I'll wager there are a lot of 25 start per year pitchers who would love to win as many games as Pedro has/will. I'd would not be surprised if the is NO pitcher who averaged 25 starts a year and has as many wins as Pedro has now.

If Pedro averages 16 wins per year for the next six years, he's basically at 300; auto HOF. That's no ordinary pitcher.

Keino: Pedro won't win 15 games as a Met? Name the bet, I'll take it, then look at his stats for last year and send me a check. The Mets are a lot better than they were last year, too.

BTW: How has Maddux's name not come up in comparison to "Clemens, the best pitcher of all time"? Maddux is going to end up winning more than any of these other guys.


From where I sit, Maddux is better than both. Pedro is one helluva pitcher, my contention is that Clemens is better, based on sustained excellence than Pedro and that there are any number of players that can lay claim to GOAT. Someone else tried to argue that Pedro is the GOAT, hands down, a contention I find laughable.

BTW - I don't think he wins 15 games going forward. He barely won 15 last year, and he will hit the wall this year, as he has for the last few come mid-season.

[dukeuch]

From where I sit, Maddux is better than both. Pedro is one helluva pitcher, my contention is that Clemens is better, based on sustained excellence than Pedro and that there are any number of players that can lay claim to GOAT. Someone else tried to argue that Pedro is the GOAT, hands down, a contention I find laughable.

BTW - I don't think he wins 15 games going forward. He barely won 15 last year, and he will hit the wall this year, as he has for the last few come mid-season.

You might be right, but I don't think so. The Mets are vastly improved.

Also, someone else talked aobut how much better Clemens is in the post season than Pedro. Clemens has been there more than Pedro, but I invite whoever made that point to take a look at the stats and report back.

[RedskinsDave]

If Pedro ever had a year like Clemens' 2002 in pinstripes people would be beside themselves.

A 4.35 ERA?!?!?!?!? 13 - 6. People would have been jumping off bridges if Pedro had a season like that.

Pedro's worst year ever was 2004 and he was 16-9 with a 3.90 ERA.

Pedro has made at least 29 starts every year since 1995 with the exception being 2001 when he was injured. He has started roughly the same number of games as Clemens since 1995 (346 for Clemens vs. 328 for Pedro)

Or you could just continue to make comments that can't be backed up by statistics.

Roughly the same number? LOL, that's an average of two less. That's a big deal for a starting pitcher.

[dukeuch]

Hey Keino:

Pedro is now 5-0 one month into the season, and the Mets are playing .682 ball. I guess you are totally depending on Pedro getting hurt when you say he will not win 15, or do you think a healthy Pedro will not do it?

[Keino]

Hey Keino:

Pedro is now 5-0 one month into the season, and the Mets are playing .682 ball. I guess you are totally depending on Pedro getting hurt when you say he will not win 15, or do you think a healthy Pedro will not do it?

I think he'll hit a wall come mid-season, not necessarily injured. He must've won last night, because yesterday he was 4-0

[RedskinsDave]

Well these guys think Pedro is 9th of the LIVING pitchers:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gammons_peter&id=2426053

[BostonSkins]

Well these guys think Pedro is 9th of the LIVING pitchers:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gammons_peter&id=2426053

Much like everyone's arguments here, ESPN used no stats to back up their argument. This article is a joke

[RedskinsDave]

Much like everyone's arguments here, ESPN used no stats to back up their argument. This article is a joke

What is it with you sabermetrics fools? Stats aren't everything and often are nothing. People like Bill James who only use stats are the morons.

[Keino]

Geez Dave, Peter Gammons has ZERO credibility.

BTW Boston, this is the list of the people who coplied thse rankings:

Dave Barnett, Jim Callis, Jim Caple, Dave Campbell, Jerry Crasnick, Orestes Destrade, Peter Gammons, Gary Gillette, Pedro Gomez, Orel Hershiser, Eric Karabell, Eric Karros, Bob Klapisch, Tim Kurkjian, Michael Knisley, Buck Martinez, Sean McAdam, Sean McDonough, Jon Miller, Rob Neyer, Steve Phillips, Karl Ravech, Phil Rogers, Enrique Rojas, David Schoenfield, Alan Schwarz, Jon Sciambi, John Shea, Dan Shulman, Jayson Stark, Rick Sutcliffe, Gary Thorne


I certainly would think that some of the former pitchers on this list are capable of analyzing the position. There's a couple of Cy Young winners on this list.

[dukeuch]

Well these guys think Pedro is 9th of the LIVING pitchers:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=gammons_peter&id=2426053

Yeah, but third out of active, behind the other two guys we are talking about. Again, I am not even saying Pedro is better than Clemens, but it certainly is closer than many people think, and Pedro is stillpitching, we don't know where he will end up. Also, Clemens ahead of Koufax, Gibson? I don't htink so. I'd take a few of those guys in their prime over Clemens in his prime any day of the week.

Can we continue in this thread with a "Road to 15 wins Pedro Watch" or should it be a seperate thread? He's pitching tonight.

[ncg1983]

Pedro is a bitch, I'd love to see him versus guillen in a ring.

[828791Redskins]

Didn't Kris Benson hit a homer off him last night.

[Keino]

It's interesting that Pedro has lost 3 of his last 5 starts winning one and getting one no-decision. I believe he is 6-3 after starting off 5-0.

[RedskinsDave]

It's interesting that Pedro has lost 3 of his last 5 starts winning one and getting one no-decision. I believe he is 6-3 after starting off 5-0.

I think your 15 wins looks pretty safe.

[RedskinsDave]

Pedro falls to 9-5 and strains his calf. He may go on the DL. That should end any chance he has for 15 wins.

[Keino]

It was going to be tough for him to get there without the calf injury. Now all I need is Dukeuch to come in here and acknowledge that maybe Pedro is an old man who is britle and will not reach 300 wins, and therefore cannot be thought of in higher regard than any Pitcher who has.

[BostonSkins]

It was going to be tough for him to get there without the calf injury. Now all I need is Dukeuch to come in here and acknowledge that maybe Pedro is an old man who is britle and will not reach 300 wins, and therefore cannot be thought of in higher regard than any Pitcher who has.

I suggest you go and read the article about Pedro on ESPN.

Soon he will be one of three pitchers with a career ERA under 3.00, 200 wins and 3,000 K's. So, applying your own logic, you cannot regard any pitcher without those credentials any higher than Mr. Martinez.

[RedskinsDave]

I suggest you go and read the article about Pedro on ESPN.

Soon he will be one of three pitchers with a career ERA under 3.00, 200 wins and 3,000 K's. So, applying your own logic, you cannot regard any pitcher without those credentials any higher than Mr. Martinez.

You did get the memo letting all you Sox fans off Pedro's jock right? You're supposed to be telling everyone how great Homer Beckett is now.

[Keino]

I suggest you go and read the article about Pedro on ESPN.

Soon he will be one of three pitchers with a career ERA under 3.00, 200 wins and 3,000 K's. So, applying your own logic, you cannot regard any pitcher without those credentials any higher than Mr. Martinez.

Well applying my logic.....Every single pitcher with 300 wins is better than him. Certainly Gregg Maddox is, who's lifetime ERA is 3.06. I'll take that for 120 more wins personally. (That btw is 1/4 of run per 9 innings pitched. A very insignificant figure when compared to the 120 win difference)

Saying he is one of the best 4 ever is applying your logic.....

[BostonSkins]

Well applying my logic.....Every single pitcher with 300 wins is better than him. Certainly Gregg Maddox is, who's lifetime ERA is 3.06. I'll take that for 120 more wins personally. (That btw is 1/4 of run per 9 innings pitched. A very insignificant figure when compared to the 120 win difference)

Saying he is one of the best 4 ever is applying your logic.....

I happen to think that wins is a misleading stat when it comes to pitching since you are at the mercy of your team. Pedro was on some pretty bad Sox teams while he was here before 2003.

At the same time, Pedro does have the highest winning percentage of any active pitcher.

I agree that Maddux deserves to be talked about as one of the best all time, some of the other members of the 300 win club I have reservations about.

[Keino]

I happen to think that wins is a misleading stat when it comes to pitching since you are at the mercy of your team. Pedro was on some pretty bad Sox teams while he was here before 2003.

At the same time, Pedro does have the highest winning percentage of any active pitcher.

I agree that Maddux deserves to be talked about as one of the best all time, some of the other members of the 300 win club I have reservations about.


ERA is a more misleading stat that wins.

[RedskinsDave]

I happen to think that wins is a misleading stat when it comes to pitching since you are at the mercy of your team. Pedro was on some pretty bad Sox teams while he was here before 2003.

At the same time, Pedro does have the highest winning percentage of any active pitcher.

I agree that Maddux deserves to be talked about as one of the best all time, some of the other members of the 300 win club I have reservations about.

92-94-85-82-93-95-98. Those were the win totals while he was with the Sox. Just because they weren't better than the Yanks does not mean they were bad.

[Keino]

I happen to think that wins is a misleading stat when it comes to pitching since you are at the mercy of your team. Pedro was on some pretty bad Sox teams while he was here before 2003.

At the same time, Pedro does have the highest winning percentage of any active pitcher.

I agree that Maddux deserves to be talked about as one of the best all time, some of the other members of the 300 win club I have reservations about.

BTW - WHo from this list do you have reservations about?

Cy Young

Walter Johnson

Grover Alexander

Christy Mathewson

Warren Spahn

Pud Galvin

Kid Nichols

Tim Keefe

Roger Clemens

Steve Carlton

John Clarkson

Eddie Plank

Nolan Ryan

Don Sutton

Greg Maddux

Phil Niekro

Gaylord Perry

Tom Seaver

Old Hoss Radbourn

Mickey Welch

Lefty Grove

Early Wynn

[WarEagle]

In the late 1990's (I forget what year), I watched Pedro pitch a brilliant game one day at Fenway, but the Sox lost 2-1. There seemed to be a flurry of those kind of games that season, when the Sox bats were silent. I think Clemens is having a similar time with the Astros right now.

With apologies to Pedro-haters out there, his number is going to be retired by the Sox some day.

[Keino]

In the late 1990's (I forget what year), I watched Pedro pitch a brilliant game one day at Fenway, but the Sox lost 2-1. There seemed to be a flurry of those kind of games that season, when the Sox bats were silent. I think Clemens is having a similar time with the Astros right now.

With apologies to Pedro-haters out there, his number is going to be retired by the Sox some day.

As well it should. Im not advancing the argument that Pedro Sucks. He's a HOF pitcher for sure, but someone advanced the notion that he is the hands down best and I took exception. He's not going to win the mythical 300.

[WarEagle]

As well it should. Im not advancing the argument that Pedro Sucks. He's a HOF pitcher for sure, but someone advanced the notion that he is the hands down best and I took exception. He's not going to win the mythical 300.

This is very true. There have been so many great pitchers throughout the years. Babe Ruth was a heck of a pitcher at one time. (For the record, his number was never retired by the Sawx..)

[BostonSkins]

I happen to think that Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are extremely overrated.

I think Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time, not the most durable.

At his peak Pedro was the best there ever was.

[RedskinsDave]

I happen to think that Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are extremely overrated.

I think Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time, not the most durable.

At his peak Pedro was the best there ever was.

Nancy said "just say no"

[Keino]

I happen to think that Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are extremely overrated.

I think Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time, not the most durable.

At his peak Pedro was the best there ever was.

What about Tom Seaver who was durable, or Steve Carlton? Plus you can't leave off people like Cy Young and Walter Johnson.

BTW - Tom Seaver is in the elusive club you mention, but he has 300+ wins.

[danny's stogie]

I happen to think that Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are extremely overrated.

I think Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time, not the most durable.

At his peak Pedro was the best there ever was.

There was a 4 year stretch when Pedro was as good a pitcher as the world had ever seen. His 2000 season is right up there with the greatest year a pitcher has ever had, but Doc Gooden also had a similar stretch minus the longevity. That has to be factored in when determining the all-time greats in baseball.

[WarEagle]

I happen to think that Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are extremely overrated.

I think Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time, not the most durable.

At his peak Pedro was the best there ever was.

Did his peak coincide with the Age of Steriods? If it did, then you have an excellent argument. Pedro is of such slight built, it's hard to believe he shut down the Frankensteins.

[BostonSkins]

With the Yankees in town for 5 games in 4 days this weekend I am reminded how much excitement Pedro's starts brought to an already hyped series. Sox fans loved him, Yankee fans hated him and you knew something exciting was going to happen.

He made the place electric like no other pitcher I have ever seen.

[RedskinsDave]

Game 1 to the good guys.

[RedskinsDave]

Game 2 to the good guys too. Also a record time for a nine inning game. Those guys are going to sleep well tonight.

[dukeuch]

It was going to be tough for him to get there without the calf injury. Now all I need is Dukeuch to come in here and acknowledge that maybe Pedro is an old man who is britle and will not reach 300 wins, and therefore cannot be thought of in higher regard than any Pitcher who has.

Looks like you are correct in that Pedro will not get 15 this year, due to injury. I guess he is old, but hey, he's still pitching well when healthy, and he has the best era of all active pitchers, which is pretty good. I think he'll be contributing to the Met's success later this season and in the playoffs. Heck, the Met's are leading their division by 14 games, might be a good time for him to rest up.

And getting back to the original point of the thread, I don't think he plunks guys much more than a guy like Clemens, who nobody calls a punk (except for Joe Torre, when Clemens was with the Jays).

[dukeuch]

I happen to think that Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens are extremely overrated.

I think Pedro is the greatest pitcher of all time, not the most durable.

At his peak Pedro was the best there ever was.

At his peak, NOBODY was as good as Koufax. Check out his stats for the four year stretch ending with the year he retired ('66 or '67), and then remember he was pitching for a team with a pretty mediocre offense.

Nolan Ryan overrated? His only failing was that he played for crappy teams. He had a losing record for Houston one year when he lead the league in ERA (at least for starters, but I think overall). I'll bet the win percentage for the teams he played for was well below .500. As for Clemens, who I despise but think was a great pitcher, I can't imagine how anyone would think he is overrated, except for maybe his Yankee years when he was still pretty damn good, but any good Yankee is going to be overrated.

[dukeuch]

Game 2 to the good guys too. Also a record time for a nine inning game. Those guys are going to sleep well tonight.

Dave:

How did you come to be a Yankee fan? Originally from NYC area or what?

[Keino]

Looks like you are correct in that Pedro will not get 15 this year, due to injury. I guess he is old, but hey, he's still pitching well when healthy, and he has the best era of all active pitchers, which is pretty good. I think he'll be contributing to the Met's success later this season and in the playoffs. Heck, the Met's are leading their division by 14 games, might be a good time for him to rest up.

And getting back to the original point of the thread, I don't think he plunks guys much more than a guy like Clemens, who nobody calls a punk (except for Joe Torre, when Clemens was with the Jays).


It's funny you say that, because I never was a big Clemens fan. I used to call him a punk all the time. At least Pedro was throwing HIgh and Tight in the NL. It seems to me that when Clemens moved the NL he became a little less authoritative about the inside part of plate when he had to bat as well. I've been known to call Clemens a punk. His move on Piazza was classless at best.

But my point about Pedro all along is that he is on the backside of his career and cannot stay healthy for a full season.

[danny's stogie]

It's funny you say that, because I never was a big Clemens fan. I used to call him a punk all the time. At least Pedro was throwing HIgh and Tight in the NL. It seems to me that when Clemens moved the NL he became a little less authoritative about the inside part of plate when he had to bat as well. I've been known to call Clemens a punk. His move on Piazza was classless at best.

But my point about Pedro all along is that he is on the backside of his career and cannot stay healthy for a full season.

Clemens = grade A arse. He's kind of the baseball equivalent of Brett Favre, he could take a rifle into a bell tower and people would still find a way to defend him.


Game 2 to the good guys too. Also a record time for a nine inning game. Those guys are going to sleep well tonight.

Don't worry Dave, the Sox were just trying to wear down the Yankee hitters by giving them so many plate appearances.

[RedskinsDave]

Dave:

How did you come to be a Yankee fan? Originally from NYC area or what?

My family is all from New York. My dad from NYC and my mom the Albany area. It's the only team they took with them from New York after the war.

[RedskinsDave]

Game three ALSO goes to the good guys in another offensive display.

[J Raab]

ERA is a more misleading stat that wins.


I think this statement killed your arguement. When comparing pitchers of different eras it is misleading, but that is what ERA+ is for.

[BostonSkins]

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

[danny's stogie]

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

It's fantastic to know that Tim Hudson is a better pitcher than Bruce Sutter, Christy Mathewson, Sandy Koufax, Carl Hubbell, Stan Coveleski, Bob Gibson, and Tom Seaver. Thanks for the enlightenment. :rolleyes:

[csquared]

And Pedro is the best pitcher ever. Uh huh. Walter Johnson couldnt hold Pedro's jock right. I could adjust some stats too and make Billy Ripken the best 2nd baseman of all time. Cmon Boston Skins hop on to the Josh Beckett train. Let Pedro go. Kinda like a first love you never want to get over.:cry:

[Keino]

I think this statement killed your arguement. When comparing pitchers of different eras it is misleading, but that is what ERA+ is for.


Please explain.

My issue with Bostonskins is that he seems to think that 2.97 is significantly better than 3.06 for ERA, as evidenced by the factoid he threw out there about 200 game winners with 3000 Ks. I then listed 300 game winners and advanced the argument that by virtue of winning 300, they have shown that they sustained excellence, not just had a few years of dominance. As someone already mentioned, Doc Gooden and plenty of other names could come up if that is the standard.

[BostonSkins]

OK, here's Walter Johnson

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml

Koufax

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/koufasa01.shtml

Pedro

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martipe02.shtml

Please look at the ERA, and then the League Average ERA and tell me that what Pedro did isn't amazing. All the while during the steroid era.

[danny's stogie]

OK, here's Walter Johnson

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml

Koufax

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/koufasa01.shtml

Pedro

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martipe02.shtml

Please look at the ERA, and then the League Average ERA and tell me that what Pedro did isn't amazing. All the while during the steroid era.

BS, check out that list -- there is a huge weight given to good pitchers in the 90s and 00s. Mark Buehrle and Hudson are on that list. They don't have particularly spectacular ERAs, but the fact that they played at a time when more runs were being scored, in part because of the massively great dilution of pitching talent, they are on that list.

Let's take a look at how these stats work:

For example, using one year's stats to show how the distribution works,

Koufax (1964): ERA - 1.74; League ERA - 3.25

Pedro (2000): ERA - 1.74; League ERA - 4.97

Because Pedro's 2000 ERA is so much lower than the league average he is percievably better than Koufax in 64. But to equal Pedro's ERA against replacement value look at the ERA that Koufax would have had to have: .02. Is that ERA even possible over the 223 innings Koufax pitched? He would have given up a total of .5 runs the ENTIRE SEASON.

So the point is it's an unfair weight to place on pitchers of two drastically different eras. Koufax and Pedro both have outcomes independent of how the rest of the league's pitching staffs fair.

[RedskinsDave]

You'll have to excuse Bostonskins. It's tough to make an argument while watching your team tank it at home.

[J Raab]

Please explain.



You said that ERA is a more misleading stat than Wins. Number of Wins is far and away the most misleading stat for pitchers, as it is almost entirely dependent on the offense behind the pitcher. ERA at times can be misleading, but its not even close to Wins, which is as misleading as you can possibly get. See Bruce Chen, 2005.

[RedskinsDave]

The best way to judge a pitcher is to use the ERA+ and WHIP. The pitcher controls the WHIP more than any other stat.

[BostonSkins]

The best way to judge a pitcher is to use the ERA+ and WHIP. The pitcher controls the WHIP more than any other stat.

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

[danny's stogie]

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

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...P_career.shtml
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)

[BostonSkins]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...P_career.shtml
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)

Good point, way to back up your argument with statistics, tool.

[danny's stogie]

Good point, way to back up your argument with statistics, tool.

It's about as convenient as you ignoring everyone elses comments and posting a different set of stats.

[BostonSkins]

No.

RedskinsDave said that WHIP was a better statistic to use to judge a pitcher's effectiveness. So I posted a link to career WHIP leaders. The rest of you respond with comments such as "do you miss Pedro?" and "How about Beckett?" that add nothing to the discussion. So I stopped typing words and let the numbers speak for themselves.

[csquared]

Ok so the WHIP for Pedro was 1.0215 and Walter Johnson was 1.0611. Then you look at wins. At the time that site posted Pedro had 197. Walter Johnson had 417. So obviously that .0414 whip isnt doing Pedro very good. Walter Johnson pitched in over 800 games in his career Pedro is at just over half. So for Walter Johnson to only trail Pedro by 0.414 and pitching in double the games shows how great of a pitcher he was. Lets look at innings pitched also.Since Pedro has the luxury of middle relief and closing pitchers where Johnson didnt. Pedro pitched 2513 innnings. Walter Johnson pitched 5915.More than double the innings.Lets also look at their 162 game average PEDRO 17-7 221 innings pitched 2.72 era WALTER 19-12 273 innings pitched and a 2.17 era. Your dumb adjusted stats mean nothing. Like i said before i could adjust stats too and make Billy Ripken your best 2nd baseman ever.

[Keino]

You said that ERA is a more misleading stat than Wins. Number of Wins is far and away the most misleading stat for pitchers, as it is almost entirely dependent on the offense behind the pitcher. ERA at times can be misleading, but its not even close to Wins, which is as misleading as you can possibly get. See Bruce Chen, 2005.

In some cases what you say is true, but when you look at someone like Nolan Ryan, that guy played for perennial losers. In fact it seems (I know this isn't the case) that they only won when he pitched on some of his teams.

I mean look at the years that Mussina was the Orioles only decent starter and had no run support. His wins carry some serious weight IMO.

[J Raab]

Ok so the WHIP for Pedro was 1.0215 and Walter Johnson was 1.0611. Then you look at wins. At the time that site posted Pedro had 197. Walter Johnson had 417. So obviously that .0414 whip isnt doing Pedro very good. Walter Johnson pitched in over 800 games in his career Pedro is at just over half. So for Walter Johnson to only trail Pedro by 0.414 and pitching in double the games shows how great of a pitcher he was. Lets look at innings pitched also.Since Pedro has the luxury of middle relief and closing pitchers where Johnson didnt. Pedro pitched 2513 innnings. Walter Johnson pitched 5915. More than double the innings. Lets also look at their 162 game average PEDRO 17-7 221 innings pitched 2.72 era WALTER 19-12 273 innings pitched and a 2.17 era. Your dumb adjusted stats mean nothing. Like i said before i could adjust stats too and make Billy Ripken your best 2nd baseman ever.


So are you saying that adjusting stats for things like time period and park factors is dumb and meaningless? That is just not the case. Barring a time machine, adjusted stats are the only way to realistically get an idea of what Johnson would do against the hitters of our time period.

The stats ive bolded are unadjusted stats. Walter Johnson put up those numbers in an entirely different era. No one has mentioned (I dont think) the fact that that was the "Deadball era". Hitting was entirely different then, and because of many factors, pitchers flat out dominated the hitters until the 20's. I dont have to explain how massive the offense is nowadays, but the fact that Pedro has put up nearly identical, unadjusted numbers as the greatest pitcher of the Deadball era, and the weak offense it entails, speaks volumes about his talents.

Also, the arguement about middle relievers is spacious. Its impossible to know how many pitches per game pitchers averaged back then. Any guess is pure speculation. Johnson, and Grove and Wood and everyone else back then, may have been throwing 95 pitch, CG shutouts. Johnson may have thrown double the innings Pedro did, but he also pitched in 1 1/2 times as many games in most years. Not to mention the fact that Johnson pitched 18 solid years as a starter, and Pedro has so far only pitched 10. Don't take that as an admission that Johnson is better than Pedro, because Id rather just say flat out, Johnson was probably a better pitcher than Pedro, it just goes to show the differences in the way pitchers pitched back then as opposed to now, and the fact that Pedro got started later in his life than Walter.

[RedskinsDave]

I think even comparing today's pitchers to guys from Nolan Ryan's days is wrong. Sure there are steroids but there have been more pitchers busted than anyone other position. There are so many stats these days that try to prove everything. Hell, there's a stat that attempts to show "clutch". I liked the SABR guys when they were a little group who was making sure baseball stats were accurate. Now they are an annoying bunch of stat geeks determined to show that a .270 career batter should be in the hall because of his "close and late" stats. Ugh.

[Keino]

I still think you need to attain 300 plus wins as a pitcher to have an argument for GOAT

[Keino]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...P_career.shtml
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)


I just clicked this link and ROTFLMAO

[danny's stogie]

So are you saying that adjusting stats for things like time period and park factors is dumb and meaningless? That is just not the case. Barring a time machine, adjusted stats are the only way to realistically get an idea of what Johnson would do against the hitters of our time period.

The stats ive bolded are unadjusted stats. Walter Johnson put up those numbers in an entirely different era. No one has mentioned (I dont think) the fact that that was the "Deadball era". Hitting was entirely different then, and because of many factors, pitchers flat out dominated the hitters until the 20's. I dont have to explain how massive the offense is nowadays, but the fact that Pedro has put up nearly identical, unadjusted numbers as the greatest pitcher of the Deadball era, and the weak offense it entails, speaks volumes about his talents.

Also, the arguement about middle relievers is spacious. Its impossible to know how many pitches per game pitchers averaged back then. Any guess is pure speculation. Johnson, and Grove and Wood and everyone else back then, may have been throwing 95 pitch, CG shutouts. Johnson may have thrown double the innings Pedro did, but he also pitched in 1 1/2 times as many games in most years. Not to mention the fact that Johnson pitched 18 solid years as a starter, and Pedro has so far only pitched 10. Don't take that as an admission that Johnson is better than Pedro, because Id rather just say flat out, Johnson was probably a better pitcher than Pedro, it just goes to show the differences in the way pitchers pitched back then as opposed to now, and the fact that Pedro got started later in his life than Walter.

Yes, but as I pointed out Pedro's adjusted stats are aided by the massive dilution of pitching in baseball today, thus there is a higher variance in Pedro's era than in Walter Johnson's. In order for Walter Johnson's adjusted stats to equal that of Pedro's he would likely have to have a negative ERA. It's statistically impossible for WJ to reach that just as it's nearly statistically impossible for a pitcher to have an ERA under 2 for an entire career regardless of the era they pitched in.

[BostonSkins]

To quote Ron Burgandy "We'll agree to disagree"

At this point we've already made our arguments and dug in our heels. Good points have been made as to the merits of longevity as well as what statistics are better gauges of what makes a good pitcher.

I happen to think Pedro is the greatest pitcher ever, and for the most part you all disagree. But I think that it is worth noting that there is no consensus as to greatest of all time since we all have our favorites.

[RedskinsDave]

Yes, but I think anyone who does not have a picture of Jeter with the words "loser" on it has more credibility.

[Keino]

I don't even think Pedro has an argument for GOAT.

[BostonSkins]

Yes, but I think anyone who does not have a picture of Jeter with the words "loser" on it has more credibility.

I feel the same way about someone with A-Rod in their avatar. That's an insult to Clinton Portis.

[Keino]

I feel the same way about someone with A-Rod in their avatar. That's an insult to Clinton Portis.

On this we agree. I feel any avatar with Arod and CP does a disservice ro CP.

[RedskinsDave]

I feel the same way about someone with A-Rod in their avatar. That's an insult to Clinton Portis.

It's not like I have an equal sign in the middle. That would be incorrect. It still would not be as incorrect, or as stupid, as saying one of the winningest players in all of baseball is a loser.

[dukeuch]

BS, check out that list -- there is a huge weight given to good pitchers in the 90s and 00s. Mark Buehrle and Hudson are on that list. They don't have particularly spectacular ERAs, but the fact that they played at a time when more runs were being scored, in part because of the massively great dilution of pitching talent, they are on that list.

Let's take a look at how these stats work:

For example, using one year's stats to show how the distribution works,

Koufax (1964): ERA - 1.74; League ERA - 3.25

Pedro (2000): ERA - 1.74; League ERA - 4.97

Because Pedro's 2000 ERA is so much lower than the league average he is percievably better than Koufax in 64. But to equal Pedro's ERA against replacement value look at the ERA that Koufax would have had to have: .02. Is that ERA even possible over the 223 innings Koufax pitched? He would have given up a total of .5 runs the ENTIRE SEASON.

So the point is it's an unfair weight to place on pitchers of two drastically different eras. Koufax and Pedro both have outcomes independent of how the rest of the league's pitching staffs fair.

WHile there is no way to prove it, I think the biggest difference between the league stats than and now is that you have a lot of what would have been mediocre or bad pitchers then who are starting now. Be it because there are more teams requiring more pitchers, more pitchers on each team (remember when every team had a four man rotation?) or something else, I think the top pitchers are roughly the same now as then, but the bottom pitchers are much worse now thatn then.

[NYCWA]

What a ridiculous comparison? Name another pitcher that played for such a short period of time and was such an overwhelming favorite to make the hall? Koufax was so dominent in his time, there are so few to truly compare him to. I like Pedro as I am a Met fan, but he does not belong in the same discussion.

[Keino]

What a ridiculous comparison? Name another pitcher that played for such a short period of time and was such an overwhelming favorite to make the hall? Koufax was so dominent in his time, there are so few to truly compare him to. I like Pedro as I am a Met fan, but he does not belong in the same discussion.

I think everyone who has posted on this thread with the exception of Bostonskins agrees with you that the comparison is absurd.

[BostonSkins]

This is the last time I am being drawn into this. I am going to post a link, please notice that Koufax and Pedro have pitched roughly the same amount of carreer innings. I am not going to comment one way or the other, I just want you to look at the stats.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=koufasa01:Sandy+Koufax&st=career

[RedskinsDave]

This is the last time I am being drawn into this. I am going to post a link, please notice that Koufax and Pedro have pitched roughly the same amount of carreer innings. I am not going to comment one way or the other, I just want you to look at the stats.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp2.cgi?I=koufasa01:Sandy+Koufax&st=career

What a minute!! Are you the midget Pedro was carrying around in '94?

[Keino]

Whenever I read a Bostonskins post on this thread, I picture Napoleon Dynamite doing the Vote for Pedro Dance.........

Edit: I thought I would provide the visual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XSWmPwuVNk

[BostonSkins]

Whenever I read a Bostonskins post on this thread, I picture Napoleon Dynamite doing the Vote for Pedro Dance.........

Edit: I thought I would provide the visual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XSWmPwuVNk

If you admit that Pedro is the greatest of all time all of your wildest dreams will come true.

[ryflan47]

If you admit that Pedro is the greatest of all time all of your wildest dreams will come true.

^ He does have a point.
Honestly, how many players can tip their cap and call the Yankees their daddy?
Anyone?

[J Raab]

If anyone here reads Firejoemorgan.com, you may have seen this, but they get into the arguement of Pedro vs. Koufax in one entry and give pretty good arguements for Pedro (seeing as how most of the writers there are Sox fans). Then in the comments section below the entry they debate a very good point a reader brings up favoring Koufax.

http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com/2006/08/give-me-c-give-me-h-give-me-a-give-me.html

The section concerning Pedro and Koufax is near the middle, the comments at the very end.