67 replies to this topic

[rglenmt]

Hope I chose the correct topic Forum subcategory? Sometimes, I mess up my impromptu sports posts and, am sorry, offend some grammatically correct and structurally sounder writers than me. Anyway, let's not call it a short career in terms of number of seasons, call it medium. Career is "Koufax" like, although I have not gone to recrds to see who played more seasons and presumably Pedro was not also a college basketball player, however, have not researched that either, for all I know maybe Martinez was a point guard. Discussion of Pedro being HOF worthy simply reminds us all how fortunate are we to have had so many great Red Sox players i.e. to just name a few in the lifetime of most of us e.g. Ted Williams, Carl Yaz, Tony Conigliaro, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Dewey Evans, Carlton Fisk, Roger Clemens, Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, Dustin Pedroia etc. Do we realize fans in some cities can watch their local team for a 60 year span of seasons and not come close to seeing such accomplishments and of course, as Red Sox fans we could go on and on. For what little it is worth, IMO, Pedro is worthy of HOF election.

[SumnerH]

Hope I chose the correct topic Forum subcategory? Sometimes, I mess up my impromptu sports posts and, am sorry, offend some grammatically correct and structurally sounder writers than me. Anyway, let's not call it a short career in terms of number of seasons, call it medium. Career is "Koufax" like, although I have not gone to recrds to see who played more seasons

As far as longevity goes, Pedro's career isn't really like Koufax's; Pedro played 18 seasons to Koufax's 12, put up 3154 Ks to Sandy's 2396, had a 219-100 record compared to 165-87, and put up 75.9 rWAR to Koufax's 54.5.

As far as peaks go, the two weren't really comparable either. Koufax was amazing in his best years, but Pedro was otherworldly. By ERA+, Pedro had 5 seasons better than Koufax's best (and another tied with it). During their primes, Pedro averaged a couple more K/9 and slightly less BB/9. Their ERAs were nearly comparable despite Pedro pitching in Fenway in the steroid era and Koufax pitching off a Mt Everest-height mound in Chavez Ravine during one of the lowest run-scoring eras in history.

As far as the Hall of Fame goes, he's got the "intangibles" that help with voters to go along with his stats: his 1999 and 2000 are probably the best back-to-back years in history, and 2000 is arguably the greatest single season by a pitcher ever. He helped lead the Sox one of (the?) biggest on-field baseball stories of the last decade by coming back from down 0-3 to the Yanks, and their first title in 86 years. There's no way to argue that he wasn't respected or feared, and he had big-game postseason heroics (e.g. coming out of the 'pen to no-hit the Indians for 6 innings in 1999). He exceeds all the usual black ink/grey ink/Hall of fame Monitor/Hall of Fame Standards benchmarks for HOFers (Koufax misses on grey ink and HOF Standards, FWIW). If he doesn't get in, it'll be a travesty.

[The Boomer]

As far as longevity goes, Pedro's career isn't really like Koufax's; Pedro played 18 seasons to Koufax's 12, put up 3154 Ks to Sandy's 2396, had a 219-100 record compared to 165-87, and put up 75.9 rWAR to Koufax's 54.5.

As far as peaks go, the two weren't really comparable either. Koufax was amazing in his best years, but Pedro was otherworldly. By ERA+, Pedro had 5 seasons better than Koufax's best (and another tied with it). During their primes, Pedro averaged a couple more K/9 and slightly less BB/9. Their ERAs were nearly comparable despite Pedro pitching in Fenway in the steroid era and Koufax pitching off a Mt Everest-height mound in Chavez Ravine during one of the lowest run-scoring eras in history.

As far as the Hall of Fame goes, he's got the "intangibles" that help with voters to go along with his stats: his 1999 and 2000 are probably the best back-to-back years in history, and 2000 is arguably the greatest single season by a pitcher ever. He helped lead the Sox one of (the?) biggest on-field baseball stories of the last decade by coming back from down 0-3 to the Yanks, and their first title in 86 years. There's no way to argue that he wasn't respected or feared, and he had big-game postseason heroics (e.g. coming out of the 'pen to no-hit the Indians for 6 innings in 1999). He exceeds all the usual black ink/grey ink/Hall of fame Monitor/Hall of Fame Standards benchmarks for HOFers (Koufax misses on grey ink and HOF Standards, FWIW). If he doesn't get in, it'll be a travesty.

A first ballot pick easy. He goes in with his Red Sox cap. Koufax pitched in his prime during a relatively dead ball era in the 60's. Pedro pitched in an era of high octane offense with juiced hitters. Comparing Pedro to Koufax is like comparing Brady to Montana. During their primes, each of them arguably compared to their HOF predecessor but, as their careers progressed, both arguably exceeded the overall performances of these icons from another generation.

[smastroyin]

Koufax gets extra credit for his career because it ended with disease rather than injury/trauma. People assume he could have just pitched another 4 years like the last 4 of his career. But, it's an interesting comparison anyway. Let's look at some numbers.

Summary Numbers that may or may not make sense to compare:
WAR (BBRef): Pedro 75.9 (23rd all-time), Koufax 54.5 (71st)
Adjusted ERA+: Pedro 154 (2nd all-time, 1st among starters), Koufax 131 (tied for 38th)

Component numbers for what they controlled:
K/9: Pedro 10.08 (3rd), Koufax 9.28 (6th)
K/BB: Pedro 4.15 (3rd), Koufax 2.93 (43rd)
HR/9: Pedro .761 (691), Koufax .790 (733)

Pedro was better. For those who care, he also had a better BAA and WP, which HoF types might like to look at. His lifetime ERA of 2.93 is the only starting pitcher ERA less than 3 for any pitcher in the post-strike era.

The complaints about the length of his career are somewhat valid though we won't know for a while how the era differences affect this. To be sure, though, Pedro is a much better case than Koufax (over 90 more starts and over 1000 more innings) or Dizzy Dean (also a first ballot guy with a very short career). Unfortunately for Pedro when comparing to contemporaries, he has some titans or longevity with Clemens and the Braves trio (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz). But I think unless there is another sea change in the way pitchers are used, we will not see too many more 3000+ IP pitchers. There are currently three active (Moyer, Wakefield, Pettitte). There are maybe 2 others who are pretty good bets among older guys (Hernandez and Vazquez) and among younger established guys, I count 5 with a realistic chance (Halladay, Buehrle, Zito, Sabathia, Oswalt). Obviously a bunch of younger guys may also do it, it's just too far away to tell.

[Rasputin]

The Koufax comparison is relatively reasonable though...it's one the bulk of the public will make and if the public isn't as stupid as they normally are they'll clearly see that Pedro was better.


The thing I like to look at is how Pedro almost single handedly took a mediocre team to a fringe contending team. In 1999 the team went 26-5 in his starts. If the entire rest of the team plays perfectly .500 ball the Sox are 91.5 - 70.5. He was a little less spectacular at producing Ws in 98 getting to 86.5 wins with a perfectly .500 team. 86 wins doesn't sound like that much but it would have been 6th in the AL and would have been down to the last weekend contenders in the Central and West. And in 1999 the Sox won the wild card with 94 games and 91 would have been enough.

Pedro took a mediocre team and made it into one where good stuff could happen. A few other things get involved and next thing you know Troy O'Leary is smacking two monstrous homers against Cleveland and we've had a decade of postseason heroics since then.

[scotian1]

SumnerH has summed it up very nicely. His 8 All Star selections, 3 Cy Youngs, World Series win, 5th best winning pct. of all time not to mention his other stats to me would say that if he isn't a HOFer there shouldn't be a Hall of Fame. It will be a while yet to be decided though because he can still help a team at the major league level. I think he would look pretty good in middle relief. For those Expo fans, they will never forget the game where he threw 9 perfect innings but the Expos couldn't score. He gave up a hit in the 10th inning to San Diego.

Hall of Fame Stats:
Black Ink Pitching - 58 (19), Average HOFer ≈ 40

Gray Ink Pitching - 215 (31), Average HOFer ≈ 185

Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 206 (21), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 60 (16), Average HOFer= 50

Explanation of Hall of Fame stats: http://www.baseball-..._glossary.shtml

Edited by scotian1, 02 January 2011 - 12:56 PM.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

I believe that the Pedro-Koufax comparison is impossible to make using ERA+, because I don't believe the metric works when comparing two such disparate leagues. The best ERA+ figures from the 1990s and 2000s are so much better than the previous 50 years, and the best top OPS+ figures are also higher. I don't think it works. Pedro was the best pitcher of his era, and Koufax was of his--using ERA+ does not really help in my view. Pedro proponents like to use his great rate stats, which does not credit Koufax for tossing 100 more innings than Pedro every year.

They are both great. I will leave it at that.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Hope I chose the correct topic Forum subcategory? Sometimes, I mess up my impromptu sports posts and, am sorry, offend some grammatically correct and structurally sounder writers than me. Anyway, let's not call it a short career in terms of number of seasons, call it medium. Career is "Koufax" like, although I have not gone to recrds to see who played more seasons and presumably Pedro was not also a college basketball player, however, have not researched that either, for all I know maybe Martinez was a point guard. Discussion of Pedro being HOF worthy simply reminds us all how fortunate are we to have had so many great Red Sox players i.e. to just name a few in the lifetime of most of us e.g. Ted Williams, Carl Yaz, Tony Conigliaro, Fred Lynn, Jim Rice, Dewey Evans, Carlton Fisk, Roger Clemens, Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, Dustin Pedroia etc. Do we realize fans in some cities can watch their local team for a 60 year span of seasons and not come close to seeing such accomplishments and of course, as Red Sox fans we could go on and on. For what little it is worth, IMO, Pedro is worthy of HOF election.

Not meaning to pick on you, but it needs to be asked -- are you 15 years old? Could it be that you were in preschool during the 1999-2000 seasons?

This is like asking: "Ken Griffey, Jr. for HOF?"

Martinez obviously exceeded both the objective and subjective standards which the BBWA uses to judge players worthy. Maybe Pedro didn't go out on top as a member of the 2009 Phillies, but neither did Griffey's run end well with the White Sox and Mariners. I'm sure many among us would like to forget Willie Mays' swan-song as a Met in 1973, too.

[joyofsox]

As far as peaks go, the two weren't really comparable either. Koufax was amazing in his best years, but Pedro was otherworldly. By ERA+, Pedro had 5 seasons better than Koufax's best (and another tied with it). During their primes, Pedro averaged a couple more K/9 and slightly less BB/9. Their ERAs were nearly comparable despite Pedro pitching in Fenway in the steroid era and Koufax pitching off a Mt Everest-height mound in Chavez Ravine during one of the lowest run-scoring eras in history.

Few things drive me as nutty as hearing media people say Pedro nearly matched Koufax's peak (or Gibson in '68). As great as Koufax was, Pedro left him choking on his dust.

I think Pedro is actually underrated.

** LoBC notes some problems with ERA+, but I had this ready to go while he was posting, so ........

On the all-time ERA+ list, Pedro has the 2nd, 9th, 19th, 27th and 34th best seasons.

Other pitchers with multiple years in the Top 60 or so (there are ties for some spots):

Walter Johnson: 6th, 9th, 23rd, 24th, 56th
Roger Clemens: 13th, 15th, 25th
Greg Maddux: 4th, 5th, 62nd
Christy Mathewson: 11th, 15th
Mordecai Brown: 8th, 50th
Lefty Grove: 17th, 57th
Randy Johnson: 40th, 40th, 50th, 68th, 75th

Koufax's best two seasons: 57th and 68th
Gibson's best two seasons: 7th and 223rd

Year  ERA+
Pedro  2000   285
Pedro  1999   245
Pedro  2003   212
Pedro  2002   196
Koufax 1966   190
Pedro  2001   189
Koufax 1964   187
Koufax 1963   161
Pedro  1998   160
Koufax 1965   160
Koufax 1962   143
Pedro  2004   125
Koufax 1961   124

Fun Facts:

In 1999, Pedro allowed 0, 1, or 2 runs in 24 of his 30 starts.

In 2000, he had an ERA of 0.99 after 12 starts. Some season-ending (and AL-leading) numbers for Pedro (and the #2 finisher):

Batting Average Allowed: .167 (Hudson, .227)
On-Base Percentage Allowed: .213 (Mussina, .291)
Slugging Percentage Allowed: .259 (Colon, .371)
Home ERA: 1.84 (Mussina, 2.90)
Road ERA: 1.66 (Wells, 3.24)
Hits Per 9 Innings: 5.31 (Hudson 7.52, only 3 AL pitchers below 8.00)
Baserunners per 9 Innings: 7.2* (Mussina 10.8)
Strikeouts/Walk Ratio: 8.88 (Wells, 5.35)

*: New major league record, breaking Guy Hecker's 1882 mark.

[Plympton91]

Agree with much of the above. The three Cy Youngs are so rare that they trump any argument about career longevity, and the degree to which he dominated the competition in winning two of those make the case that much stronger. He was also robbed of a fourth. Pedro is also one of those players who trancended the sport such that one doesn't need to include his last name in a conversation in order to know who is being discussed, which, IMHO, should be an important criteria for inclusion in Cooperstown or not.

[smastroyin]

My problem with criticizing ERA+ is that you can't then say "but look at the innings" ERA+ does not do a fair job, I think we know that, especially at these extremes. For instance it is highly unlikely that Pedro would have pitched all that much better in the 1968 NL than he did in the 2000 AL because he was already nearly perfect. OK, that's fine. But innings change from era to era as well and it is very easy to understand the differences. Look at my list, there are maybe 10 guys that we are watching play baseball right now who are even 50/50 bets to exceed Pedro's 2926 innings. I used to count Pedro's innings against him too but there is just too much evidence that says managerial and overall game tendencies had as much or more to do with that than Pedro himself.

[Tudor Fever]

nm

Edited by Tudor Fever, 02 January 2011 - 02:17 PM.

[Tudor Fever]

The answer to the question that started this thread is simple. Pedro is a no-brainer Hall of Famer because his 4 1/2 year (1997 through June 2001) peak was arguably the best in MLB history. You could also throw Lefty Grove into the "best peak" discussion.

This thread got me to noodle around a bit on bb-ref. Here is the list of single-season WAR for pitchers. Starting with 1920, the beginning of the live ball era, the only seasons above 10.0 are:

Carlton 1972: 12.2
Gibson 1968: 11.9
Gooden 1985: 11.7
Gibson 1969: 11.0
Koufax 1963: 10.8
Koufax 1966: 10.8
W. Wood 1971: 10.7
G. Perry 1972: 10.5
Clemens 1997: 10.3
Ellsbury 1963: 10.3
Feller 1946: 10.1
Pedro 2000: 10.1

Interesting list. I had no idea how awesome Ellsbury was in 1963, for example.

Edit: I mean Dick Ells worth, not Ellsbury. For some reason, it won't let me spell Dick's last name.

Edited by Tudor Fever, 02 January 2011 - 02:20 PM.

[drbretto]

40 years from now when some snot-nosed little brat tries to tell you how great whatever pitcher is dominating the era is, you will interrupt him mid-sentence and start talking for hours about how unbelievable Pedro was. You will do it every time you get a chance, to the point where the kid rolls his eyes every time you start talking about him (and 2004 for that matter). Then you'll dust off your CD player and put in Doggystyle.

The only way Pedro Martinez doesn't go into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot is if they enact a new policy barring demigods from consideration. He is and always will be the greatest pitcher you ever personally saw.

Edit: BTW, thanks for making this thread just so I have an excuse to reflect on Pedro's career again.

Edited by drbretto, 02 January 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[snowmanny]

To follow up on Joyofsox's "Fun Facts" about Pedro:

In 2000 Pedro went 18-6. In his six losses he pitched 48 innings (yes, he averaged 8ip in his LOSSES) with an ERA of 2.43. Clemens finished second in ERA in the AL with 3.70.

In 2002 Barry Zito won the Cy Young as voters cited his durability: he pitched five more games than Pedro. Zito went 23-5 to Pedro's 20-4.
In order to match Zito's other statistics Martinez would have had to pitch 30 more innings, giving up 20 earned runs with 38 walks, 38 hits, and negative 57 strikeouts.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

My problem with criticizing ERA+ is that you can't then say "but look at the innings" ERA+ does not do a fair job, I think we know that, especially at these extremes. For instance it is highly unlikely that Pedro would have pitched all that much better in the 1968 NL than he did in the 2000 AL because he was already nearly perfect. OK, that's fine. But innings change from era to era as well and it is very easy to understand the differences. Look at my list, there are maybe 10 guys that we are watching play baseball right now who are even 50/50 bets to exceed Pedro's 2926 innings. I used to count Pedro's innings against him too but there is just too much evidence that says managerial and overall game tendencies had as much or more to do with that than Pedro himself.

Let me start out by saying that Pedro was obviously one of the greatest pitchers ever. I have found myself in the minority in these debates repeatedly over the years, so I need to make that clear. When you were a differentiating between pitchers at this level, you need to focus on the negatives, since the positives are so obvious.

I think people tend to move the goalposts in the Pedro debate, and obviously to Pedro's favor. I think you need to either focus on career value (where Pedro is great, but obviously not among the very best ever) and peak value. When talking about peak value, people tend to use ERA+ to make the case. There are two problems with this. First, I think ERA+ comparisons over different environments do not work. I think there is general agreement on this. The second problem is that most people, when they think of peak value, think of value across a small number of seasons--three or five or whatever. Using ERA+ here is even worse because it does not account for in-season durability, which was clearly not Pedro's strong suit. ERA+ is a per-inning measure, not a per-season measure.

Pedro Martinez made 29 starts in 2000, and they were pretty electrifying. When you sat down to watch Pedro pitch in those years, it was pretty special. But it is worth noting that he missed several starts every year. Sure, we can adjust for era. Sandy Koufax pitched in an era where pitchers started more games and pitched more innings. Fine, let's adjust for that. But Koufax led the league in innings pitched and complete games his last two seasons. Pedro never finished in the top five in starts, and only three times in the top 10. He finished in the top five in innings pitched just once, in 1997 with the Expos. When you are talking about the best "peaks" of all-time, I think this is germane.

Greg Maddux, who I believe was the greatest pitcher of the past 50 years, led the league in ERA+ 4 times (over 250 twice), and led the league in innings pitched all four of those seasons. Think about that--he was the best pitcher on a rate basis, and he had to most volume as well. To me, this is the best peak perhaps ever. (And he won 350 games, but that's a different conversation.)

If you are going to compare Pedro's peak to players at this level, I think it is only fair to add a handful of replacement level starts to his seasons. This would bring his ERA+ down quite a bit. He would still be the best pitcher in the league, because he was so incredibly awesome in his 30 starts, and he would still be a sure-fire Hall of Famer, and he would still have a resume filled with electrifying games.

[glennhoffmania]

Pedro Martinez made 29 starts in 2000, and they were pretty electrifying. When you sat down to watch Pedro pitch in those years, it was pretty special. But it is worth noting that he missed several starts every year. Sure, we can adjust for era. Sandy Koufax pitched in an era where pitchers started more games and pitched more innings. Fine, let's adjust for that. But Koufax led the league in innings pitched and complete games his last two seasons. Pedro never finished in the top five in starts, and only three times in the top 10. He finished in the top five in innings pitched just once, in 1997 with the Expos. When you are talking about the best "peaks" of all-time, I think this is germane.

Just a general question. Using 2000 as the example, Pedro threw 217 innings in 29 starts, an average of almost 7.5 innings per start. He finished 20 innings behind the AL leader (Mussina). Is it better to pitch 220 innings in 29 starts, or 220 innings in 35 starts? I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not sure I really care that he only pitched in 29 games if he finished near the top in innings.

[Rudy Pemberton]

If Pedro were facing hitters that were the caliber of the hitter that Koufax was facing, though, wouldn't he have been likely to pitch more innings? In Koufax's final season, which was arguably his best, the average hitter put up a line of 256 / 313 / 384. In Pedro's finest season, the average AL hitter was at 276 / 349 / 443. It's reasonable to suggest that Pedro's innings were much more stressful, and could be adjusted in the same way as ERA is.

Agree though, that ERA+ isn't a great comparison, since the league ERA was so much lower when Sandy pitched, it's much harder for him to have a better "+" to his ERA. Ultimately, not sure there's a right or wrong answer to the question as to who was better and part of what makes baseball great is that we can, and probably will, debate it forever.

Pedro is a slam dunk, first ballot HOFer, that much really cannot be disputed.

[jacklamabe65]

And no one has even mentioned Roger yet. That shows you how great Pedro was. Roger doesn't even fit in the same sentence.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

And no one has even mentioned Roger yet. That shows you how great Pedro was. Roger doesn't even fit in the same sentence.

Actually, Roger is the reason that puts Pedro over the top as a 1st-ballot HOF.

Pedro was the anti-Clemens. Writers with a PED axe to grind will reward Pedro for being his antithesis.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

If Pedro were facing hitters that were the caliber of the hitter that Koufax was facing, though, wouldn't he have been likely to pitch more innings?

Again, in Koufax's best years he was a workhorse who led his league in innings and complete games. You can say Pedro could have pitched more innings in the 1960s, sure, but Pedro was giving up innings to pitchers in his own league every year. You can't adjust for that. I don't really know how well the two pitchers would have pitched in each others era, and I don't think anyone does. ERA+ does not work for this at all, no matter how much we pretend that it does. However, there is no doubt in my mind who would have pitched more innings had they been in the same environment.

In Pedro's two best rate seasons, he pitched to a total of 1652 batters, finishing well outside the AL top ten in each season. Koufax, in his last two season, pitched to 2571 batters, leading the major leagues both seasons. You can't wave a wand and erase such a vast difference. If Pedro was leading the league in innings, fine, let's adjust away the difference. Greg Maddux led the league in batters faced four years in a row, and was in the top five 9 times. Pedro was never in the top five. I am not just imagining this.

[nothumb]

If Pedro were facing hitters that were the caliber of the hitter that Koufax was facing, though, wouldn't he have been likely to pitch more innings? In Koufax's final season, which was arguably his best, the average hitter put up a line of 256 / 313 / 384. In Pedro's finest season, the average AL hitter was at 276 / 349 / 443. It's reasonable to suggest that Pedro's innings were much more stressful, and could be adjusted in the same way as ERA is.

I think you also have to note, when making that argument, that the level of pitching talent in MLB was diluted at Pedro's peak as well. Just for argument's sake, you could say that the hitters were exactly the same, but the average pitcher was way worse, yielding a better line for the average hitter (probably not true, but it illustrates why you can't draw this conclusion from the facts cited).

A quick and dirty way to adjust IP by era can be found just by looking at where the pitcher ranked among his peers... as others pointed out, Pedro never led the league, while Koufax was in the top 5 four times and led the league twice. Koufax was also top 5 in games started four times, leading the league once, while Pedro never had a top 5 season.

[Tudor Fever]

One point against Koufax as GOAT, though, is that, during his glory years, he was helped by his home park probably more than any other great pitcher in history. At the Ravine, his career ERA was 1.37 and his career K/BB was 5.31.

[Max Power]

In Pedro's two best rate seasons, he pitched to a total of 1652 batters, finishing well outside the AL top ten in each season. Koufax, in his last two season, pitched to 2571 batters, leading the major leagues both seasons. You can't wave a wand and erase such a vast difference.

Isn't that difference likely the reason Koufax was done at 30 and Pedro put up another 1000 innings after that age? If Koufax were pitching today, he would have been shut down for a few starts each season when his elbow started acting up.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

One point against Koufax as GOAT, though, is that, during his glory years, he was helped by his home park probably more than any other great pitcher in history. At the Ravine, his career ERA was 1.37 and his career K/BB was 5.31.

I agree--I don't think Koufax was the best ever. I am not willing to completely discount his stats, however. An ability to take advantage of your surroundings is a sign of greatness as well. I used to make this same argument for Wade Boggs--he was a great Fenway hitter, who I believe would have evolved his swing differently with a different home park.

[Trautwein's Degree]

Watching this guy pitch was like what it must have been to watch Picasso paint. At his peak the differential between his fast ball and change up was 18 miles an hour. He had three of the best pitches in baseball. No links to steroids. Won a World Series and was the greatest pitcher of his time. If Pedro's not enshrined in 4 or 6 years, I'll drive to the Hall to piss on it.

If all you have to say is a guy's first name and nothing more - like Babe, he's a hall of famer.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 02 January 2011 - 07:14 PM.

[The Boomer]

If Pedro were facing hitters that were the caliber of the hitter that Koufax was facing, though, wouldn't he have been likely to pitch more innings? In Koufax's final season, which was arguably his best, the average hitter put up a line of 256 / 313 / 384. In Pedro's finest season, the average AL hitter was at 276 / 349 / 443. It's reasonable to suggest that Pedro's innings were much more stressful, and could be adjusted in the same way as ERA is.

Agree though, that ERA+ isn't a great comparison, since the league ERA was so much lower when Sandy pitched, it's much harder for him to have a better "+" to his ERA. Ultimately, not sure there's a right or wrong answer to the question as to who was better and part of what makes baseball great is that we can, and probably will, debate it forever.

Pedro is a slam dunk, first ballot HOFer, that much really cannot be disputed.

Don't forget that Pedro faced the DH for most of his career when in the AL. Koufax got to face the pitcher once each time through the weaker NL lineups of his day while seeing pinchhitters come off the bench maybe once or twice whenever he pitched. Pedro's home games in Fenway Park with Koufax pitching his home games in Chavez Ravine is another factor that makes Pedro incomparable.

Edited by The Boomer, 02 January 2011 - 07:17 PM.

[CYaz]

To the extent the issue is which of Koufax/Pedro had a better peak, I would think some credit is due to Pedro for facing only a handful of pitchers each season. This is a subset of the point that the 1960s offenses were not as likely to put a pitcher in a "stressful" situation; one out of every nine batters (or maybe one of 10, assuming pinch-hitters) that faced Koufax was not there for his ability to hit a major-league pitcher. This should not be seen as just an ERA issue, but one that affects the innings pitched or "batters" faced by each pitcher. (Conversely, the argument may be made that Pedro would have been more likely removed for a pinch hitter, but - admittedly speculative - I suspect that Pedro was actually removed from most games about the same time as he would have been if the game was close and his "time to bat" came up.)

[TomRicardo]

The only discussion about Pedro concerning the hall of fame is whether or not he will bring his midget to his induction in his first year eligibility.

Pedro is the definition of first ballot players. Anyone writer trying to play cute and not vote for Pedro (cough George King cough) should immediately be shunned by the baseball community.

[BoSox Rule]

The only discussion about Pedro concerning the hall of fame is whether or not he will bring his midget to his induction in his first year eligibility.

Nelson de la Rosa will fall a little short on the trip to Pedro's induction, God rest his soul.

[LogansDad]

Pedro's induction will be the first induction I have watched in a long, long time. I can't add much to what others have said, but if he finds himself on the ballot for more than one year, the HoF voters should be ashamed.

[gibdied]

Regarding easier offenses being an aide in Koufax throwing more innings, a page on Mr. Tango's site has some actual pitch count data for Koufax. I think I've posted it once before but here it is again.

The numbers speak for themselves for the most part. For his age 28 season, which corresponds to his age 27 season on B-Ref, he averaged 111 pitches and 7.775 innings per start while completing 50% of them. In 1997 Pedro put up similar figures averaging 7.785 IP/start and completing 42% of them, but he needed 117.2 pitches per start to do it. While the raw difference, six pitches, doesn't sound big, I think we can all agree there's a significant difference between 111 and 117 pitches, especially when talking about season averages, which get harder to maintain the more extreme they are.

[unclebobo]

The only time I ever saw the Red Sox at Yankee Stadium was the weekend that started off with Pedro's 17 K 1-hitter -- I drove up for the Saturday football score game (Sabs vs Clemens) when Nomar had 357 RBIs by the 3rd inning but all people could talk about in the bleachers of the toilet was the game the night before.

These were MFY fans speaking reverently about Pedro in a way I'd never heard anyone talk about a rival team's pitcher before or since.

First ballot ... book it.

[RingoOSU]

I think Pedro's probably a lock. A more appropriate thread would be a discussion if Ted Williams is really a hall a famer.

[Al Zarilla]

One point against Koufax as GOAT, though, is that, during his glory years, he was helped by his home park probably more than any other great pitcher in history. At the Ravine, his career ERA was 1.37 and his career K/BB was 5.31.

I watched Koufax develop from a wild guy to one of the greatest of all time. His WS against NYY in 1963 was particularly satisfying: 2 - 0, 2 CG, 3 BB, 23 K. But, that 1.37 career ERA at Chavez I didn't believe and had to go look it up on BBREF. Incredible. Pedro is a first ballot HOFer, as was Koufax.

[Alternate34]

First, Pedro is clearly a Hall of Famer. There is no debate. He will be first ballot unless some PED thing gets linked to him.

As to era adjustment and comparison to Koufax, there are even more things to consider than just considering the difference in IP, league run scoring, and league offensive quality in general.

As for rate stats, the league strikeout rate was much higher during Pedro's time than Koufax's.

In Pedro's 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the NL 1997 K rate was 6.9, and the AL strikeout rates were 6.4, 6.2, 6.3.

In Koufax's 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966, the NL strikeout rate was 5.9, 5.7, 5.9, 5.8.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that Pedro's advantage in strikeout rate is merely a product of his era, but it was partially a product of his era. It is something to keep in mind when comparing pitcher's defense independent stats from different eras.

How to keep it in mind is interesting. On the one hand, it means that some gaudy strikeout totals can be discounted a bit, which actually includes Koufax when comparing him to guys outside of the 1990s and 2000s. On the other hand, a strikeout is more work for the pitcher. It is a requirement that a pitcher get to at least 3 pitches for a strikeout, and I would wager that most strikeouts require more. A pitcher who strikes out more guys is generally going to tax his arm more.

I think that part of the reason durability has been dropping for pitchers is that they pitch more because they get more strikeouts and less outs from balls in play.

An additional factor to consider is that the walk rate was higher during Pedro's time. This is more favorable to Pedro in general when considering comparison. First, his low walk rates were earned in a time when batters were taking more walks. Additionally, it is a factor that puts more stress on his arm. The rise in walk rate in 1990s and 2000s is the combination of a lot of shit. Improved offense will generally lead to more walks because of a pitcher's tendency to pitch around better hitters. Improved offense also leads to a higher walk rate because more batters come up to the plate, increasing the odds that one will walk.

I also believe there has been a shift in hitting philosophy. Like the 1950s, the present era sees hitters more and more waiting for their pitch and trying to hit the shit out of it. There are less contact hitters who try to cover the strike zone and more guys in the "Ted Williams" school. That shift may have helped cause the current era or it may be a product of a smaller strike zone, hitter's parks like Coors Field being added, better bats for power hitting, and steroids increasing a power hitters potential. Whether it is a cause or effect, it makes the game harder on pitchers because it forces them to make more pitches. More pitcher is never good. The hitter learns your stuff. You increase the chance for a mistake. You wear out your arm.

Lastly, I think the quality of baseball play has improved since Koufax. Players are more athletic and stronger. Baseball technique has probably improved as well, though it seems some practices get weeded out based on prejudice rather than solid reasoning. Each hitter has more power, meaning less chances for a pitcher to let up and save their energy to bear down in tight situations.

Basically, ERA+ is a nice starting point, but if you really want to compare pitchers from different eras, you have to consider the smaller stuff.

[Worst Trade Evah]

About ERA+: a quick scan of the ERA+ leader lists indicates in part how the skew works there. The list is dominated by guys from the pitching eras, especially the deadball eras. Those weren't really all the greatest pitchers of all time, in part it's the way the numbers fall out because of the shape of the distributions. If anything, ERA+ is under-rating Pedro, relative to Koufax.

And while Pedro's strikeouts are in part an aspect of the era, so are the walks and the innings. gibdied's link from Tango makes that clear -- Pedro was pitching, in volume, pretty much the same as Koufax, but because the run environment was so hugely different, the results are different. You just can't say that Koufax threw 100 extra innings a year and leave it at that. I could grant some small amount of extra innings due to extra starts, but not the 100+ inning differential that's been cited here. There's no way Koufax throws 325 innings in the American League in 1998, because that would be 50% more work than he ever actually did while he was pitching.

But I do agree that the transcendent figure who's been over-looked here is Greg Maddux -- though that's mostly because this is a thread that started with a question about Pedro.

[bakahump]

Said it before and will say it again.

If Aliens came down from the sky and threatened to kill my children based on the outcome of one baseball game.....

Pedro Martinez (circa 1999-2000) would be my starter....and I would tell the kids "see you in 2 hours".

[Seabass177]

If I'm having a shit day, I go to Pedro's B-Ref page and poke around for ten minutes. .737. 1.78. I literally start smiling. The MVP-2 gets me riled up.

Then my day goes on, but better.

Pedro was baseball Xanax. I'll never see anything like him again.

[Jim Ed Rice in HOF]

As for rate stats, the league strikeout rate was much higher during Pedro's time than Koufax's.

In Pedro's 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the NL 1997 K rate was 6.9, and the AL strikeout rates were 6.4, 6.2, 6.3.

In Koufax's 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966, the NL strikeout rate was 5.9, 5.7, 5.9, 5.8.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that Pedro's advantage in strikeout rate is merely a product of his era, but it was partially a product of his era. It is something to keep in mind when comparing pitcher's defense independent stats from different eras.

Comparing the two based on the rates you mention, Pedro was 80% above the strikeout rate over his four years, Koufax 60% above. Pedro was helped out by his ungodly '99 when he was better than twice the league rate, but in three of the four years he was ahead of Koufax's differential percentage.

Strikeout Rates - Koufax/Pedro

Year	Lg avg	Koufax	Diff	%	Year	Lg avg	Pedro	Diff	%
63	5.9	8.9	3	51%	97	6.9	11.4	4.5	65%
64	5.7	9.0	3.3	58%	98	6.4	9.7	3.3	52%
65	5.9	10.2	4.3	73%	99	6.2	13.2	7	113%
66	5.8	8.8	3	52%	00	6.3	11.8	5.5	87%
4 yr avg	5.8	9.3	3.5	60%	4 yr avg	6.4	11.5	5.1	80%

[joyofsox]

In his September 10, 1999, game at the Toilet, the Yankees managed only one fair ball among his last 70 pitches (after the 4th inning!), and no fair balls on his last 53 pitches. He struck out 8 of the last 9 batters and 12 of the last 15. Buster Olney, writing in the Times, said "It was as if the Yankees were swinging within a darkened closet" and Pedro was "manipulating [his changeup] like a marionette".

Like unclebobo said, the MFY fans were as rapt as Sox fans that night. The entire joint was up and cheering in the 9th. (I was supposed to go, but the motherfucker with the tix was held up at work and did not show. I gave up and got home in the 4th. Glad the VCR was running.)

[Savin Hillbilly]

Consider the fact that Pedro produced his 1999 results with a starting infield of a hobbled 32-year-old John Valentin at 3B, Nomar at SS, Jose Offerman at 2B and Mike Stanley at 1B. Unsurprisingly, given that infield, Pedro's BABIP against was .325....yet thanks to his ungodly K rate, he allowed a BA of just .205. I wonder if that's the largest difference between BABIP and BA allowed in history.

But my favorite Pedro stat is the fact that he notched the lowest WHIP of all time (0.74), and did it in the third-best offensive season (as measured by OPS) in major league history.

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

It will be interesting to see if Pedro Martinez and/or Greg Maddux go into the Hall unanimously. Any writer that doesn't vote for them on the first ballot should be denied future voting privileges.

[PedroKsBambino]

Again, in Koufax's best years he was a workhorse who led his league in innings and complete games. You can say Pedro could have pitched more innings in the 1960s, sure, but Pedro was giving up innings to pitchers in his own league every year. You can't adjust for that. I don't really know how well the two pitchers would have pitched in each others era, and I don't think anyone does. ERA+ does not work for this at all, no matter how much we pretend that it does. However, there is no doubt in my mind who would have pitched more innings had they been in the same environment.

In Pedro's two best rate seasons, he pitched to a total of 1652 batters, finishing well outside the AL top ten in each season. Koufax, in his last two season, pitched to 2571 batters, leading the major leagues both seasons. You can't wave a wand and erase such a vast difference. If Pedro was leading the league in innings, fine, let's adjust away the difference. Greg Maddux led the league in batters faced four years in a row, and was in the top five 9 times. Pedro was never in the top five. I am not just imagining this.

Your larger point is fair, there's just no way to argue (imo) that Koufax didn't pitch more innings and that this has real value.

It is also true, I'd say, that batters faced as a stat overstates this difference, since Pedro was significantly better in the innings pitched; it is not logical to give credit to Koufax for allowing additional hits & walks, and he allowed about .1/IP more than Pedro did over the two years in question. That's certainly not the totality of the difference in their batters faced, but it (like the difference between facing P and DH) contributes to a material part of that 900 batter difference even before we get to park factors and such.

Out of curiosity, if you had to pick one of them to be on your team for a hypothetical season in 1982 or so (halfway between their best years) which would you choose? If you had one game to win in a neutral park (e.g. neither Fenway nor Dodger Stadium) who would you pick?

[redsahx]

The stats argument has been eloquently covered. The best part is, in the Jon Heyman "You had to be there" category, Pedro would perhaps rank #1 all time. (DISCLAIMER: Not endorsing the HOF voting logic of Mr. Heyman).

I came of age during the Clemens years and I NEVER looked at the days Clemens pitched as being all that special. With Pedro I HAD to watch. I was convinced the game I missed would be the game that defined his career. I expected greatness every time. I wondered before every start in 99 and 2000 whether he was going to make a run at Clemens 20 K record.
I need some backup on this memory: In the near no-hitter at Tampa in 2000, I seem to remember either in the 6th or 7th inning, Pedro going into maximum FU mode and striking out the first hitter with all fastballs, the second hitter on nothing but curveballs, and the third hitter on nothing but changeups. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

RE: Pedro v. Koufax, one thing that stood out to me about Koufax was how much pain he was in the final season, yet he still dominated and was a workhorse. On that note, Pedro's 1999 postseason needs to be highlighted. After injuring his shoulder in Game 1 at Cleveland, he followed up the 6 no-hit innings of relief in Game 5 (against a fearsome Tribe lineup) by pitching 7 shutout innings 5 days later to give the eventual World Champion Yankees their only postseason defeat that year. Anyone who clearly remembers those games knew he was nowhere close to 100%. He was dropping down sidearm and barley topping 90 on his fastball, yet still dominated two great lineups.

[Soxfan in Fla]

There really isn't even a debate here on whether he gets in or not nor is there a debate on whether he is a 1st ballot HOFer or not. The only debate to be had on Pedro and the HOF is where his percentage will rank on the 1st ballot list.

Pedro is as no-brainer as Greg Maddux.

[SumnerH]

Regarding easier offenses being an aide in Koufax throwing more innings, a page on Mr. Tango's site has some actual pitch count data for Koufax. I think I've posted it once before but here it is again.

The numbers speak for themselves for the most part. For his age 28 season, which corresponds to his age 27 season on B-Ref, he averaged 111 pitches and 7.775 innings per start while completing 50% of them. In 1997 Pedro put up similar figures averaging 7.785 IP/start and completing 42% of them, but he needed 117.2 pitches per start to do it. While the raw difference, six pitches, doesn't sound big, I think we can all agree there's a significant difference between 111 and 117 pitches, especially when talking about season averages, which get harder to maintain the more extreme they are.

Baseball Reference also had an interesting graph of pitches/game over time, which is increasing steadily.



Pitches per plate appearance are also steadily rising across the league, indicating that Pedro's higher number of pitches/game may be indicative of league-wide changes rather than some individual inefficiency (or Koufaxian super-efficiency) at dispensing batters.

Between the switch from 4-man to 5-man rotations and the increasing numbers of P/PA over the years, it'd be difficult to compare absolute IP numbers even for starters in the same league and ballpark from the 1960s and 1990s/2000s.

That said, certainly Koufax was near the top of his peers and Pedro not near the top of his (things like the ballpark play into that somewhat, of course).

Edited by SumnerH, 03 January 2011 - 03:09 PM.

[Worst Trade Evah]

B-Ref has a fun neutralization tool, where you get to look at player stats in different run contexts. Here's Pedro in the run environment of the 1965 Dodgers:

Year 	Age 	W 	L 	W-L% 	ERA 	IP 	H 	R 	ER 	HR 	BB 	SO 	HBP 	WHIP 	Gact
1992 	20 	0 	0 		3.38 	8 	7 	3 	3 	0 	1 	8 	0 	1.000 	2
1993 	21 	7 	4 	.636 	2.31 	105 	71 	31 	27 	5 	53 	116 	4 	1.181 	65
1994 	22 	14 	9 	.609 	2.61 	214 	122 	71 	62 	12 	48 	210 	12 	0.794 	24
1995 	23 	14 	10 	.583 	2.69 	221 	148 	75 	66 	20 	61 	198 	10 	0.946 	30
1996 	24 	14 	10 	.583 	2.84 	222 	170 	80 	70 	17 	63 	227 	3 	1.050 	33
1997 	25 	22 	5 	.815 	1.54 	245 	144 	48 	42 	15 	61 	310 	8 	0.837 	31
1998 	26 	18 	8 	.692 	2.18 	239 	168 	66 	58 	23 	60 	257 	7 	0.954 	33
1999 	27 	20 	4 	.833 	1.48 	219 	139 	41 	36 	7 	32 	321 	7 	0.781 	31
2000 	28 	21 	3 	.875 	1.21 	223 	110 	34 	30 	15 	27 	292 	12 	0.614 	29
2001 	29 	10 	3 	.769 	1.92 	117 	76 	28 	25 	5 	23 	163 	5 	0.846 	18
2002 	30 	17 	5 	.773 	1.78 	202 	130 	46 	40 	12 	36 	242 	14 	0.822 	30
2003 	31 	16 	5 	.762 	1.71 	189 	131 	41 	36 	6 	42 	209 	8 	0.915 	29
2004 	32 	13 	11 	.542 	2.88 	222 	169 	81 	71 	23 	53 	232 	14 	1.000 	33
2005 	33 	15 	8 	.652 	2.47 	215 	149 	67 	59 	17 	44 	206 	4 	0.898 	31
2006 	34 	7 	8 	.467 	3.44 	136 	97 	59 	52 	17 	35 	140 	9 	0.971 	23
2007 	35 	2 	1 	.667 	2.10 	30 	30 	8 	7 	0 	6 	34 	2 	1.200 	5
2008 	36 	4 	8 	.333 	4.71 	109 	118 	65 	57 	18 	41 	87 	6 	1.459 	20
2009 	37 	3 	2 	.600 	2.74 	46 	43 	16 	14 	6 	7 	38 	4 	1.087 	9
Career 	217 	104 	.676 	2.29 	2962 	2022 	860 	755 	218 	693 	3290 	129 	0.917

I guess it all comes down to the quality of the conversions (which BRef is perfectly explicit about), but when you throw the equivalent of a 1.21 ERA in a season or a 2.29 for a career or 1.70 for a 6 year span, you can give back a few innings.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 03 January 2011 - 03:34 PM.

[JimBoSox9]

There really isn't even a debate here on whether he gets in or not nor is there a debate on whether he is a 1st ballot HOFer or not. The only debate to be had on Pedro and the HOF is where his percentage will rank on the 1st ballot list.

I don't know if the thread was started with the intention of sparking a "should Pedro be in the HOF" debate (I sure hope not), but it has evolved into simply "1000 ways to manipulate stats to show just how otherworldly good Pedro was", which is perfectly awesome in this scribe's opinion. It should be a formal competition with prizes and a poll and voting, of course.

[smastroyin]

I don't know. I mean sure Koufax would have pitched more, he pitched more than anyone. But there are things at play that you can't account for just comparing the leagues, just as you say for ERA+. For one thing, as has already been pointed out, it took less pitches to get through games in the 60's NL than the 90's AL. For a second thing, I guarantee Pedro threw 100x as many high stress pitches to late 90's DH's in Fenway as Koufax threw to 60's pitchers in Chavez Ravine... never-mind the rest of the league. In low offense eras pitchers have a lot more leeway to take pitches or entire at-bats "off" and throw not their best stuff. This is what I am talking about in regards to how hard it is to actually make the adjustment even if you look around the league. If Pedro could have thrown 50% less 97 mph fastballs in his 20's, would he have ever had shoulder problems? Who knows.

Was the fact that his managers never compressed the rotation to give him extra starts a fault of his or the managers? In 1996, 1998, and 2004 he took the ball every time his manger gave it to him. In 1997 and 2002 he missed one start but did not go to the DL. In 1999 he hurt himself overthrowing in the AS game which was his own fault of course. In 2000 the Sox shut him down for two weeks around the AS break to give him a rest - you can question whether it was actually necessary. In 2001 he of course had the shoulder surgery and in 2003 he had a flare-up that cost him some games. But in a strict five man rotation there are 32.4 starts per starter to go around, and from 1996-2004 Pedro took 91% of those. Excluding 2001 where he missed half the season that number goes to 95%. Obviously there are guys who exceed that but there is not a lot he could do to get more starts in several of those years except ask for another manager.