|
THE NEW YORK YANKEES THREAD 08 (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| phoenixBEBE |
| yay yankees win!!! :toothless |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamez214
Well... I'd consider Pedro to be the best pitcher ever, let alone in the last 20 years. But, I get what you're saying. :p |
i don't know about best pitcher ever, but he might have been better than santana is currently. i don't know why i didn't think about that. from 97 - 03 he was ridiculous! |
|
|
| steven-neil |
| quote: | Originally posted by phoenixBEBE
yay yankees win!!! :toothless |
Wasn't it weird without Torre though ? |
|
|
| phoenixBEBE |
| ^^ of course :( |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by steven-neil
Wasn't it weird without Torre though ? |
not one bit....i've been waiting for him to go for about 4 years. his laid back style was showing in the players. |
|
|
| Shamez214 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i don't know about best pitcher ever, but he might have been better than santana is currently. i don't know why i didn't think about that. from 97 - 03 he was ridiculous! |
When you take into account ballpark, league, and the era in which they pitched, Pedro is the best ever. And by a pretty large margin, too.
ERA+ |
|
|
| GTS3gEclipse |
| Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson, Josh Beckett, Johan Santana are just a few more recent pitchers that are better than Pedro. Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove are all FAR superior the what Pedro ever is and will be. Calling Pedro the greatest pitcher of all time, especially with his blown game in the 2003 ALCS, is ludicrous. The best pitchers of all time win big games they dont blow them. |
|
|
| Shamez214 |
| quote: | Originally posted by GTS3gEclipse
Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson, Josh Beckett, Johan Santana are just a few more recent pitchers that are better than Pedro. Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove are all FAR superior the what Pedro ever is and will be. Calling Pedro the greatest pitcher of all time, especially with his blown game in the 2003 ALCS, is ludicrous. The best pitchers of all time win big games they dont blow them. |
Since I can show you how Pedro is better than all of the guys you mentioned, I want you to show me stats that show any of them are better. Really, the only reasonable cases to be made are Lefty Grove and Roger Clemens, and even they aren't better. The rest don't even come close... and you have to be kidding me with some of the guys you put. Johan and Beckett better than Pedro?
I smell an extremely biased Yankee fan. |
|
|
| GTS3gEclipse |
Here's stats...
Pedro is ranked 99th in ERA and 89th in wins (the two major pitching stats). And as made pretty clear by yesterday, his career is coming to a close fast if he cant stay healthy. I'm not saying he's bad by any means. He WAS one of the best, but to say the greatest of all time is a HUGE statement that just seems unreasonable when you look at all the greats who have come before him. It makes you look like an extremely biased Met fan. |
|
|
| Shamez214 |
Looking at wins to judge how well a pitcher pitchers is probably the thing that most annoys me about the media and most baseball fans. Sure, good pitchers win more games. That's obvious. But, a pitcher can throw 8 innings and give up 1 run and lose the game. Just an example off the top of my head, in 2000, Pedro Martinez was ridiculous. Yet he lost 6 games that year.
0-6, 2.44 ERA -- 48 IP, 30 H, 13 R, 8 BB, 60 K
Those are his stats in the 6 losses. The Red Sox, in those games, scored 4 runs while he was on the mound. 1, 2, 3, 4. In 48 innings. You still think wins is a good way to judge a pitcher? If a mediocre pitcher could stay healthy enough to play 20 seasons, and win an average of 10 games in those seasons, he would have 200 wins. You would compare him to Pedro Martinez who has 209 wins?
And if you still love the Win stat, Pedro is 3rd all-time in winning percentage at .6920. The two people ahead of him? One of them started a total of 184 games and the other pitched in the 1800s.
As for ERA, that's a little better than wins, but still not too great of a stat to determine how great a pitcher is. Going by Baseball References career ERA list, Pedro ranks 102nd all-time. Not that great on first glance. But when you see that he has the best ERA among all active pitchers, it becomes a little clearer.
Also, when Pedro was dominating the AL, the league average ERA was never lower than 4.53 and was as high as 5.07. His ERAs those years were never higher than 2.89 and as low as 1.74.
The league average ERA during Koufax' time was around 3.30. Cy Young? 2.70. Walter Johnson? 2.90.
Also, ERA doesn't take into effect the league (AL being harder than NL) or the ballpark (Pedro dominated in Fenway, Koufax dominated in Dodger Stadium).
That's why ERA+ (which takes all these things into account) is a much better stat to look at.
:clown:
EDIT: And I've been sweating Pedro since his last year in Montreal. Just like I've been sweating Johan since that crazy dominant year in 2004. And Pujols since he came up. And A-Rod since Seattle. And Bonds since his days in Pittsburgh. It just so happens that two of my favorite pitchers became Mets. Now... if only Peavy could be next. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamez214
Looking at wins to judge how well a pitcher pitchers is probably the thing that most annoys me about the media and most baseball fans. Sure, good pitchers win more games. That's obvious. But, a pitcher can throw 8 innings and give up 1 run and lose the game. Just an example off the top of my head, in 2000, Pedro Martinez was ridiculous. Yet he lost 6 games that year.
0-6, 2.44 ERA -- 48 IP, 30 H, 13 R, 8 BB, 60 K
Those are his stats in the 6 losses. The Red Sox, in those games, scored 4 runs while he was on the mound. 1, 2, 3, 4. In 48 innings. You still think wins is a good way to judge a pitcher? If a mediocre pitcher could stay healthy enough to play 20 seasons, and win an average of 10 games in those seasons, he would have 200 wins. You would compare him to Pedro Martinez who has 209 wins?
And if you still love the Win stat, Pedro is 3rd all-time in winning percentage at .6920. The two people ahead of him? One of them started a total of 184 games and the other pitched in the 1800s.
As for ERA, that's a little better than wins, but still not too great of a stat to determine how great a pitcher is. Going by Baseball References career ERA list, Pedro ranks 102nd all-time. Not that great on first glance. But when you see that he has the best ERA among all active pitchers, it becomes a little clearer.
Also, when Pedro was dominating the AL, the league average ERA was never lower than 4.53 and was as high as 5.07. His ERAs those years were never higher than 2.89 and as low as 1.74.
The league average ERA during Koufax' time was around 3.30. Cy Young? 2.70. Walter Johnson? 2.90.
Also, ERA doesn't take into effect the league (AL being harder than NL) or the ballpark (Pedro dominated in Fenway, Koufax dominated in Dodger Stadium).
That's why ERA+ (which takes all these things into account) is a much better stat to look at.
:clown:
EDIT: And I've been sweating Pedro since his last year in Montreal. Just like I've been sweating Johan since that crazy dominant year in 2004. And Pujols since he came up. And A-Rod since Seattle. And Bonds since his days in Pittsburgh. It just so happens that two of my favorite pitchers became Mets. Now... if only Peavy could be next. |
you might be right. the ERA disparity between pedro and the rest of the league has been +2.5 - 3.0 almost every year. When the greats in the 00-30s were pitching the disparity was much less, not more than +1.0 in most cases. pedro also has a career whip hovering around 1. that's insane. |
|
|
|
|
