What do you think? I had the good fortune to see him in his prime years often living in New England and I HAVE the privilige to see him pitch every 5th day in New York now. One of the top 3 pitchers in baseball history without a doubt.

He is 34 with a bad toe, aching hip, and partially torn labrum. Has his career passed him by or does he have a few good years left in him? As a Mets fan I hope he has a few good years left. As a Red Sox fan I enjoyed every second of Pedro's prime.

My lasting memory is a game at Fenway in '99 when he tossed Jim Thome aside and pounded on him for the second time in the night before being tossed out of the game.. Who has seen a 5'9" pitcher toss aside a giant like Thome!?!?!

7/4/2006 2:03:17 PM

he's good for 1 more year prly

7/4/2006 2:11:25 PM

im partial to the Zimmer incident.

i was at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City when that happened... the entire poker room erupted because the place was full of red sox & yankees fans...

he's definitely not the same pitcher he once was (his numbers are just better cause of the NL adjustment) but he's still a quality arm and he gave the Mets some of the excitement they were looking for... everyone knew that giving him 4 years was probably a stretch. He's just too little and pitched too many innings to have a really lengthy career... to his credit i thought he would have broken down much sooner than this...

7/4/2006 2:29:44 PM

Quote :

"One of the top 3 pitchers in baseball history without a doubt."

No

Young
Seaver
W. Johnson
R. Johnson
Clemens
Maddux
Grove

All of these are better than Pedro

7/4/2006 2:37:21 PM

That's just stupid. I'm not posting his numbers again.

He is easily in the Top 5 and most baseball experts will say he is in the Top 3 or the best ever.

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 2:40 PM. Reason : Cy Young's stats in a dead ball era pale in comparison to Pedro in the steroid era]

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 2:42 PM. Reason : oh and how is Koufax not on that list.. jesus you put Clemens over Koufax???]

7/4/2006 2:39:37 PM

id say only clemens was better from the last 30 years

7/4/2006 2:43:04 PM

only because of longevity. We had a thread about this though.. Pedro had the best 7 year stretch in baseball history and has, by far, the best adjusted ERA in baseball history..

I suppose, when I have time next week, I'll post why Pedro is the best ever again.. but I gotta run now.

7/4/2006 2:45:21 PM

Bob Gibson, Roger Clemens, Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Christy Matthewson, Sandy Koufax (who had an equally dominant stretch of five to seven years) Also this isn't a ranking, but other pitchers who could be on the list ahead of Pedro.

7/4/2006 3:13:23 PM

Roger Clemens career was prolonged due to steroids. His arm was dead when he left Boston for the Jays, and then miraculously it came back. Pedro is easily a top 3 pitcher.

7/4/2006 3:57:15 PM

No one even has Nolan Ryan in their top list?

Pedro is good, but def is ARGUABLY in the top 5

7/4/2006 4:02:48 PM

nolan ryan isnt even top 20

7/4/2006 4:03:46 PM

Nolan Ryan??? geez... do you have 100 of his rookie cards in your basement or something?

Nolan Ryan is only famous because he beat up Robin Ventura...

7/4/2006 4:19:44 PM

Ryan was just a high strikeout pitcher. Look at his win/loss record.

Last 20 years I would say:

1) Pedro
2) Maddux
3) Clemens

Let's not forget Clemens when he was with NY wasn't that great and won b/c of run support.

Pedro has never gotten great run support.

7/4/2006 5:44:56 PM

Koufax didnt have the longevity, but during his prime, he was the best.

I'm throwing out all pitchers before 1950 because that was the deadball era...but still..


Koufax - nearly unhittable. once threw 2 no no's in same year
Clemens - what's he got, 6 or 7 Cy's?
Gibson - on pure stuff
Pedro - the guy always won in the late 90's.
Randy Johnson - from 98-2002 the most dominating pitcher in the league
Seaver - nasty stuff. won a lot
Maddux (i dont think a lot of people realize how nasty he used to be....3 or 4 straight Cy's during the MIDDLE of the steroid era. A couple of Sub-2.00 era seasons.

7/4/2006 7:01:04 PM

what, no Darryl Kyle?!?!?!?

7/4/2006 7:54:19 PM

^It's Darryl Kile.

^^Bob Gibson was so good in 1968 that they lowered the damn mound for crying out loud. He dominated the 60s.

7/4/2006 10:13:37 PM

my worst memory is when the dodgers traded him for delino fucking deshields

7/4/2006 10:29:32 PM

^^ wow. you would think I would know how to spell it..


i'm ashamed

7/4/2006 10:52:32 PM

pedro, walter johnson, pete alexander, lefty grove, bob gibson, tom seaver, koufax, bob feller, jim palmer, warren spahn, steve carlton, clemens, the unit, mathewson, rube waddell...

i mean, i am not sure whether i agree or disagree, but i don't think any pitcher, even pedro, is "easily" top five out of those 15, and I'm positive there are some i'm missing that are top 20-ish

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 1:45 AM. Reason : and satchel paige]

7/5/2006 1:43:42 AM

stoncuttr, you're a fucking idiot. Pedro has to be one of the top three pitchers of all time. Of this generation, randy johnson, pedro martinez, roger clemens, and greg maddux have to be the 5 best.

oh and lets compare pedro to koufax

Martinez - Koufax
Win %
.708 .655

ERA
2.62 - 2.76

K/9 innings
10.46 - 9.27

WHIP
1.02 - 1.11


Has him beat in many of the big categries... WHIP is the tell-tale sign of a great pitcher. As you can see they both were great... but one is clearly better.

7/5/2006 8:33:17 AM

^What is even more amazing is the fact that Pedro has pitched in the AL half of his years. Koufax was in the NL.

7/5/2006 9:07:04 AM

Pedro is without a doubt one of the most dominating pitchers ever. Over 10 Ks per 9 innings... that's an amazing stat. And with a 1 on the WHIP scale... just an amazing pitcher.

I don't think he's done, IMO.

7/5/2006 9:55:29 AM

When you look at the stats, it's hard to argue with Pedro's dominance especially in the steriod era.

Quote :

"Maddux (i dont think a lot of people realize how nasty he used to be....3 or 4 straight Cy's during the MIDDLE of the steroid era. A couple of Sub-2.00 era seasons."

He had 4 straight, the first with the Cubs and the next three with the Braves (92-95). Glavine won in 91 and 98 and Smoltz won in 96. At the end of 98, the Braves had 7 of the last 8 Cy young winners on the same staff (Pedro won in 97 with Montreal). I definitely remember, and I'm sure many others on the board do too, how amazing it was to watch Maddux baffle hitters with his movement and location.

7/5/2006 12:07:56 PM

i certainly hope he's done

7/5/2006 12:13:26 PM

Pedro isnt done, he just isnt very durable. When he pitches, however, he is as nasty as it gets in the NL.

He's not an AL pitcher anymore though.

7/5/2006 12:18:52 PM

^^ Said by a Braves fan, I hope he's done too. But as a baseball purist, I love watching him pitch.

^^^ I remember the days when Atlanta had dominant pitchers

didn't avery win the cy young in 91 or 92? or was that the NLCS MVP?

7/5/2006 1:05:18 PM

sandy koufax almost had as many career shutouts (40!) as pedro's complete games total (46). koufax also has a much weaker start to his career than pedro did, and though pedro's lifetime adjusted ERA is lower, but I don't think pedro (or anyone...at all, even close) has ever thrown a no-hitter every season for 4 consecutive.

pedro's best 5-year span by ERA is 1997-2001 (2.198/year) is actually higher than koufax's best five-year run, 1962-66 (1.986). Don't forget that Koufax retired at the top of his game... it would be like pedro retiring afdter one of those first great boston years.

through 12 seasons, pedro had 2426 strikeouts, only a few more than koufax's career (12 years) 2396.


I don't think you can definitely say pedro is top three... "definitely," because you can play this same numbers game with about 10 more pitchers.

7/5/2006 1:22:02 PM

I woudlnt call '91-'94 the middle of the steroid era...

a few guys were on steroids then.... the middle of the steroid era would be like '99-'03 after everyone saw what Sosa/McGwire were doing.

7/5/2006 1:23:11 PM

^^ statistics doesn't work like that. You can't pick years to take stats from. People have great years. People have bad years. Take their lifetime stats and it is undeniable that Pedro would be a better pitcher than Koufax.

7/5/2006 1:26:46 PM

I think of the steroid era as beginning with the Bash Brothers in 88-89. Before then, not a lot of guys hit 40+ HR

then in the early 90's it got out of control..

Fielder hit 51, though he was probably just a fatass

1996 was probably the peak year when people were experimenting, and 98 was the year that shit really exploded with Mac and Sosa because it was an expansion year and the pitching was watered down.

in 96 freakin Brady Anderson hit 50 homeruns.

Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Palmiero, and all those other guys from "Juiced" were in their prime years

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 1:33 PM. Reason : sd;jfs;dfj]

7/5/2006 1:32:33 PM

but lets be honest if you took Sandy Koufax's skill level and put it on a 28 year old's body he probably wouldn't even make the major leagues...


practically every pitcher was dominant in the 60's... baseball was a totally different game.


this is like saying Bob Cousy could outperform Steve Nash or something when he likely wouldn't even be able to make a roster...

7/5/2006 1:32:36 PM

if bill james does it, i can do it in the most amateur way possible, too.

taking the best-stretch of careers is a good way to find out if the numbers are the result of longevity or just so kind of blowout dominance. I think pedro has had both now, but he doesn't have a run that can is as good as koufax the last five years of his career. if I had one game to win, I think I'd pick koufax from the mid-sixties over pedro.

that stat i do think that plays to pedro's advantage is that he has the highest adjusted ERA of all time, significantly higher than #2, lefty grove.

but stats are weird. is todd helton really a better hitter than joe dimaggio, stan musial, or jimmie foxx? the stats can tell you he is.

7/5/2006 1:58:52 PM

Well you can compare those stats to the era then. Helton played in the steroid, small park, watered down pitching era where as the others did not.

Similarly Pedro pitched in an era far more conducive to the hitters then to the pitchers where Koufax did not.

7/5/2006 2:01:19 PM

^^^ that's not the point of comparing great athletes from different generations. of COURSE walter johnson and satchel paige couldn't actually throw 100 miles an hour. but they were their era's benchmarks. christy mathewson supposedly had control the way maddux has control now, but who knows?

that's why baeball is great for these kinds of things, though. you're as good as the baseball world around you, and it pretty much evens out, statistically, over time. there are a few exceptions, like ERA in the dead ball age, but no shit pedro has more pitching skill than koufax

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 2:03 PM. Reason : arrows]

7/5/2006 2:02:44 PM

Quote :

"1996 was probably the peak year when people were experimenting, and 98 was the year that shit really exploded with Mac and Sosa because it was an expansion year and the pitching was watered down. in 96 freakin Brady Anderson hit 50 homeruns. Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, Palmiero, and all those other guys from "Juiced" were in their prime years"

See, you're kinda making my argument for me.... you're pointing out that the guys on steroids stood head and shoulders above the competition (Brady Anderson, Palmeiro, Pudge, Caminiti, etc)

It wasn't until the late 90's that the entire league went on steroids and random guys like Giambi, Brett Boone, etc started coming out of nowhere and putting up monster numbers...

Steroids were definitely being used in the mid 90's but its not like the whole league (relief pitchers!) were using them yet...

7/5/2006 2:33:31 PM

i've always thought he was overrated

something about him just irks me the wrong way

maybe its cause he is part black, part mexican, idk

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 5:47 PM. Reason : i'm just kidding for those serious wolfwebbers]

7/5/2006 5:47:09 PM

Clemens is the best pitcher of all time. they should rename the Cy young award after him!

7/5/2006 6:40:31 PM

i like when i get the classic "you're a fucking idiot" comment. it makes for such a good argument

i do apologize for poor wording of an above post. I was merely trying to point out that it is nearly impossible to compare pitchers (or hitters) across generations because eras are different. To call any pitcher named in this thread as the greatest or one of top three greatest is difficult because different eras had different advantages. An example being expansion. An argument can be made that pitchers that played 30+ years ago faced a higher concentration of good talent thus there job was more difficult that diluted talent playings today. However modern pitchers are facing better condintioned (and chemicaly enhanced) hitters than those in past.

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 9:40 PM. Reason : k]

7/5/2006 9:38:40 PM

I think baseball is one of the few sports where you can cross compare players from different generations. You play 162 games a year (154 back in the day, but that's almost negligble). The lifetime stats of a player is a VERY good indication to how good that player was. Having a sample size of 5000AB gives you a fantastic reading on a players hitting ability. Yes, eras are different. Of course the guys are more athletic in todays time than in the 30s. That doesn't matter because the competition that they faced was on the same plane that they were on. Therefore, a weaker pitcher putting up 3000 Ks against weaker hitters CAN be compared to a stronger pitcher putting up 3000 Ks against a stronger hitter.

You can't do this with football. 16 games a year. Brett Favre has a fantastic game and throws for 5 touchdowns and completes 85%. That throws the entire stats for that year completely off. Whereas with baseball, a single good game or a single bad game are merely outliers and will be levelled off.

7/6/2006 8:38:12 AM