PDA

View Full Version : Mariano Rivera countdown to era+ title



simmy886
05-03-08, 09:44 PM
Sorry if this isn't relevant or in the wrong place or if no one finds this important or even interesting, but to me it is so I'm giving it a shot. To qualify for the pitching "rate" statistics leaderboard over at baseball-reference.com, you need Minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions. Currently (May 3rd 9:30pm) Mariano has 965 innings, 3876 BFP, and 106 decisions (record of 62-44). So with 35 more innings (about a month after the all star break, maybe?) he can qualify for some prestigious positions on leaderboards. Here are 2 examples (and since they are rate stats are subject to change):
ERA+ 196 (Pedro Martinez 160, Lefty Grove 148, Walter Johnson 147, Dan Quisenbery/Ed Walsh/Hoyt Wilhem/Joe Wood 146, Brandon Webb 145, Roger Clemens 143)
WHIP 1.037 (Addie Joss 0.9678, Ed Walsh 0.9996 Pedro Martinez 1.0306, John Ward 1.0440)

Anyway. He needs 35 more innings. Go Mo.

-tz
05-03-08, 10:56 PM
When I saw the thread title, I missed the "+" and thought you were counting down to when Mo finally has an ERA this year! :lol:

ObscurePlayer
05-04-08, 12:14 AM
Over/under on how many appearances before Mo gives up a run? The way he's throwing, I say twenty.

YASS
05-04-08, 12:17 AM
I hate to have to be the first one to say it, but as much as I respect Mo, any comparison between starters and relievers (particularly in ERA or ERA+) has no real value.

Mo is not a better pitcher than Pedro was in his prime, despite the ERA+ advantage. No one was. Ever.

NYYMazda
05-04-08, 12:49 AM
Who is this Rivera guy? Has he even pitched this year? I mean, there are only ZEROS in his stat columns, so he couldn't have pitched yet, right? :evil:

simmy886
05-04-08, 01:21 AM
I hate to have to be the first one to say it, but as much as I respect Mo, any comparison between starters and relievers (particularly in ERA or ERA+) has no real value.

Mo is not a better pitcher than Pedro was in his prime, despite the ERA+ advantage. No one was. Ever.

agreed. pedro was the best ever. but i dont think theres a problem comparing era/era+ between starters or between relievers, and the fact that a guy accumulates 1000 innings with a near 200 era+ is unbelievable (and unprecedented) even for a reliever. but i totally agree about pedro... in the steroid era, in fenway park, he put up a few of the more ridiculous seasons you will ever see, and i actually think he's underrated and overlooked only because people don't usually agree hes the best ever despite all the evidence pointing for him.

rodney27nyg
05-04-08, 01:36 AM
agreed. pedro was the best ever. but i dont think theres a problem comparing era/era+ between starters or between relievers, and the fact that a guy accumulates 1000 innings with a near 200 era+ is unbelievable (and unprecedented) even for a reliever. but i totally agree about pedro... in the steroid era, in fenway park, he put up a few of the more ridiculous seasons you will ever see, and i actually think he's underrated and overlooked only because people don't usually agree hes the best ever despite all the evidence pointing for him.

What????:eek: :mad:

YASS
05-04-08, 05:41 AM
What????:eek: :mad:
It's true.

ObscurePlayer
05-04-08, 09:19 AM
agreed. pedro was the best ever. but i dont think theres a problem comparing era/era+ between starters or between relievers, and the fact that a guy accumulates 1000 innings with a near 200 era+ is unbelievable (and unprecedented) even for a reliever. but i totally agree about pedro... in the steroid era, in fenway park, he put up a few of the more ridiculous seasons you will ever see, and i actually think he's underrated and overlooked only because people don't usually agree hes the best ever despite all the evidence pointing for him.

I have a hard time putting him definitively ahead of Koufax, but in my mind there's Koufax and Pedro, and then everyone else.

jughead
05-04-08, 11:05 AM
What????:eek: :mad:Maybe not longevity wise, but if you're talking about the best pitching peak in history nothing even comes close to Pedro's 97-00 seasons.

NYYMazda
05-04-08, 04:43 PM
This Rivera fella only threw 8 pitches to get 3 outs today...I don't think he is trying very hard...

Rocketman
05-05-08, 04:58 AM
Pedro wasn't just the best, he was the best ever by a lot.

Let's consider Koufax's best three seasons (the ones where he pitched the most IP as well):

1963 - 1.88 ERA (league ERA 3.25), 306 K in 311 IP, 58 BB
1965 - 2.04 ERA (league ERA 3.26), 382 K in 335.7 IP, 71 BB
1966 - 1.73 ERA (league ERA 3.28), 317 K in 323 IP, 77 BB

Those are tremendous seasons. And he struck out a lot of batters, too, and his walk rates seem pretty incredible. But then take a look at three of Pedro's seasons:

1997: 1.90 ERA, (league ERA 4.17), 305 K in 241.3 IP, 70 BB
1999: 2.07 ERA, (league ERA 5.02), 313 K in 213.3 IP, 37 BB
2000: 1.74 ERA (league ERA 5.07), 284 K in 217 IP, 32 BB

Koufax was terrific. His K/9 stats were 8.86, 10.24, 8.83 respectively. In contrast, Pedro's were 11.37, 13.20, 11.78 in his three seasons, respectively. One is REMARKABLY superior to the other. Now SO/BB ratio: Koufax - 5.28, 5.38, 4.12. Pedro - 4.55, 8.46, 8.88. Wow. WOW. Look at those SO/BB rates.

Finally, on to WHIP: Koufax: .875, .855, .985. Incredible. But Pedro? .932, .923, .737. That last number is not a typo.

Now, to cap it off: adjusted ERA. Koufax: 159, 160, 190. Pedro: 219, 243, 291. Basically, Pedro was replicating - or at times FAR SURPASSING - Koufax's performance in far, far more difficult league conditions.

No one had ever been as good as Pedro before, and it may be a long time before we see anyone that good again. Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, but he's nowhere near as good as Pedro was only a few years ago.

sweet_lou_14
05-05-08, 06:20 AM
I hate when somebody starts a thread to praise one player and it gets hijacked into a thread about somebody else. So now we get to talk about Pedro. I wonder when the first A-Rod vs. Jeter post will land here.

Back on topic, Rivera's numbers over his career are absolutely sick and it's a pleasure watching him this season, again. One of the reasons I personally get impatient with the team's performance is that I want the team to be good enough to deserve a guy like Mo cosing games for them. And I want to see him (and Jeter and the rest of the old guard) get another ring.

Metroidman
05-05-08, 10:51 AM
Maybe not longevity wise, but if you're talking about the best pitching peak in history nothing even comes close to Pedro's 97-00 seasons.

Look up someone by the name of Greg Maddux

He's pretty damn close at times even better.

rodney27nyg
05-05-08, 06:38 PM
Look up someone by the name of Greg Maddux

He's pretty damn close at times even better.


Maybe that Bob Gibson guy?

Bouton_Howe
05-05-08, 09:57 PM
Maybe that Bob Gibson guy?

Just like the Koufax comparison, look at the average league ERA. What Pedro did at the height of the steroid era (at Fenway too) exceeds any other stretch of dominant starting pitching in baseball.

sierchio
05-05-08, 11:02 PM
Pedro started out as a setup guy... kinda like someone else...

rodney27nyg
05-06-08, 02:49 AM
Just like the Koufax comparison, look at the average league ERA. What Pedro did at the height of the steroid era (at Fenway too) exceeds any other stretch of dominant starting pitching in baseball.

Hey. The man said himself we were "his daddy". That knocks him off any pedestal in my mind.:P

Neither Gibby or Koufax would've admitted that.;)

Bouton_Howe
05-06-08, 09:07 AM
Hey. The man said himself we were "his daddy". That knocks him off any pedestal in my mind.:P

Neither Gibby or Koufax would've admitted that.;)

Sure but Koufax quit playing altogether rather than pitch through his injuries. I imagine Koufax's 30s would have declined a lot like Pedro's 30s (including the "daddy" years).

Yankee Fan in Boston
05-06-08, 09:12 AM
Pedro wasn't just the best, he was the best ever by a lot.

Let's consider Koufax's best three seasons (the ones where he pitched the most IP as well):

1963 - 1.88 ERA (league ERA 3.25), 306 K in 311 IP, 58 BB
1965 - 2.04 ERA (league ERA 3.26), 382 K in 335.7 IP, 71 BB
1966 - 1.73 ERA (league ERA 3.28), 317 K in 323 IP, 77 BB

Those are tremendous seasons. And he struck out a lot of batters, too, and his walk rates seem pretty incredible. But then take a look at three of Pedro's seasons:

1997: 1.90 ERA, (league ERA 4.17), 305 K in 241.3 IP, 70 BB
1999: 2.07 ERA, (league ERA 5.02), 313 K in 213.3 IP, 37 BB
2000: 1.74 ERA (league ERA 5.07), 284 K in 217 IP, 32 BB

Koufax was terrific. His K/9 stats were 8.86, 10.24, 8.83 respectively. In contrast, Pedro's were 11.37, 13.20, 11.78 in his three seasons, respectively. One is REMARKABLY superior to the other. Now SO/BB ratio: Koufax - 5.28, 5.38, 4.12. Pedro - 4.55, 8.46, 8.88. Wow. WOW. Look at those SO/BB rates.

Finally, on to WHIP: Koufax: .875, .855, .985. Incredible. But Pedro? .932, .923, .737. That last number is not a typo.

Now, to cap it off: adjusted ERA. Koufax: 159, 160, 190. Pedro: 219, 243, 291. Basically, Pedro was replicating - or at times FAR SURPASSING - Koufax's performance in far, far more difficult league conditions.

No one had ever been as good as Pedro before, and it may be a long time before we see anyone that good again. Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, but he's nowhere near as good as Pedro was only a few years ago.

Before we close the door on this -- look at the innings pitched. The impact Koufax had for his team in roughly 100 more innings/year, and the difficulty in throwing those innings, has to be considered, doesn't it?

MaximMan121
05-06-08, 09:45 AM
Pedro wasn't just the best, he was the best ever by a lot.

Let's consider Koufax's best three seasons (the ones where he pitched the most IP as well):

1963 - 1.88 ERA (league ERA 3.25), 306 K in 311 IP, 58 BB
1965 - 2.04 ERA (league ERA 3.26), 382 K in 335.7 IP, 71 BB
1966 - 1.73 ERA (league ERA 3.28), 317 K in 323 IP, 77 BB

Those are tremendous seasons. And he struck out a lot of batters, too, and his walk rates seem pretty incredible. But then take a look at three of Pedro's seasons:

1997: 1.90 ERA, (league ERA 4.17), 305 K in 241.3 IP, 70 BB
1999: 2.07 ERA, (league ERA 5.02), 313 K in 213.3 IP, 37 BB
2000: 1.74 ERA (league ERA 5.07), 284 K in 217 IP, 32 BB

Koufax was terrific. His K/9 stats were 8.86, 10.24, 8.83 respectively. In contrast, Pedro's were 11.37, 13.20, 11.78 in his three seasons, respectively. One is REMARKABLY superior to the other. Now SO/BB ratio: Koufax - 5.28, 5.38, 4.12. Pedro - 4.55, 8.46, 8.88. Wow. WOW. Look at those SO/BB rates.

Finally, on to WHIP: Koufax: .875, .855, .985. Incredible. But Pedro? .932, .923, .737. That last number is not a typo.

Now, to cap it off: adjusted ERA. Koufax: 159, 160, 190. Pedro: 219, 243, 291. Basically, Pedro was replicating - or at times FAR SURPASSING - Koufax's performance in far, far more difficult league conditions.

No one had ever been as good as Pedro before, and it may be a long time before we see anyone that good again. Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, but he's nowhere near as good as Pedro was only a few years ago.

There has to be something said, however, for the innings totals there.

Koufax was throwing around 100 innings more per year than Pedro. That's a lot of innings, and inherently a lot of value.

I'm not going to go so far as to label Koufax better than Pedro--but it's a much more contested argument than you imply.

Rocketman
05-06-08, 10:41 AM
There has to be something said, however, for the innings totals there.

Koufax was throwing around 100 innings more per year than Pedro. That's a lot of innings, and inherently a lot of value.

I'm not going to go so far as to label Koufax better than Pedro--but it's a much more contested argument than you imply.

That's a function of the time period. Pedro pitched during a time of 5 man rotations, Koufax 4. It's a lot easier to pitch 300 innings when you have the chance to.

effdamets
05-06-08, 10:54 AM
That's a function of the time period. Pedro pitched during a time of 5 man rotations, Koufax 4. It's a lot easier to pitch 300 innings when you have the chance to.
Koufax averaged nearly an inning more per start than Pedro did. (if my math is correct)

YASS
05-06-08, 10:58 AM
Koufax averaged nearly an inning more per start than Pedro did. (if my math is correct)
That's also a function of the times. This is the age of the closer.

Yankee Fan in Boston
05-06-08, 11:02 AM
That's also a function of the times. This is the age of the closer.

While that's true, I don't think you can just discount it and say Pedro's numbers are better. That extra inning/game would have been when Koufax was most tired, and the 100 extra innings over the course of the year almost certainly would have affected his performance.

MaximMan121
05-06-08, 11:02 AM
That's a function of the time period. Pedro pitched during a time of 5 man rotations, Koufax 4. It's a lot easier to pitch 300 innings when you have the chance to.

Well, yes. That said, it was well documented how Pedro's ERA after the 100 pitch mark was not just un-Pedro-like, it was simply subpar. Since Pedro wasn't throwing many 60 pitch outings to skew his innings down, I'd say it's quite safe to say he was throwing between 95-115 pitches per outing. Thus, if he'd added that 100 innings per year, it'd have come (roughly) from pitches 115-140. Pitches where Pedro wasn't up to snuff, on a regular basis.

If someone has a source that disproves my previous point (by showing he threw more pitches than I thought per game, or that his performance late in games doesn't support my hypothesis, feel free to call me out. I just don't know where to research those specific statistics.)

Think he'd have held that ERA+, or the winning percentage, throwing those extra pitches? Think he'd have lasted even the short time that he did? Part of your argument for Pedro being better is that "it was a different time". Unfortunately, part of the argument for Koufax is similarly that "it was a different time".

I think Pedro Martinez was a phenomenal pitcher. I think it's not easy to objectively classify him as the best of all time based on ERA+ (or k/9, or k/bb, etc. as just about any statistic wears down as the pitcher does). Innings pitched must play a large role in any such discussion. Why do we say that Mo shouldn't be considered that, even though his ERA+ will be the highest? Because he throws far fewer innings, which confers significant advantages to the pitcher.

Turns out, that's why you can't declare Pedro the winner over Koufax as well.

THEBOSS84
05-06-08, 11:05 AM
ERA+ needs to be adjusted somehow to weigh in IP. This will help settles Koufax/Pedro arguments as well as a relievers value when compared to an SP.

Yankee Fan in Boston
05-06-08, 11:08 AM
ERA+ needs to be adjusted somehow to weigh in IP. This will help settles Koufax/Pedro arguments as well as a relievers value when compared to an SP.

It's also just very hard to compare pitchers across different eras. Makes for fun discussion, but you just can't look at numbers and make absolute declarations.

Yankee Tripper
05-06-08, 11:27 AM
That's a function of the time period. Pedro pitched during a time of 5 man rotations, Koufax 4. It's a lot easier to pitch 300 innings when you have the chance to.It's also easier to keep your ERA down when you only have to throw 7 innings instead of 9 and every 5th or 6th day instead of every 4th or 5th. On the flip side Pedro didn't get to face the pitcher and had to work with a lower mound. Sandy also had 62 CGs in those 3 seasons including 27 in 65, Pedro only had 25 CGs in his 3 best years.

This isn't a knock on Pedro, he was amazing and I'd give him the nod over Sandy especially when you factor in Sandy's home road splits and realize he had a career 1.37 ERA at Dodger Stadium v 2.76 overall. While Pedro's Fenway park ERA of 2.74 isn't much different from his career 2.81 mark.

simmy886
05-06-08, 03:00 PM
Hitter's Park. Juiced balls and batters. Faces DH. Completey non-segregated game. And of course - height of the steroid era.
Could Koufax have survived those conditions, let alone thrived like Pedro?

simmy886
05-06-08, 03:02 PM
In any event, 34 more innings for Mariano.

zombo
05-06-08, 03:29 PM
agreed. pedro was the best ever. but i dont think theres a problem comparing era/era+ between starters or between relievers, and the fact that a guy accumulates 1000 innings with a near 200 era+ is unbelievable (and unprecedented) even for a reliever. but i totally agree about pedro... in the steroid era, in fenway park, he put up a few of the more ridiculous seasons you will ever see, and i actually think he's underrated and overlooked only because people don't usually agree hes the best ever despite all the evidence pointing for him.

and i'll join that group that says pedro's not the best ever. sandy koufax, roger clemens in his prime, walter johnson, and some guy named greg maddux were all better.

zombo
05-06-08, 03:33 PM
Pedro wasn't just the best, he was the best ever by a lot.

Let's consider Koufax's best three seasons (the ones where he pitched the most IP as well):

1963 - 1.88 ERA (league ERA 3.25), 306 K in 311 IP, 58 BB
1965 - 2.04 ERA (league ERA 3.26), 382 K in 335.7 IP, 71 BB
1966 - 1.73 ERA (league ERA 3.28), 317 K in 323 IP, 77 BB

Those are tremendous seasons. And he struck out a lot of batters, too, and his walk rates seem pretty incredible. But then take a look at three of Pedro's seasons:

1997: 1.90 ERA, (league ERA 4.17), 305 K in 241.3 IP, 70 BB
1999: 2.07 ERA, (league ERA 5.02), 313 K in 213.3 IP, 37 BB
2000: 1.74 ERA (league ERA 5.07), 284 K in 217 IP, 32 BB

Koufax was terrific. His K/9 stats were 8.86, 10.24, 8.83 respectively. In contrast, Pedro's were 11.37, 13.20, 11.78 in his three seasons, respectively. One is REMARKABLY superior to the other. Now SO/BB ratio: Koufax - 5.28, 5.38, 4.12. Pedro - 4.55, 8.46, 8.88. Wow. WOW. Look at those SO/BB rates.

Finally, on to WHIP: Koufax: .875, .855, .985. Incredible. But Pedro? .932, .923, .737. That last number is not a typo.

Now, to cap it off: adjusted ERA. Koufax: 159, 160, 190. Pedro: 219, 243, 291. Basically, Pedro was replicating - or at times FAR SURPASSING - Koufax's performance in far, far more difficult league conditions.

No one had ever been as good as Pedro before, and it may be a long time before we see anyone that good again. Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, but he's nowhere near as good as Pedro was only a few years ago.

so now we base players on 3 years? that's bull. pedro had 3 great years. koufax had 3 great years. koufax had the better career. you can't narrow down to such a small sample and make that decision.

zombo
05-06-08, 03:34 PM
Just like the Koufax comparison, look at the average league ERA. What Pedro did at the height of the steroid era (at Fenway too) exceeds any other stretch of dominant starting pitching in baseball.

just because pedro played during a time when over half the pitchers were putrid doesn't mean he was better.

Jace
05-06-08, 03:41 PM
so now we base players on 3 years? that's bull. pedro had 3 great years. koufax had 3 great years. koufax had the better career. you can't narrow down to such a small sample and make that decision.

Are you kidding? Other than Koufax's 4 year peak, he didn't do much (I know he retired early)... He only won 165 games... Pedro has done more and his peak is better.

Pedro's peak was SEVEN seasons long, it was better than anyone else's by far, and he has had a few good to great seasons other than that. I think he's the best pitcher ever. Clemens and Maddux weren't quite as dominant and they've pitched a lot longer, which makes them tied for second in my opinion (steroids notwithstanding). Walter Johnson pitched in such a different era that comparison is hard

In Mo I Trust
05-06-08, 03:45 PM
so now we base players on 3 years? that's bull. pedro had 3 great years. koufax had 3 great years. koufax had the better career. you can't narrow down to such a small sample and make that decision.

Pedro clearly had the better career. He has thrown over 2600 innings of 160 ERA+ ball. Sandy threw 2300 innings of 131 ERA+ ball. Pedro had the better peak. It isn't close.

Yankee Tripper
05-06-08, 03:49 PM
koufax had the better career.
That would be true if it wasn't false. By every statistical measure except ERA which Kofax was better by all of 0.05 Pedro's numbers are far better.

Pedro was more Ws with a higher winning %
Pedro has more Ks with a higher K/9 rate.
Pedro has given up 100 fewer walks, despite pitching far more innings.
Pedro has lower WHIP
Pedro has a much higher ERA+

I don't know if it is anti red sox bais on the board but Pedro Martinez has been mind boggelingly good in his career.

Kofax does have to post season edge. How does someone have a 0.95 ERA in 8 WS games but only a 4-3 record?

THEBOSS84
05-06-08, 03:50 PM
That would be true if wasn't false. By every statistical measure except ERA which Kofax was better by all of 0.05 Pedro's numbers are far better.

Pedro was more Ws with a higher winning %
Pedro has more Ks with a higher K/9 rate.
Pedro has given up 100 fewer walks, despite pitching far more innings.
Pedro has lower WHIP
Pedro has a much higher ERA+

I don't know if it is anti red sox bais on the board but Pedro Martinez has been mind boggelingly good in his career.

Kofax does have to post season edge. How does someone have a 0.95 ERA in 8 WS games but only a 4-3 record?

One of the best lines I've ever seen (would have been better if you remember to put the word "it")

Yankee Tripper
05-06-08, 05:10 PM
One of the best lines I've ever seen (would have been better if you remember to put the word "it")my typing skills leave a lot to be desired.

parkerstrong
05-06-08, 05:35 PM
and i'll join that group that says pedro's not the best ever. sandy koufax, roger clemens in his prime, walter johnson, and some guy named greg maddux were all better.

I love the Yankees, but have got to be kidding. Pedro was the best I have ever seen (I just turned 26) and his numbers are outstanding. If you factor in whole career, he may not be the best, but clearly he had the most dominanting 3 year run ever. Factor in the steroid era, in fenway, etc. and it is mind boggling. I remember every time we faced him I would hope we could get an amazing start and hold the Sox to at most 1 run. Had so much pressure to pitch well when he pitched.

1936-1939JoeNLou
05-06-08, 10:32 PM
Pedro had the best peak of any pitcher in history. Although Maddux was putting up similar ERA+ titles AND leading the league in innings. But still I give it to Pedro.

But he's not the best pitcher of all time. Not even close. Quantity counts aswell. I have

Walter Johnson
Greg Maddux
Lefty Grove
Cy Young
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Roger Clemens*
Tom Seaver
Christy Mathewson
Randy Johnson
Bob Feller
Bob Gibson


Those I have over him for their entire careers. When we rank pitchers you're usually talking about careers with peak taken into consideration. Also I dont think it's fair to cross compare eras (Grove with Maddux etc). Everybody had the same adavantages as the pitchers in the era...these just excelled at it. Anyway every era has it's advantages and disadavantages. The best way to look at is how they performed in their time, with some consideration to era.

To sum it up, even compared to his league Martinez was never a workhorse. His career probably wont last 18 seasons and he may be nearing the end. Most of the pitchers above had 18+ seasons of effective pitching and were absolute horses in their time.

Best peak pitcher? Yeah (Maddux on his tail)

Best pitcher ever? No, not even close.

KeithF40
05-07-08, 02:08 AM
Also less MLB teams so Koufax was facing a better quality player.

But then you can say that the players now are alot better than they were back in the day because of increased performance from weights and what not.

Basically there is no way to compare these pitchers.

I got to see Pedro in his hay day and he was absolutely sick, that's all I can say about that.

simmy886
05-07-08, 07:27 AM
Also less MLB teams so Koufax was facing a better quality player.

But then you can say that the players now are alot better than they were back in the day because of increased performance from weights and what not.

Basically there is no way to compare these pitchers.

I got to see Pedro in his hay day and he was absolutely sick, that's all I can say about that.

Also Koufax only had to face the best white players in the world, primarily. If there were only "white people plus Pedro" allowed to play baseball in today's game Pedro would look even better.
Agreed about not being able to compare though, generally speaking.

pWi
05-08-08, 06:16 AM
Also less MLB teams so Koufax was facing a better quality player.

But then you can say that the players now are alot better than they were back in the day because of increased performance from weights and what not.

Basically there is no way to compare these pitchers.

I got to see Pedro in his hay day and he was absolutely sick, that's all I can say about that.
I was about to say something along the lines of this. There are so many factors that come into play between the 2 (or any pitchers from a different era), that coming up with a definite conclusion seems impossible

This is also why I think the ERA+ statistic is flawed, since it only compares the pitcher with the league's pitchers. 1961 is going to be a lot different than 2000..and league average ERA isn't the only factor that should be taken into consideration before you start comparing 2 pitchers from a different era

MaximMan121
05-08-08, 04:07 PM
I don't think there's much anti-sox bias going on here. I don't think anyone is saying Pedro is anything short of fantastic/amazing/incredible/pick your adjective.

I would still like to hear someone actually refute the innings issue. 100+ innings more per season is a lot of innings. ERA+ takes innings into account, but not "stressful innings", as in innings thrown after 100 pitches, (or however else you'd like to define it).

I'd honestly probably take Koufax, gun to my head, but there'd be no certainty in me (when examining the number set provided by rocketbooster above).

False1
05-09-08, 06:17 PM
Also less MLB teams so Koufax was facing a better quality player.

But then you can say that the players now are alot better than they were back in the day because of increased performance from weights and what not.

Basically there is no way to compare these pitchers.

I got to see Pedro in his hay day and he was absolutely sick, that's all I can say about that.Not to mention that Koufax typically pitched on 3 days rest and went 8+ innings per start. There are just too many variables to really make a good comparison. I'm sure it would have been fascinating to see Koufax go to work. I know that everytime Pedro's turn came up against the Yankees we were in for a battle (which also made the victories against him that much sweeter!)

Bottom line, both great pitchers that don't even need to be compared to justify their place in the game.

bigwampum
05-11-08, 04:59 PM
There should be a stat that counts how many runs a pitcher "saved" over a league-average replacement, which could then be adjusted for time period, park, etc. That way you could take innings into account.

For instance if league average is a 4.50 ERA, and Tommy Fastball has a 2.50 ERA in 100 innings, he's "saved" his team 22.2 runs. If Billy Knuckleball pitches to a 3.50 ERA in 200 innings, he's "saved" his team the same number of runs, so they are equally valuable pitchers.

Maybe this kind of thing already exists, who knows.

simmy886
05-11-08, 09:44 PM
There should be a stat that counts how many runs a pitcher "saved" over a league-average replacement, which could then be adjusted for time period, park, etc. That way you could take innings into account.

For instance if league average is a 4.50 ERA, and Tommy Fastball has a 2.50 ERA in 100 innings, he's "saved" his team 22.2 runs. If Billy Knuckleball pitches to a 3.50 ERA in 200 innings, he's "saved" his team the same number of runs, so they are equally valuable pitchers.

Maybe this kind of thing already exists, who knows.

ERA+ accomplishes exactly this. It takes the ERA a league average pitcher in Pitcher X's park and league would be, and then looks at how much better or worse Pitcher X's ERA is. 100 is the same as the average pitcher, 150 means he is 50% better than average pitcher in that situation, etc.

Edit: My bad - I didn't read your post close enough. I'm not sure why you want to reward innings pitched so much though.

groovitude
05-11-08, 09:54 PM
ERA+ accomplishes exactly this. It takes the ERA a league average pitcher in Pitcher X's park and league would be, and then looks at how much better or worse Pitcher X's ERA is. 100 is the same as the average pitcher, 150 means he is 50% better than average pitcher in that situation, etc.

Edit: My bad - I didn't read your post close enough. I'm not sure why you want to reward innings pitched so much though.
You want to "reward" IP to measure effectiveness as a factor of stamina. It's like the whole Chamberlain-as-reliever debate: if he can post the same ERA as a starter as he does as a reliever, the 200 IP of that ERA will be much more valuable than 75 IP of the same ERA. Of course, he won't measure up with the same ERA -- so a way of effectively comparing the two with this in mind would be very helpful.

sweet_lou_14
05-11-08, 10:21 PM
Mariano Thread = Pedro vs. Koufax.

Dynasties R Forever
05-13-08, 01:31 AM
Hitter's Park. Juiced balls and batters. Faces DH. Completey non-segregated game. And of course - height of the steroid era.
Could Koufax have survived those conditions, let alone thrived like Pedro?

It was the midget!

bannusvdk
06-21-08, 10:12 AM
13 innings left! Maybe this will be the year Mariano wins the Cy Young...I know it's early, but who else would be contending as of right now?

Mr. Mxylsplk
06-21-08, 11:04 AM
To qualify for the pitching "rate" statistics leaderboard over at baseball-reference.com, you need Minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions.
How can a pitcher get 1000 IP without 3000 PA? Am I missing something or is that redundant? I guess technically a relief pitcher can retire inherited runners on the basepaths, and pad their ip #'s that way, but the likelihood of any pitcher doing that in enough numbers to reach 1000 ip without 3000 batters faced seems implausible.

4bronxbombers
06-21-08, 11:26 AM
I hate when somebody starts a thread to praise one player and it gets hijacked into a thread about somebody else. So now we get to talk about Pedro. I wonder when the first A-Rod vs. Jeter post will land here.

Back on topic, Rivera's numbers over his career are absolutely sick and it's a pleasure watching him this season, again. One of the reasons I personally get impatient with the team's performance is that I want the team to be good enough to deserve a guy like Mo cosing games for them. And I want to see him (and Jeter and the rest of the old guard) get another ring.

I agree. Sheesh.

YASS
06-21-08, 02:29 PM
I agree. Sheesh.
The original post in the thread left the impression that because Mo would soon be atop the lifetime ERA+ ratings on BR, he was close to rightfully being acknowledged as the best pitcher in the history of baseball.

Of course people are going to take the opportunity to dispute that because the implication is categorically false.

4bronxbombers
06-21-08, 03:07 PM
The original post in the thread left the impression that because Mo would soon be atop the lifetime ERA+ ratings on BR, he was close to rightfully being acknowledged as the best pitcher in the history of baseball.

Of course people are going to take the opportunity to dispute that because the implication is categorically false.

K....so maybe he's not the best pitcher in the history of baseball but he's a DAMN good - no, great pitcher - and we're lucky to have him I should add. Call me a homer but that's my opinion. For people to come in the thread and immediately start trying to "prove" the thread starter wrong is bogus IMO but it's an internet so people are going to do that.....whatever.

:soapbox:

Yankee Tripper
06-21-08, 03:12 PM
The original post in the thread left the impression that because Mo would soon be atop the lifetime ERA+ ratings on BR, he was close to rightfully being acknowledged as the best pitcher in the history of baseball.

Of course people are going to take the opportunity to dispute that because the implication is categorically false.
Best pitcher ever? No.
Best relief pitcher ever - unquestionably!

YASS
06-21-08, 03:54 PM
Best pitcher ever? No.
Best relief pitcher ever - unquestionably!
No argument from me.

But when you tout his placement on the top of that list you imply more than that. No disrespect to his incredible longevity at the top of the relief pitcher pile, but his inclusion on that B-R lifetime leader list is simply an artifact of his many years of performance.

I doubt many would argue that Mo would have been as successful in the much more difficult to sustain world of starting pitching excellence.

BennyTheJetRodriguez
06-23-08, 12:34 AM
13 innings left! Maybe this will be the year Mariano wins the Cy Young...I know it's early, but who else would be contending as of right now?
If K-Rod breaks Thigpen's record there is no way Mo will get the CY Young, unfortunately. Shame too, because as far as starters go nobody really sticks out right now.

WestCoastBiaS
06-25-08, 05:31 PM
Well, for an average offensive and pitching team in 1997, replecing Pedro's pitching for an average pitcher would have given you an expected 7.62 additional wins, 7.27 in 99, and 8.30 in 2000. As for Koufax his pitching would have helped average team by 6.66 additional wins in 63, 7.29 in 65, and 8.94 in 1966. So it looks to be that Koufax had a slightly more valuable best year, and Pedro had a slightly better three year peak. (This is the best purely statistical way I can come up with for controlling for the disparity of inninngs and disparity of eras and ballparks). It's probably worth mentioning that in terms of career value, Pedro is far surpassing Koufax with three other great seasons (5+ wins added, 98,02,03) and four other very good seasons (2+ wins added 95,01,04,05) while Koufax only had one other great season, 64, and two other very good seasons, 61 and 62.

Yankee Tripper
06-25-08, 05:36 PM
If K-Rod breaks Thigpen's record there is no way Mo will get the CY Young, unfortunately. Shame too, because as far as starters go nobody really sticks out right now.
Lackey 5-1, 1.65
Duchscherer 8-4, 1.99
Kazmir 6-3, 2.03
Lee 10-1, 2.45

Doesn't look like a Bartol Colon type Cy-young season for starters is shaping up. Not sure how you can say no one really sticks out for starters.

BennyTheJetRodriguez
06-25-08, 09:53 PM
Lackey 5-1, 1.65
Duchscherer 8-4, 1.99
Kazmir 6-3, 2.03
Lee 10-1, 2.45

Doesn't look like a Bartol Colon type Cy-young season for starters is shaping up. Not sure how you can say no one really sticks out for starters.
Santana had a pretty dominant year when Colon won too. Writers are stupid. If Lee is the only 20 game winner it will be WIDE open. Evaluating how well pitchers are pitching in terms of pitching success is very different from evaluating how well pitchers are pitching in terms of the CY Young award.

kan_t
06-26-08, 06:28 AM
Santana had a pretty dominant year when Colon won too. Writers are stupid. If Lee is the only 20 game winner it will be WIDE open. Evaluating how well pitchers are pitching in terms of pitching success is very different from evaluating how well pitchers are pitching in terms of the CY Young award.If Lee keeping his ERA around 3 and he is the only 20 game winner, he will win it. Now if Moose is the only 20 game winner, it is really be wide open. Then Mo may have a chance.

nnysiny
07-20-08, 03:44 PM
997 1/3 career innings for Mo

VFBundy
07-20-08, 09:20 PM
How can a pitcher get 1000 IP without 3000 PA? Am I missing something or is that redundant? I guess technically a relief pitcher can retire inherited runners on the basepaths, and pad their ip #'s that way, but the likelihood of any pitcher doing that in enough numbers to reach 1000 ip without 3000 batters faced seems implausible.I was wondering that, as well. The only way it seems possible that a pitcher could get 1000 IP without having 3000 PA is for said pitcher to retire more inherited baserunners on the basepaths than the number of hits + walks + hit by pitch he allows. So, this pitcher would somehow, over 1000 IP, have to retire more inherited baserunners than baserunners allowed.

So, yes...for all intents and purposes, it is redundant.

EvanJ
07-21-08, 09:31 AM
Could the 3,000 plate appearances minimum be for hitters, not pitchers?

Mr. Mxylsplk
07-21-08, 11:47 AM
Could the 3,000 plate appearances minimum be for hitters, not pitchers?
Interesting - they have the same minimum listed - 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for offensive rate stats too, so you may be right. That would certainly make more sense.

nnysiny
07-27-08, 09:17 AM
999 1/3 IP. he might do it tonight against the Red Sox

BennyTheJetRodriguez
07-28-08, 08:11 PM
probably won't be seeing him tonight.

bannusvdk
07-29-08, 09:22 PM
3...2...1...0. Countdown over.