Albert Pujols: As a Cards' fan I'm biased, but...

[WSUCougar]

Threadjackers. Please, this is a Pujols thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, we've gotten past that .

[Ramzavail]

Pujols is 30...just wait

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

...I think it's safe to say he is on-track to be one of the all-time greats.

Discuss.

While I agree with you.

I remember thinking the same thing about Will Clark. A sure fire Hall of Famer I tell you! Ooops.

[DanGarion]

Albert Pujols is almost on the Jack Bauer of kickass.

[McSweeny]

Similar Batters through Age 25
Compare Stats

1. Joe DiMaggio (905) *
2. Frank Robinson (894) *
3. Jimmie Foxx (891) *
4. Hank Aaron (883) *
5. Hal Trosky (874)
6. Vladimir Guerrero (871)
7. Orlando Cepeda (870) *
8. Ken Griffey (865)
9. Mickey Mantle (862) *
10. Joe Medwick (849) *

[BishopMVP]

His consistency is just ridiculous. Coming in at age 21 and hitting .330 with 37 HR's, maintaining that pace or better the next 4 years? Now if he's turned it up another notch and keeps doing what he's doing for this full season, his numbers will be epic. Even if he's 29 or 30 now, that's still ridiculous. And if he's really 26 and still improving? Dear god. Avoid injuries and he'll re-write every record, just like Griffey Jr. and Thomas did before him.

On Thomas, he gets screwed because he was dominant just before HR #'s took off and everyone started obsessing over OBP. He also had his most dominant season (1994) when he was a legitimate Triple Crown threat killed due to strike.

[WSUCougar]

One of the scarier Pujols skills is his ability to hit with two strikes. It's almost like he wants to set the pitcher up to get there, and knows exactly what he's doing.

And if you haven't watched him play much (other than the ESPN HR clips), he's becoming one helluva defensive first baseman.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

And if you haven't watched him play much (other than the ESPN HR clips), he's becoming one helluva defensive first baseman.

A fact that Hrabosky will never let any of us forget.

[DaddyTorgo]

A PRIMELORD SIGHTING!! A NEW GAME CAN'T BE FAR BEHIND!

[dawgfan]

It's not really accurate to say that Pujols didn't display power in the minors. He only had the one season, but he still hit 41 doubles and 19 HR's in 490 AB. His SLG for the year was .543.

Pujols has had a phenomenal start to his career. Of recent guys, Frank Thomas is the only one I can think of that's had a better start. Even if Pujols is a few years older than his listed 26, it's still a hell of a start to his career. If he can stay healthy, he could be right there with A-Rod in challenging Aaron's HR record.

He's certainly on pace to enter himself in the discussion of top RH hitters of all time.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

One of the scarier Pujols skills is his ability to hit with two strikes. It's almost like he wants to set the pitcher up to get there, and knows exactly what he's doing.

And if you haven't watched him play much (other than the ESPN HR clips), he's becoming one helluva defensive first baseman.

Uh oh... I'm thinking you are going to start making Chuck Norris-like proclaimations about Pujols next.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ramzavail

No, I should restate when I mean.

When looking at players that I consider in the same realm of talent, I use consistency and longevity to be a determining factor to who should be ahead of the other.

Ryan isn't even a top 25 SP of all time, while Koufax is top 5.

To me, its close between Murray and Thomas, but I'd give Murray the edge b/c of 3,000 hits and 500 HRs and the longevity.

Koufax is not even top 20. Pedro Martinez is the pitcher people imagine Koufax was. This reverence for the past in lieu of the present is one of the things that baseball desperately needs to get over. Respect the past - don't over estimate it.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by primelord

A fact that Hrabosky will never let any of us forget.

You mean "The Mad Homerian"?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Koufax is not even top 20. Pedro Martinez is the pitcher people imagine Koufax was. This reverence for the past in lieu of the present is one of the things that baseball desperately needs to get over. Respect the past - don't over estimate it.

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

[McSweeny]

Originally Posted by dangarion

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

yeah easily, but Pedro is still far and away the best

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by dangarion

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

Call it all you want. Koufax is a great pitcher, but he's probably the second most overrated pitcher of all time - after Nolan Ryan. THT just did a study on Koufax in dodger stadium as opposed to anywhere else - its illuminating. Pedro Martinez is significantly better. I'll try and address this later - work is sorta calling.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by dangarion

I call bullshit. Koufax is one of the best of all time, just like Drysdale.

In terms of peak value, yes, Koufax was one of the best of all time. His 4-year stretch before he retired due to elbow arthritis is one of the best such stretches in MLB history. But, prior to that he was only moderately above being a league-average starter. Also, Dodger Stadium appears to have helped out Koufax a great deal.

Koufax was unquestionably a great pitcher at the point at which he retired. However, his career isn't nearly as impressive as his hype would suggest. Pedro Martinez has already had a significantly better career than Koufax (and a better 4-year stretch of dominance as well). Randy Johnson arguably has had a 4-year stretch as good as Koufax, and a much better overall career.

Summary: in terms of peak value, Koufax is indeed one of the top pitchers of all-time. Career value though, he's well down the list.

[Huckleberry]

Koufax's great run started in 1962. The Dodgers moved from Memorial Coliseum to Dodger Stadium in 1962. Hardly a coincidence.

That being said, his run was spectacular. But even his 4-year craziness from '63-'66 was not as good as Pedro's 7-year run from 1997-2003.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Koufax's great run started in 1962. The Dodgers moved from Memorial Coliseum to Dodger Stadium in 1962. Hardly a coincidence.

That being said, his run was spectacular. But even his 4-year craziness from '63-'66 was not as good as Pedro's 7-year run from 1997-2003.

That's just not true. Koufax really started to turn it up in 1961 at age 25 when he went 18-13. '62 was a decent year, but '63-'66 were the magnificent years, and I think there is a much better correlation with that run coinciding with his peak age as a pitcher rather than simply blaming Dodger Stadium. Saying Doger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question as to why every Dodgers pitcher isn't great.

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That being said, his run was spectacular. But even his 4-year craziness from '63-'66 was not as good as Pedro's 7-year run from 1997-2003.

Martinez's great run -- which by the way started at age 25 as well -- was great, but it also included an injury-plagued season where he missed most of the year, so it was really a six-year run. Even then, Koufax was better in those four years than Pedro was in his six.

I don't take anything away from Pedro, but I don't think it's fair to compare the two. I think Koufax would have continued his brilliance for several more seasons had he not retired. The heart that man had to pitch when he knew his elbow as going to be swollen like a grapefruit after every game was amazing. With his arm falling off, Koufax average 7.9 innings per start. At age 30, Pedro average 6.6 innings per start. But since Koufax didn't pitch after 30, we don't know what he might have done. Up to age 30, they were very comparable pitchers, although I would give the edge to Koufax.

When it comes to intanglibles, I don't think there is any argument who is the better player. Koufax had a 0.95 ERA in the World Series, and the Dodgers won three of four World Series with him. Martinez has historically been a much worse pitcher in the postseason than the regular season. Pedro doesn't have the endurance and stamina that Koufax did, even though Pedro doesn't have a debilitating condition.

Pedro's great, but if I had to run one of those guys out there in a must-win game, I'd pick Koufax every single time.

[McSweeny]

Koufax pitched off a higher mound, in a huge ballpark, and in a league without a DH.

From 1903 through 1968 this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches (50.8 cm), especially for teams that emphasized pitching, such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were reputed to have the highest mound in the majors.

those 5-10 inches made a HUGE difference. Just ask Bob Gibson

[Katon]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Martinez's great run -- which by the way started at age 25 as well -- was great, but it also included an injury-plagued season where he missed most of the year, so it was really a six-year run. Even then, Koufax was better in those four years than Pedro was in his six.

But he wasn't. That's the thing. Koufax's ERA+ in his four years: 161, 187, 160, 190. That's very good. Pedro's ERA+ in his six-year run: 221, 160, 245, 285, 189 (injured), 196, 212. That's ridiculous. And Pedro was in the top eight in his league in innings pitched from 1997-2000 (the first four seasons) so most of the difference in their number of innings is just down to the different eras they pitched in. Koufax gets an edge on durability, sure, but not enough to make up for the fact that Pedro was completely unhittable.

[Fonzie]

I've read this entire thread, but I cannot figure out how a thread about a Albert Pujols' awesomeness became a debate about Sandy Koufax's and Pedro Martinez's relative peak values.

To bring this thread back on topic: Albert Pujols is awesomer than any human being, ever.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, when I said Koufax I was refering to his peak value, since we were discussing short brilliance vs. longevity.

Though I agree that Pedro's run HAS been more impressive than Koufax's (Katon's ERA+ comparison bears that out), but he wouldn't have made my point as well .

If we look at the stats (ERA+ is the prime one I'm looking at) there is a very good argument that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived. Even though he may not approach the lofty Wins numbers (he is 35 and just hit 200 wins), he is #1 all time in ERA+ (and it really isn't close... he's at 166, while 2nd place Lefty Grove is 148). He's #1 in the modern era in K/BB. He's 2nd in the modern era in Win/Loss % to Spud Chandler (of the famed Yankees teams of the late 30s and 40s). He's 3rd all time in WHIP behind two dead ball pitchers (Addie Joss and Ed Walsh). He's 3rd in K/9 behind Randy Johnson and Kerry Wood. He's got 3 Cy Youngs.

I'd be very tempted to put Pedro close to the top of the list. But, of course, longevity concerns do play a part, so perhaps he can't topple Lefty Grove and Walter Johnson from the top of my list.

[Katon]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

I've read this entire thread, but I cannot figure out how a thread about a Albert Pujols' awesomeness became a debate about Sandy Koufax's and Pedro Martinez's relative peak values.

Well, we've got to argue about something, and what on earth is there to argue about with Pujols?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Katon

Well, we've got to argue about something, and what on earth is there to argue about with Pujols?

Bingo... I don't know of anyone who doesn't think Pujols is awesome, provided all the info we have on him is true. So we have to talk about something else.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Katon

Well, we've got to argue about something, and what on earth is there to argue about with Pujols?

New debate topic: will, in the distant future, science be able to create a human being and/or android who approximates Albert Pujols' awesomeness?

Discuss.

[JonInMiddleGA]

New debate topic: If a team of 9 Pujols' faced a team of 5 Ditka's and 4 Mini-Ditka's who would win?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

New debate topic: If a team of 9 Pujols' faced a team of 5 Ditka's and 4 Mini-Ditka's who would win?

The team of one Chuck Norris. Duh.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's just not true. Koufax really started to turn it up in 1961 at age 25 when he went 18-13. '62 was a decent year, but '63-'66 were the magnificent years, and I think there is a much better correlation with that run coinciding with his peak age as a pitcher rather than simply blaming Dodger Stadium. Saying Doger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question as to why every Dodgers pitcher isn't great.

Dodger Stadium has, for virtually its' entire existence, been a pitcher's park. Most pitchers show advantages in their home/road splits when pitching in Dodger Stadium over a period of reasonable time.

I don't have home/road splits handy for Koufax, but I recall reading an article or two that did have that info, and I remember it heavily favoring Koufax's home numbers when pitching in Dodger Stadium.

Now, that's not to say that there weren't additional factors in play, like an improvement in his approach and a refinement of his control and his pitch quality. But, IIRC the numbers also show a pretty strong correlation between his move to Dodger Stadium and his big jump in performance.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by McSweeny

Koufax pitched off a higher mound, in a huge ballpark, and in a league without a DH.

those 5-10 inches made a HUGE difference. Just ask Bob Gibson

Again, if you want to start whipping differences like this, we could go on all night. Koufax pitched more day games and Martinez pitched more night games -- batting statistics are better during day games. Expansion has diluted the league and given Martinez weaker opponents.

Best of all -- Martinzez didn't have freakin' arthritis.

[primelord]

Here are the Home/Road splits for Koufax:

1961: The year before they moved

Home - 9-8, 4.22 ERA
Away - 9-5, 2.77 ERA

1962:

Home - 7-4, 1.75 ERA
Away - 7-3, 3.53 ERA

1963:

Home - 11-1, 1.38 ERA
Away - 14-4, 2.31 ERA

1964:

Home - 12-2, 0.85 ERA
Away - 7-3, 2.93

1965:

Home - 14-3, 1.38 ERA
Away - 12-5, 2.72 ERA

1966:

Home - 13-5, 1.52 ERA
Away - 14-4, 1.96 ERA


So what is very clear from those stats is that Koufax was dominant on the road as well, but he quite obviously had a HUGE advantage at Dodger Stadium.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

But, IIRC the numbers also show a pretty strong correlation between his move to Dodger Stadium and his big jump in performance.

That's post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Just because two things sort of happened at the same time -- which as I've noted, they didn't really -- doesn't mean one caused the other.

Pedro's great run kicked off when he moved to the National League, so I could argue that once he got on a better team he became a better pitcher. The Dodgers of that era were completely inept offensively -- that team was built on great pitching.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

New debate topic: If a team of 9 Pujols' faced a team of 5 Ditka's and 4 Mini-Ditka's who would win?

Tough one, but I have to give Pujols the nod, as he's the most awesome human ever.

Here's one that could spark some more intense debate: who would win if a team of 5 Diktas and 4 Mini Ditkas went up against a Millenium Falcon, a Death Star, 2 Galaxy-class cruisers, and 5 K'vort-class cruisers?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though I agree that Pedro's run HAS been more impressive than Koufax's (Katon's ERA+ comparison bears that out), but he wouldn't have made my point as well .

If we look at the stats (ERA+ is the prime one I'm looking at) there is a very good argument that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived.

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by primelord

Here are the Home/Road splits for Koufax:

1961: The year before they moved

Home - 9-8, 4.22 ERA
Away - 9-5, 2.77 ERA

1962:

Home - 7-4, 1.75 ERA
Away - 7-3, 3.53 ERA

1963:

Home - 11-1, 1.38 ERA
Away - 14-4, 2.31 ERA

1964:

Home - 12-2, 0.85 ERA
Away - 7-3, 2.93

1965:

Home - 14-3, 1.38 ERA
Away - 12-5, 2.72 ERA

1966:

Home - 13-5, 1.52 ERA
Away - 14-4, 1.96 ERA


So what is very clear from those stats is that Koufax was dominant on the road as well, but he quite obviously had a HUGE advantage at Dodger Stadium.

So in five seasons he won a grand total of three more games at home than on the road. Not terribly significant there. In four of five seasons he still had an ERA under 3.00 on the road, including a stellar '66 season.

I don't dispute that Koufax had better home splits than normal. Most players do perform better at home, and I'll grant that Koufax did better than average. I don't dispute that Dodger Stadium is a great pitcher's park. I don't dispute any of that.

But saying Dodger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question of why can't other Dodger pitchers over the years be that good? Valenzuela was never that good? Don Sutton was good, but never better than Koufax. Even Drysdale wasn't better than Koufax. And what Burt Freakin' Hooten?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Just because two things sort of happened at the same time -- which as I've noted, they didn't really -- doesn't mean one caused the other.

Actually, they did happen at the same time. His ERA+ jumped from 124 (the highest it had been by far since his 41.2 IP in his rookie year) in 1961 to 143 in 1962 and then 161, 187, 160 & 190. Now, it could also be said that he made a big jump from 1960 to 1961 - he did. And that shows it wasn't all Dodger Stadium. But, as the home/road splits that primelord posted show, he enjoyed a tremendous boost from Dodger Stadium, especially comparing 1961 in the Coliseum vs. 1962 and beyond in Dodger Stadium. He was a great pitcher anyway, but playing half his games in Dodger Stadium helped him even more in terms of his overall stats.

Pedro's great run kicked off when he moved to the National League, so I could argue that once he got on a better team he became a better pitcher. The Dodgers of that era were completely inept offensively -- that team was built on great pitching.

Huh? Pedro started off in the NL. He only pitched one full season in LA, and it was a very good season for him - his ERA+ was 151. He continued to be a good pitcher in Montreal, with ERA+ of 123, 120, 117 before exploding in his last season in Montreal with a ridiculous 221. That dominance continued when he moved to the AL and Boston.

As for the whole arthritis thing and comparing Koufax to Pedro, it could also be argued that Pedro has been pitching with a bum shoulder for the last 4 seasons, so while I respect the fact that Koufax's run was cut short due to injury and it may have effected him prior to his retirement, I'm not so sure Sandy was that much worse off in terms of health than Pedro has been for the last few years.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dude, Frank's a 1st ballot HOF, and one of the 5 best 1b who ever played the game. There's not much more he could have done.

Well, maybe among five best hitters who also happened to play 1B.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

Dear god, I wish I could be an old fart and keep arguing data with the line "I know better." ERA+ is certainly a flawed measure, but as much BS as you wish to spout, Pedro was amongst the league leaders in innings in his era - just like Koufax, even though he's significantly better. In his career, Sandy's been in the top 10 of innings exactly 4 times - Pedro's done it 6 times.

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
Pedro's not the best of all time - by any measure, except maybe peak value (1999-2000 is probably the best 2 season stretch in history). The best all time is probably Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, or Roger Clemens. But Pedro is better than Koufax - easily.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

So in five seasons he won a grand total of three more games at home than on the road. Not terribly significant there. In four of five seasons he still had an ERA under 3.00 on the road, including a stellar '66 season.

You're seriously using Win/Loss numbers as an argument? Seriously?

I don't dispute that Koufax had better home splits than normal. Most players do perform better at home, and I'll grant that Koufax did better than average. I don't dispute that Dodger Stadium is a great pitcher's park. I don't dispute any of that.

No, most players don't perform better at home. All other things being equal, playing at home provides an advantage, but when you factor in park effects and whatnot, there are quite a few players that don't peform better at home - that's why there are some parks that play more as hitter's parks (negatively affecting pitchers) and some play as pitcher's parks (negatively affecting hitters).

But saying Dodger Stadium made Koufax great begs the question of why can't other Dodger pitchers over the years be that good? Valenzuela was never that good? Don Sutton was good, but never better than Koufax. Even Drysdale wasn't better than Koufax. And what Burt Freakin' Hooten?

We're not saying that Dodger Stadium made Koufax a great pitcher - what we're saying is that the advantages Koufax gained pitching in Dodger Stadium were so great that they made his numbers that much better than they would've if he'd pitched his home games in a more neutral park.

I'd bet if you looked at home/road splits for all the Dodger pitchers listed above, you'd find nearly all (if not all) enjoyed an advantage in pitching at Dodger Stadium. Fernando Valenzuela was a good pitcher (though not in Koufax's class), but pitching half his home games in Dodger Stadium made his stats look better than they would've if he'd been a Cub.

And take another look at the significant difference between Sandy's home ERA between 1961 in the LA Coliseum and the following years in Dodger Stadium. It could be argued that Sandy had already turned the corner in 1961, but that improvement was masked by playing half his games in such a hitter-friendly park.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

I see - so what are we supposed to judge players by if not by their performance (which is what stats analysis is all about)? The line of argument ISiddiqui is pursuing is that, when you look at how pitchers have done in terms of ERA in comparison to the rest of the league, Pedro thus far in his career is about as good as it gets. Now, is that the only measurement to use when talking about greatest pitcher ever? No. Clemens' longevity is enough to outweigh Pedro's current ERA+ advantage. And Pedro, given his iffy shoulder, may not be able to come close enough in his career numbers to bridge that difference. But Pedro absolutely belongs in the argument.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

Uh, Pedro averaged 7.8 IP in his breakout year with Montreal, and at or above 7 IP thereafter until he injured himself. Until 1997, Montreal had babied him to keep him from breaking down. Since then he's been handled more carefully given his iffy shoulder, yes, but then again he's still pitching. Maybe if Koufax hadn't pitched so many innings he might not've had to retire so young.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

ERA+ is a far more important stat for starters than relievers because ERA for relievers is much less indicative of their effectiveness than it is for starters. Given the huge disparity in IP between HOF starter candidates and HOF reliever candidates, you'd better be a dominating reliever to gain entry. Quiz was very, very good for a few years there, but he wasn't dominant long enough and his career overall was too short to merit serious consideration as a reliever.

[Thomkal]

Well as a Cards fan, all I can say is I'm glad that the Cards have him and I'm glad I spent $45 fake dollars on him in my Rotisserie draft this season. A bit worried the nagging injury he's been fighting this season with his back is going to lead to some DL time.

Really hope five years from now we are still talking positive about him unlike Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro and the rest.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dola,
Pedro's not the best of all time - by any measure, except maybe peak value (1999-2000 is probably the best 2 season stretch in history). The best all time is probably Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, or Roger Clemens. But Pedro is better than Koufax - easily.

Pedro's got all of those guys beat in ERA+, so that's a measure where he's best. Not saying he's better overall than those guys because of it - he's not IMO due to the disparity in career length, but Pedro is in the argument, and every year from here on out where he's better than league average will strengthen his position in the debate. Basically, as long as his shoulder holds out, he's got a shot to be #1.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'd bet if you looked at home/road splits for all the Dodger pitchers listed above, you'd find nearly all (if not all) enjoyed an advantage in pitching at Dodger Stadium. Fernando Valenzuela was a good pitcher (though not in Koufax's class), but pitching half his home games in Dodger Stadium made his stats look better than they would've if he'd been a Cub.

L.A. Dodgers Pitching Splits

1961:

Home - 3.91 ERA (3.84)
Away - 4.18 ERA (4.22)

1962:

Home - 3.49 ERA (3.72)
Away - 3.92 ERA (4.19)
H/R Diff - 0.43 LH/R Diff - 0.38
HvsL Diff - 0.23 RvsL Diff - 0.27

1963:

Home - 2.53 ERA (3.26)
Away - 3.20 ERA (3.67)
H/R Diff - 0.67 LH/R Diff - 0.41
HvsL Diff - 0.73 RvsL Diff - 0.47


1964:

Home - 2.58 ERA (3.44)
Away - 3.34 ERA (3.72)
H/R Diff - 0.76 LH/R Diff - 0.28
HvsL Diff - 0.86 RvsL Diff - 0.38

1965:

Home - 2.74 ERA (3.36)
Away - 3.05 ERA (3.63)
H/R Diff - 0.31 LH/R Diff - 0.27
HvsL Diff - 0.62 RvsL Diff - 0.58

1966:

Home - 2.27 ERA (3.38)
Away - 3.01 ERA (3.67)
H/R Diff - 0.74 LH/R Diff - 0.29
HvsL Diff - 1.11 RvsL Diff - 0.66

The numbers in the parenthesis are the league wide averages. Here is a quick run down of what the Abreviations are:

H/R Diff - The difference between the Dodgers ERA at Home and on the Road
LH/R Diff - The difference between the league wide ERA at HOme and on the Road
HvsL Diff - The Difference between the Dodgers Home ERA and the league wide home ERA
RvsL Diff - The difference between the Dodgers Road ERA and the league wide Road ERA

So what can we conclude from the numbers above. In every single season the difference between the Dodgers home ERA and road ERA was bigger than the difference in the league wide home vs road ERA. In addition in every year except 62 their ERA at home compared to the league average ERA at home was bigger than the road comparisons. It seems pretty obvious that the Dodgers enjoyed a distinct advantage pitching at home in Koufax's golden years.

And before we get into a debate about the signifigance in the distance between the averages I would like to point out that Koufax likely got the most benefit from the advantage. For example let's say suddenly the major leagues started allowing players to use metal bats. If that were to happen offense across the board would go up. However the offensive increase would be more for a guy like Albert Pujols than a guy like So Taguchi. They both would do better, but Albert's significantly higher talent would allow him to better take advantage of the better bats.

No one here is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher and he was more able to use the advantages of Dodger Stadium to his gain.

[Fonzie]

ALBERT PUJOLS RULES!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Dear god, sometimes I wish some of these stat heads who took over baseball had their graphing calculators shoved so far up their ass they'd have to blow their nose to calculate a function.

I'm not slamming you ISiddiqui (man, that's hard to type) but anyone who wants to argue that Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher who ever lived -- and believes they have stats to prove it -- just has lost all sense of reality. Pedro is a great pitcher -- but greatest of all time? C'mon.

Anybody who can't get through an average of seven innings when they are at their most dominant is not the greatest pitcher of all time. Continuing my line from an earlier post, Koufax pitched in an era when relievers were used sparringly -- how much lower do you think Koufax's ERA might have been if he didn't throw 300-plus innings and stay in ball games late, maybe sometimes when he was starting to lose it late in the game? Pedro is a six-inning pitcher.

And if ERA+ is a determination of great pitching, I'm not going anywhere until everybody signs my Hall of Fame peition for Dan Quisenberry.

Its been said, but to clarify, I did not say he was the best pitcher of all time, but that you can make the argument (and its a pretty decent one). I think having, by far, the best starter ERA+ (I say that because when Mariano Rivera hits 1000 innings, he'll have the lead.. he's got an ERA+ of 197 and around 850 innings pitched) by a wide margin gives you an 'in' to the debate. I mean if people can make arguments for Koufax based on his peak, surely the same can be done, on an even better level for Pedro Martinez.

Though I did say I'd put Grove and Johnson over him. I don't know if I'd put Clemens over him though, but it'd be neck and neck. Pedro may not have pitched the most innings (though figures VERY well when compared to others in his era as pointed out), but when he did he was one of the best to ever pitch. Longevity is important, but, man, is his 7 year run incredibly impressive.

[DanGarion]

It doesn't really matter about this Pedro / Koufax arguement though. Bob Gibson is the best of all time.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Tough one, but I have to give Pujols the nod, as he's the most awesome human ever.

Here's one that could spark some more intense debate: who would win if a team of 5 Diktas and 4 Mini Ditkas went up against a Millenium Falcon, a Death Star, 2 Galaxy-class cruisers, and 5 K'vort-class cruisers?

Is that the Star Wars Death Star or the Return of the Jedi Death Star?

Also, are the Ditkas post-heart attack or pre-heart attack Ditkas?

[SuperGrover]

I think he was saying that if Frank Thomas hadn't gotten that rash of injuries and lost some of his amazing skill, he wouldn't just be talked about as one of the 5 best 1B to play the game, but perhaps as one of the 5 best PLAYERS to play the game.

After 1997, Frank was the 4th most productive player of all-time (IMHO) behind Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams. Since then, his star has diminished considerably.

Trust me, I LOVE FT. I could tell you way, way too much about his career. Still, even his biggest apologist (me) can't ignore his last 8 years.