Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pedro VS Rocket VS Unit VS Maddog

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pedro VS Rocket VS Unit VS Maddog

    Four of the greatest pitchers of all-time. They all starred in the present era. But which of these titans had the greatest peak?

    Pedro Martinez

    1997 17-8 1.90 305K's
    1999 23-4 2.07 313K's
    2000 18-6 1.74 284K's

    Roger Clemens

    1986 24-4 2.48 238K's
    1990 21-6 1.93 209K's
    1997 21-7 2.05 292K's

    Randy Johnson

    1997 20-4 2.28 291K's
    2001 21-6 2.49 372K's
    2002 24-5 2.32 334K's

    Greg Maddux

    1992 20-11 2.18 199K's
    1994 16-6 1.56 156K's
    1995 19-2 1.63 181K's

    Just throwing out some of their best seasons
    35
    Pedro Martinez
    48.57%
    17
    Roger Clemens
    8.57%
    3
    Randy Johnson
    2.86%
    1
    Greg Maddux
    40.00%
    14
    "I was pitching one day when my glasses clouded up on me. I took them off to polish them. When I looked up to the plate, I saw Jimmie Foxx. The sight of him terrified me so much that I haven't been able to wear glasses since." - Left Gomez

    "(Lou) Gehrig never learned that a ballplayer couldn't be good every day." - Hank Gowdy

  • #2
    This isn't really a question. Pedro and nobody else is close.

    For the rest... I'd probably go Johnson then Clemens then Maddux, but I could really see any order at all out of those three (though I'll never be able to make an argument in Maddux' favor in good conscience.
    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Pedro definetely

      Comment


      • #4
        Yea I agree with Pedro

        Johnson had the insane # of K's
        Maddux had the low era's
        Clemens has the wins

        Pedro has everything
        "I was pitching one day when my glasses clouded up on me. I took them off to polish them. When I looked up to the plate, I saw Jimmie Foxx. The sight of him terrified me so much that I haven't been able to wear glasses since." - Left Gomez

        "(Lou) Gehrig never learned that a ballplayer couldn't be good every day." - Hank Gowdy

        Comment


        • #5
          I went with Pedro.

          Myankee, shouldn't a true "peak" be consecutive seasons; like the best 4 or 5 year stretch? Just picking random years to call a peak. Not sure about that

          Comment


          • #6
            What does it say when 19-7 with a 2.89 ERA (160+) and 250 K's in the late 90's in Fenway doesn't fit in with your "peak?"

            What does it say when that 160+ ERA is below your career mark?

            Pedro had the best peak of anybody pitcher ever, IMO. From 1997-2003 he had a cumulative ERA of 2.20

            Maddux 1992-1998 was certainly close. He had an ERA of about 2.15 over that period.

            Randy Johnson was amazing 1995-2002.

            Clemens had a disjointed peak.
            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

            Comment


            • #7
              Yea but I wasn't talkin about consecutive peak....peak years in general. Which are best years.
              "I was pitching one day when my glasses clouded up on me. I took them off to polish them. When I looked up to the plate, I saw Jimmie Foxx. The sight of him terrified me so much that I haven't been able to wear glasses since." - Left Gomez

              "(Lou) Gehrig never learned that a ballplayer couldn't be good every day." - Hank Gowdy

              Comment


              • #8
                All of them are future hall of famers but Pedro had the better peak years than Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson.
                go sox.

                Pigskin-Fever

                Comment


                • #9
                  I was interested in seeing what the metrics say about Pedro and Greg and the answer was certainly intriguing.

                  Win Shares has Greg Maddux at 30, 26, 27 for a total of 83 win shares. Pedro at 29, 27, 26 for a total of 82 win shares.
                  Two things to note. 1: As an NL batter Greg gets some bonus points for hitting. 2: 1994 was a 114 game seasons and 1995 was a 144 game season. Roughly 20% less games were played in those two seasons then in normal seasons.

                  That is how good Greg's 1994 season was. He recieved 26 win shares in only 25 starts. That projects out to 36 win shares in 35 starts for a normal season.

                  Now if we go over to BPro and look at their stats we can at least at it without a players hitting worked into it. Greg is 106, 99, an 104 runs above replacement. Pedro is 119, 116, and 108. Greg is 309 runs above replacement and Pedro is 343 runs above replacement. Now again the problem of shortened seasons come into play. Unless they do something differently that I don't know about Greg's 1994 season comes out to 139 runs above replacement and his 1995 comes out to 126 runs above replacement. Full seasons worth of Greg would be at 371 runs above replacement.

                  One thing that pops out at me is that in 1994 and 1995 Greg Maddux completed a total of 20 games. He only pitched 53 total games those years. He completed 38% of his games, and for the three years he completed 33% of his games. Pedro's best stretch is 20 complete games in 60 total games for a 33% and for the 3 years a 28% completion rate in 89 total starts. Interesting side note despite the much shorter seasons Greg Maddux started 88 games to Pedro's full season 89 games.

                  In conclusion I would go with Maddux' peak over Pedro's. Don't know about Rogers or Randy's haven't looked in detail at them yet.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RedSoxVT92
                    All of them are future hall of famers but Pedro had the better peak years than Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson.
                    Maddux.

                    Maddux led the league in IP in 1991, 92, 93, 94, 95 and finished second in 1990 and 1996. During that span he also put up ERA+'s of 259 and 273. He also put up an overall ERA+ of 202 from 1992 to 98.

                    He had the quality and the quantity. When taken together, he gets the nod over Pedro's spectacular run at the top.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Greg Maddux will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to things like this because he isn't a firballer. He doesn't have a 15 strikeout game, heck he doesn't have a 10 K game either. All he does is get you to weakly hit the ball to a fielder, which doesn't give people that sense of awe like a 20 K game does. Maddux would start a ton of games, pitch a ton of innings and keep the scoring low. Strikeouts are nice and flashy but three pop-ups are the same as three strikeouts, and Maddux was the master of this just as much as Randy or Roger was the master of the strikeout.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by csh19792001
                        Maddux.

                        Maddux led the league in IP in 1991, 92, 93, 94, 95 and finished second in 1990 and 1996. During that span he also put up ERA+'s of 259 and 273. He also put up an overall ERA+ of 202 from 1992 to 98.

                        He had the quality and the quantity. When taken together, he gets the nod over Pedro's spectacular run at the top.
                        its easy to do that when your not pitching to a DH in a high offensive atmosphere like Pedro
                        Last edited by Blackout; 03-19-2006, 09:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          easy? Every single other pitcher in the National league had the same condition as Maddux, yet Maddux came out on top. On top of that NL pitchers have to worry about getting pulled for a PH in late innings while their AL counterparts don't.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have to go with Mad Dog Maddux here. Martinez may have had a better ERA+ over his span (let's go with '97-'03 as his extended peak for Martinez and '92-'98 for Maddux - 7 years for both of them). Martinez's ERA+ was around 200, while Maddux's was only around 195 (I'm sorry, I didn't feel like figuring out the exact figures here).

                            But, we need to deal with quality and QUANTITY!!! Over those seven years for Martinez, he only averaged around 200 IP/season - in part to his injury shortened season in '01, whereas Maddux averaged closer to 240, a number that Martinez only surpassed once, and that is without factoring in the strike shortened seasons, in which case, Maddux would destroy Pedro even more. As is was already mentioned, Maddux led his league in IP from '91-'95, and was 2nd in 1996. This was in part due to leading in Games Started from '90-'93 and 2nd in '94 and '96, and leading in Complete games 3 times during this span and in the top five 3 other times. Maddux was a major workhorse during this time, while we all know that Martinez can't last.

                            Maddux missed several games due to the strike shortened seasons of '94 and '95, yet he still pitched nearly 270 more innings than Martinez - that is over a full seasons worth of pitching, or it comes down to Maddux pitching at the same level at Pedro, but doing to in 4 more games/year than Pedro, for 7 years. So tell me who is more valuable? A guy with a 200 ERA+ for 200 innings, or a guy with a 195 ERA+ for 250 innings?

                            So for all of them, I go:

                            1. Maddux - He was THE MAN back in the day, he just didn't gloat in the spotlight as much as some others.
                            2. Pedro - I may rank on him a lot, but I have to give him props for what he does, he is an amazing pitcher, and has still yet to lose a game against the Mariner's, which is starting to make me mad
                            3. Big Unit - extened peak - '97-'02, w/o injuries in '96 and '03, he could contend for #2.
                            4. Roger Clemens - I put him as the best of the four for their careers (#2 all-time), but he didn't have as much of a clearly defined peak for me, so for this exercise he does not come out on top.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I went with Pedro because of the park differences--but it was close. Had Maddux pitched in Fenway or Wrigley instead of Atlanta then it could easily be Mad Dog. If he pitched in LA we might be saying Sandy who?

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X