Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens- The Greatest Pitcher Ever?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
    Roger is hardcore competitor. He would have drilled Cobb in the ribs for sure, "Get off the plate, punk!". And Cobb would have loved it. Didn't Cobb crowd the plate on Walter because he knew Walter wouldn't come inside. I'm surpised you're not a big Clemens fan, Bill. He has the same intense desire to win as Cobb did.
    This is a very good point. Roger Clemens is old school in his no holds barred, afraid of no one attitude. I wouldn't classify his drive or intensity as on the level of Cobb, but I love his (and Pedro's attitude) of dominance. Clemens' workouts are of legendary intensity, too- that should be noted here.

    Pedro is one of the only people that not only stands up to Barry Bonds, but intimidates HIM!! Saw Pedro go right after Bonds last year- striking him out and making him look, frankly, silly. It was a great change of pace from all these cop outs who let him stand right over the plate fully armored, throw four garbage pitches outside, and then breathe a sigh of relief as he trots to first. Those guys are NOT old school- baseball needs more Drysdale/Gibson/Martinez/Clemens types- that's for sure.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 12-28-2006, 03:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      [QUOTE=csh19792001]
      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
      Roger is hardcore competitor. He would have drilled Cobb in the ribs for sure, "Get off the plate, punk!". And Cobb would have loved it. Didn't Cobb crowd the plate on Walter because he knew Walter wouldn't come inside. I'm surpised you're not a big Clemens fan, Bill. He has the same intense desire to win as Cobb did. QUOTE]

      This is a very good point. Roger Clemens is old school in his no holds barred, afraid of no one attitude. I wouldn't classify his drive or intensity as on the level of Cobb, but I love his (and Pedro's attitude) of dominance. Clemens' workouts are of legendary intensity, too- that should be noted here.

      Pedro is one of the only people that not only stands up to Barry Bonds, but intimidates HIM!! Saw Pedro go right after Bonds last year- striking him out and making him look, frankly, silly. It was a great change of pace from all these cop outs who let him stand right over the plate fully armored, throw four garbage pitches outside, and then breathe a sigh of relief as he trots to first. Those guys are NOT old school- baseball needs more Drysdale/Gibson/Martinez/Clemens types- that's for sure.
      People cry when Pedro/Clemens brush someone back. It's really a shame they are the exceptions, not the rules. Very few will brush hitters back these day.

      Comment


      • #63
        [QUOTE=BoSox Rule]
        Originally posted by csh19792001
        People cry when Pedro/Clemens brush someone back. It's really a shame they are the exceptions, not the rules. Very few will brush hitters back these day.
        Another awful (lamentable) component of today's game, indeed, BoSox.
        Last edited by csh19792001; 04-25-2005, 09:51 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by leecemark
          --Some six months ago we started a series of polls on the greatest pitchers of all time. Walter Johnson won first in a landslide, with over 2/3 of the vote. With Clemens drawing down over 40% of the vote here (he was 5th in those polls) that clearly wouldn't happen again. Unless all the "no others were greater still" voters back Walter then Clemens would be the favorite for the top spot.
          --Those polls ran out of steam at #60, but I think it would be interesting to run them again and see what has changed with the addition of new blood to our membership and some revaluation by some older members. I'll have to think about whether I'd rather start out with one at a time polls again or do MVP style voting, but look for a new "Greatest Pitchers" series in the near future. Meanwhile, I'd be interested to hear who the no voters here support. That is, is it anyone other than Walter Johnson who contends with Rocket for #1?

          I've made it quite clear that I support Cy Young

          Cy Young won more games on more dreadful teams against more dominant opponents then Walter Johnson, he faced the cream of the National League early in his career and the much stronger AL at the backend, even the Senators and Browns were dangerous during Young's time

          Mnay look at Kid Nichols and say he doesn't get enough support, youngest man to win 300 games, but fail to realize Nichols was on the Yankees of the 19th century the Boston Beaneaters...and if Cy Young and Nichols were switched, Young would have many more wins and a lower ERA

          Why a lower ERA? Because of the bear down factor...Young had to bear down as much as Starters today, since many of his wins were 1 run affairs with no closer to help him. He also had some dismal defensive help and weak bats. I realize Walter Johnson leads all pitchers with one run victories, but Johnson also looked quite human when the lively ball hit, and Cy Young looks better in comparison, especially considering that Young pitched in the most offensive laced Era in baseball's history

          Personally I don't think ERA+ takes into account just how drastic Young's era was, and one thing ERA+ cannot take into account were old rules such as a batter being able to bunt foul until he got a good pitch, or cut bases etc.

          I also do not get the thinking nowadays that even after Koufax, Grove, Johnson et al were pitching or long since gone, that baseball experts STILL named the pitching award The CY YOUNG Award. Why do you think that is? No, it wasn't pity because he died...he WAS still considered the greatest pitcher that ever lived even in 1960

          Yet Grove and Johnson continually get placed above Cy Young in pitching rankings despite his win% above team win%
          Last edited by Imapotato; 04-25-2005, 07:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Adam,

            You are wrong I say. We do have a lot of that info. Walter gave out lots of interviews, cause I have them.

            His article, "The Greatest Batters I have Ever Faced", was given in Baseball Magazine, June, 1925, pp. 291-292. His list included, Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Speaker, Cobb, Collins, Frank Baker, and Ruth. http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...19&postcount=4

            His article, "The Greatest Players I Ever Saw", included Waddell, Matty, Alexander, Jackson, Ruth, Crawford, Cobb. Baseball Magazine, October, 1929, pp. 487, 488, 517, 518. http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...80&postcount=2

            And I have posted these articles in Historical Articles. http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=32294

            We know what he thought of his peers. And not from others, but his own words, written down carefully in his private time, and submitted for publication. He was very articulate. I'll share a little treat with our members & you, from Walter. This is from his 1929 piece.
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
            "Great pitchers have not necessarily excelled in speed. I remember Christy Mathewson very well. I saw him pitch a number of games. He is commonly rated as the best all-round pitcher who ever lived. That may be true. I hesitate to say anything which would detract to the slightest degree from the well-earned reputation of a man who was universally respected in life and who is now dead. But I am going to be honest with my opinion, such as it is. With all due respect to Mathewson, I think Grover Alexander had a little on him. I can think of nothing that Mathewson had that Alexander didn't have. Certainly Alexander had a marvelous fast ball. Not so speedy as some, it was particularly good because it was so deceptive. My fast ball jumped and frequently broke up. Alexander's fast ball broke down. Mathewson gained fame in his later years because of his fadeaway. But if he ever had a better fadeaway than Alec, I never saw it. Alec's screw ball is proverbial. Mathewson's control was gilt-edged. But even there I think Alexander could go him one better. Alec's control is as near perfection as it's humanly possible to get. I doubt if any pitcher ever lived who could put the ball as near where he wanted it to go, game in and game out, as Grover Alexander. I doubt if any pitcher will ever exel him in that respect.

            Mathewson made a grand reputation and deserved it all. Usually, however he had a strong, scrappy team behind him. Alexander has had many weak teams behind him in the years of his career.

            They tell many tales of Matty's pitching wisdom. I have no doubt that he was a master of the craft. And yet, I can not think of anything worth knowing in pitching that Alexander doesn't know.

            Alexander is what I never was, a well-rounded pitcher. He has everything. I am talking now of the years of his prime. Alexander is an old veteran now and can not last much longer, but he lasted longer than I did. And he lasted because he was such a well-rounded pitcher. When my great speed left me, my bid to pitching greatness went with it. When Alexander's speed left him, he fell back on an all-round assortment of stuff and an unbeatable control."
            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 12-28-2006, 04:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              If Clemens Plunked Cobb in the ribs:

              What would happen? Well, here is what Ty did to Carl Mays and several others who refused to stop throwing at him.

              He'd drag a bunt down to the 1st baseman and make the pitcher cover 1st.
              When Ty came through the 1st base area, he'd knock the pitcher flat on his face. If the violation continued, he'd cut the pants off the guy and leave a scar. They called their Cobb scars, Cobb's kiss.

              In Mays' case, he was a known head hunter. Cobb had run-ins with him. Here is what Carl wrote in his autobiography in 1972.

              "And then, as Carl stared into his open locker, his thoughts went back to that day in Fenway Park when Carl had decked the Georgia Peach in a tight situation and Ty had responded by throwing his bat at him. Cobb had needed police protection to get off the field that day.

              Then there was the day in Detroit when Carl was leaving the dressing room to go out on the field and saw Cobb, filing his spikes, on the bench before the open door of the Tigers' dressing room.

              "I hear you're pitching today, Mays. I hear you're pitching, but you won't be around very long," Cobb hollered as Carl and his teammates clattered along the corridor to the dugout. Carl hadn't paid any attention to Cobb then, but he let Ty know later that he'd heard him.

              "The first time he came to bat I decked him but good," Carl recalled.

              "The dirt really flew when he hit the ground and he came up wild with rage. He had a terrible temper and was always scrapping with somebody. If it wasn't the umpires or the other players he would scrap with his own teammates.

              "But I made a mistake in sitting him down in that frame of mind. It nearly cost me my baseball career. I had to come in with the next pitch, in order to get even on the count, and he dragged a bunt down the first base line. I ran over, fielded the ball and turned to toss it to first base. But I never completed the play.

              "Just as I was about to toss an underhand lob I was slammed into from behind and knocked sprawling on the foul line. At the same time I felt one of Cobb's spikes rip into the calf of my left leg while his other tore my pants from the belt line right down to the back of my knee. Cobb had run right over me.

              "I lay there stunned for a moment and then rolled over onto the infield grass and sat up. When I got courage enough to look at my leg, it was just a bloody mess. I remember wondering if I would ever run again.

              "And when I looked up at Cobb, there he was, standing with both feet on top of the first-base bag. His chin was sticking out like a witch's and his eyes were nearly popping out of his head. I never before had seen any person with such a look of wild hatred in his eyes.

              "What present-day fans don't know about Cobb is that he was like a big cat. If you turned your back to him he would strike--be off and running to the next base. You never could take your eyes off him. He was extremely fast and was running at full speed after having taken only one step.

              "The mistake I had made was in getting in his way on the baseline. The baseline was his--according to him--and he just ran right over me after knocking me to the ground. I carry the scar of that spiking to this day. It is more than six inches long. The doctor, incidentally, did a wonderful repair job and I only missed a couple of pitching turns.

              "There is one other thing I remember as I sat there on the ground looking up at Cobb. It is the thought that went through my mind: All right, mister, if that's the way you want to play this game, that's the way we'll both play.

              "So the next time I faced Cobb I hit him on the heel with the first pitch I threw. That was the time the papers came out the next day with the headline 'Mays Beans Cobb.' But Cobb got my message, and he never again tried to cut me up."

              "Yes, Cobb was a great player, one of the greatest. There can be no question about that. But I also will have to tell you that he was the most vicious player I ever encountered in my twenty years of professional baseball. I don't think there was an infielder in my time who didn't carry around for the rest of his life at least one scar from his spikes. If you go up to Burlington, Vermont, Larry Gardner, who was our third-baseman on the Red Sox, can tell you about a scar he has on his hip! . . ."
              -------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Carl's book shows a photo of his scar.
              Attached Files
              Last edited by Bill Burgess; 12-28-2006, 07:12 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Cy Young won more games on more dreadful teams against more dominant opponents then Walter Johnson, he faced the cream of the National League early in his career and the much stronger AL at the backend, even the Senators and Browns were dangerous during Young's time
                Aside from his team mates, Young obviously faced just about everyone in the leagues he played in, not just the cream. This was also true Johnson and every other pitcher who threw a substantial number of innings. Are you making the case that hitters were better in Young's time (largely pre-1900) than in Johnson's?
                "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
                - Danielle Rousseau

                Comment


                • #68
                  Come on Bill, you can't give Roger any love at all?!!! Why is 1910's culture more "brutal" than todays? How do you know that Roger would have hated playing in 1910?

                  I truly blelieve that no one in their right mind would want to stay there in that time period. Might be charming to visit for a couple of weeks, but that's it.

                  I also believe that anyone from then would love to be here now. No comparison.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    addendum

                    Bill-
                    On Carl Mays/Cobb and oldtimer flat out hatred and pure intensity- have you read Sowell's "The Pitch That Killed"? Mays was always trying to kill Cobb-once Cobb even fired his bat back at the mound Sept 1915 series after being leveled (the series was of particular levity because they were notted at the top for the pennant). Most don't know that Carl Mays and Babe Ruth got off the same train in 1914 to join the Red Sox- Mays got sent back to the minors and came up the next year. Cobb's enmity with the mighty Sox during the teens was well known- a pitch from Ray Collins broke one of Ty's ribs in 1914, causing him to miss almost 60 games. One can gripe all you want about adjusted stats and athleticism- but the intensity level, from everything I've read (which is quite a bit), has declined quite a bit from Ty's day to today (and quite a bit from the 60's Dodgers-Giants fury days to today, also). That isn't reconcilable in any stat, mean adjusted, SD adjusted, or otherwise- guys with the killer instinct (e.g., Pedro and Clemens) are unfortunately the exception today, not the rule.

                    P.S.- with free agency and guys constantly getting traded for gaudier contracts, there are no (or scarce few) personal allegiances to teams anymore. That, combined with the fact that there are 30 teams, and its very HARD for longstanding, vicious rivalries to develop that make the game that much more intense, hardfought, and exciting. Cubs-Cards and (to a greater extent) Yanks-Sox of today are (fortunate) surviving vestiges of the past.
                    Last edited by csh19792001; 04-25-2005, 09:37 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by [email protected]
                      Come on Bill, you can't give Roger any love at all?!!! Why is 1910's culture more "brutal" than todays? How do you know that Roger would have hated playing in 1910?

                      I truly blelieve that no one in their right mind would want to stay there in that time period. Might be charming to visit for a couple of weeks, but that's it.

                      I also believe that anyone from then would love to be here now. No comparison.
                      Since very few people that were alive in 1910 are around today, only they can answer that question. I'm sure there were many people that were quite happy in 1910. I doubt there were many people in 1910 saying "Oh my god the world is awful! Someone please take me to the year 2005".

                      And didn't Roger strike out Cobb in the movie "Cobb"?
                      Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 04-25-2005, 09:57 PM.
                      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules
                        One question...how so you know that Johnson never dogged it? We don't have that much information about him. No one today really knows that much about Johnson. He wasn't as colorful as Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Rube Waddell, Babe Ruth, or Christy Matthewson. All we have are mosty old grainy photos and his stats and his stats ar pretty dominating of course. In all my years I have seen one film clip of his delievery.

                        Also, I can't imagine that Clemens dogged it too much. He has won 329 games in his career. I don't see how one can "dog it" and still win those many games...
                        You're right - we don't know for certain that Johnson never dogged it - it just doesn't look like it when you look at his record. He had one bad year in 1920 due to injury when he won only 8 games and pitched only 144 innings. But when you look at Clemens record the last 4 years he was with the Red Sox, he was 40-39, averaged fewer than 200 innings and had inflated era and walk totals compared to the years immediately preceding and immediately after that period of time. In his 2 seasons with Toronto he was 41-13, with an era under 3. Did he have a remarkable recovery? Was Toronto of 97 & 98 that much better a team than the Red Sox of 93-96? Yes, the Red Sox were pretty mediocre in that time period and the 94 season was a short one, but you have to wonder how a guy can go from looking like he was at the end of his career in 96 to winning 21 games for a team that was 10 games under .500 in 97.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by mac195
                          Aside from his team mates, Young obviously faced just about everyone in the leagues he played in, not just the cream. This was also true Johnson and every other pitcher who threw a substantial number of innings. Are you making the case that hitters were better in Young's time (largely pre-1900) than in Johnson's?
                          No just that the AL was less diluted

                          During Cy's time the AL grabbed every superstar playe rthe NL had, with exception of the Pirates squad

                          Before that, there was only the NL so with less teams, less bad players to face

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            >>>You lay out a good, strong argument. You make deft era adjustments. You are compelling, persuasive and don't miss too may angles. I feel as if I'm losing the debate to the school's master debater.




                            And you're the cunning linguist! Ahahaha!





                            >>>>>I have never said that Walter could have suceeded in today's environment. Maybe if he had been born in modern time, he'd have seen the need to develope other pitches, just as he did in the 20's when he came up with a "curve". It's a hypothetical possibility, but one I can't prove.

                            >>>>>Just as you can't prove what Roger might have done in Walter's time, with a 4 man rotation, the need to finish your games, etc. I expect that Roger would have done just fine and been a dominant pitcher, but I can't prove it. Just speculate.




                            I've suggested as much in this thread, that Roger might not have been able to do what Walter did in Walter's time, but Walter might not be able to do what Roger does in Roger's time. They are men with different skill sets and they played under different conditions that favored different skill sets. Nolan Ryan (the poster here at BBF, not the pitcher) suggested that we not even bother ranking all-time pitchers, but only the best from each era, correctly recognizing that the times make the man.

                            You ever see The Big Lebowski? There's a line that says that "there's a man for every time and place, and the Dude was the man for this time and place." Roger is the man for his time and place, Walter the man for his.

                            You said that Walter was more dominant in his time than Roger in his. I aim to prove otherwise, in a later post. But one thing I want to address now - the idea that Walter dominated a more brutal, tougher landscape than Roger, hence your choice of Walter over Roger.





                            >>>>>But just as I've often suggested, life in the 1910's was brutal compared to today's culture. I strongly feel that Walter would love adjusting to today's game, much as Roger would have hated the 1910's culture of lack of convenience. Walter would have had many things to ease him into today, while Roger would have needed novacaine to ease the stripping away of all things he loved. TV, radio, training films, nutrition, computers, comfortable travel, etc. Roger would be groveling/whimpering to come back to the future, while we'd have to drag Walter back to the past, biting, kicking, clawing, spitting.



                            You say Roger would be begging to get back to the future. Fine. And Walter would be begging to get back to the past. One is always more comfortable in familiar surroundings. Walter would find conditions in 2005 equally hellish, for it is not what he is used to. Just try to imagine his shock:

                            How would Walter enjoy facing a line-up with a DH? Walter's used to facing 8 hitters, not 9. Scratch that - actually, he's used to facing 6 hitters, plus a non-hitting pitcher, a non-hitting catcher, and a non-hitting shortshop. How'd he like facing a shortshop who hits 30 HR's? Or a line-up that slugs .450?

                            Walter would be begging to get back to cavernous Griffith Stadium, with its 400-foot (!!!) left field foul pole. I say he'd be begging to get back to the day when hitters were afraid to crowd the plate, when hitters werent capable of pulling fastballs off the outside corner for homeruns, when they didn't wear "illegal" body armor on their upper arms. He'd remember the day when, at 6'1" and 200 lbs., he was the biggest man on the field - now, he'd be shocked and disheartened to learn that he's undersized for a pitcher.

                            He'd remember the day when hitters didn't have laser eye surgery, when you could leave a fast(dead)ball out over the middle of the plate and, as Bill James once said, it took Ty Cobb just to hit this thing out of the infield. He'd be shell-shocked to find line-ups loaded with muscle-bound behemoths, each of them bigger than any man Walter ever laid eyes on in his life, capable of driving the ball with a regularity Walter can't imagine. No longer taller than every hitter he faces; no longer throwing off a 15" surface; no longer pitching from a height well above the hitter; standing on a 10" surface against hitters taller than he is, with arms the size of his legs. I imagine his heart would sink into his stomach, staring up, not down, at bigger, not smaller, men than he. A sight like that'll psych some guys right out. But don't turn around, Walter! You don't want to think about those oh-so-close fences! And don't look up or around either - you're not used to 6,000 flash cameras going off with every pitch. "Golly, you mean this game is on TV? How many viewers? Ten million?"

                            One is always more comfortable in familiar surroundings. Sure, Clemens would miss lots of things about his home. And Walter his. He'd be utterly bewildered in 2005.

                            You say that Walter's time was tougher; that's debatable. I grant you that in some ways. things were tougher. Physically, there were less amenities to keep a body strong and healthy, that is true. Roger would miss that.

                            But mentally, things are much tougher now. With the salaries athletes make, and the media coverage they receive, they are under far more pressure now than in Walter's time. How well would he adjust to the bright lights and big screen? Could he handle it? Not everyone can.

                            But the big reason why I take Roger over Walter is this: while Walter was great at what he did, and Roger great at what he does, what Roger does is far more sophisticated than what Walter did. I do admire a physical freak who can throw, throw, and throw all day long, tirelessly. I admire more the man who can not only throw, but who can also think, who can change speeds, change movement, get into a hitter's head, and beat him on multiple levels beyond simply out-matching his bat speed.

                            And if Clemens' plunked Cobb in the ribs, and Cobb went after Clemens, no way would that psych Clemens out, or allow Cobb to get the better of Clemens. First of all, if it happned in 2005, Cobb would be fined, suspended, possibly banned, and would join John Rocker in mandatory, MLB-sponsored psychological counseling. If it occured in 1915, well, after Clemens heals up, all it'd do is enrage him even further. There's a good chance that the burly 6'4" Texan would flat out kick Cobb's ass; or they can take it out like baseball players. Cobb spears him with his spikes, Clemens'll spear him in the head with the 95 heater. It'd just escalate from there. You'd have to pull these two off each other.
                            Last edited by Metal Ed; 04-26-2005, 09:43 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              --There is a problem with the talent concentration in the 12 team NL of the 1890s. Yes, 12 MLB teams should have more talent available to them than 16 a decade later. However, the distribtuion of that talent was very unequal. Exaggerating only slightly, there were 6 major league teams competing in a league head to head with their own farm teams.
                              --Syndicate ownership meant two teams in the league had the same ownership and concentrated all the top talent on one. Half of each teams games were against what amounted to minor league competition. The worst teams of the 1890s were probably the worst teams ever to play major league baseball. The contracted NL of 1900 was probably the best single season league until at least 1910 or so, but that was only one year.
                              --When the AL started up there was a brief dip in the overall talent in MLB due to the extra teams tha needed to be stocked. By 1902 or 3, the AL had become the better league and the NL of 1903-4 (and perhaps 05-6?) was a very weak league. However, the cleaned up game in the AL led to a great explosion of interest in the game (MLB in the 19th century had a very bad reputation and little appeal to "better class" of people) which benefited both leagues (the NL had to clean up to compete). Within a decade of the AL's start up both leagues were almost certainly better than the NL of the 1890s, perhaps even better than the concentrated talent year of 1900.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                >>>Pedro is one of the only people that not only stands up to Barry Bonds, but intimidates HIM!! Saw Pedro go right after Bonds last year- striking him out and making him look, frankly, silly.



                                Do you happen to remember about when it was? I just got MLBTV; they have archives of last years' games. Pedro striking out Bonds? This is something I MUST see.



                                >>>It was a great change of pace



                                Was the pitch a change of pace, too? Ha! I slay me.



                                >>>from all these cop outs who let him stand right over the plate fully armored, throw four garbage pitches outside, and then breathe a sigh of relief as he trots to first. Those guys are NOT old school- baseball needs more Drysdale/Gibson/Martinez/Clemens types- that's for sure.





                                Agreed 100%. I also agree with you that fans need to stop putting down Pedro/Roger types when they toss a few pitches high and tight - just like Drysdale and Gibson did. You know how many times I've heard people say that guys like Clemens and Pedro are "protected" by the DH? What kind of lunacy is this? They take something that actually makes their job harder as pitcher, and twist it around to make it sound like it makes their job easier.

                                I've heard this: "In the NL, they'd have to bat, so they'd be afraid of retaliation. So they'd never throw at hitters, and they'd never be great pitchers without that fear factor, so Pedro and Clemens are overrated."

                                I'm glad that Clemens went to the NL and won the Cy Yound award, proving them wrong. As for Pedro Martinez - does anyone remember the last time he was in the NL? In 1997, with the Montreal Expos? He won the Cy Yound award that year, too. He was a headhunter then, and he's a headhunter now. And he's off to a great start in the NL this year, too. Go Pedro! I hope he takes home his 4rth Cy Young this year.
                                Last edited by Metal Ed; 04-26-2005, 09:50 AM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X