Re: I can't believe.....

On May 20, 9:02 pm, Rob <rantho...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If Pedro miraculously returns to pre-2004 form and puts in 2-3 seasons
at that level, the discussion changes.  But the overwhelming
probability is that he'll limp through this year, maybe win a handful
of games for the Mets, and that that'll be it.<

Agreed.

When I make the argument for him, I make it assuming that the book on
him is virtually closed.

At 209 - 93, with an ERA lower than some of the legends discussed in
this thread, despite pitching in an era of immense run production,...

Yes, it was an era of immense run production, but that doesn't mean
the hitters were immensely better; to a substantial extent it may well
have been that the other pitchers were worse.

It also in essence gives him a pass for being essentially a non-entity
in his later career. Of the others I listed, only Christy Mathewson
fell apart at such a young age, all the others won more than 90 games
beyond age 34, and have the thousands of innings -- and generally have
the diminished relative stats (e.g., winning percentage, ERA) to show
for it.

3 Cy Youngs, and some incredible split stats  (3,000 K's vs 700 bb), I
hold him in higher regard than some pitchers you have mentioned.

Sounds like you saw Pedro in his prime, but not most of the others.
Or, put it another way: You ever see Pete Rose strike out 3 times in
one game?

Either way, neither of us is far off.

In 2000, Bill James ranked him as the 29th greatest pitcher of all
time.

Since then, he's won 84 more games, struck out over 1,200 more
batters, won a World Series, and finished 2nd, 3rd and 4th in Cy Young
votings.

It would be interesting to see where that would land him, if the
Historical Abstract was revised today.

Admittedly, he would fall short of James' top 10 all-time.

Which was, pretty much, what I said in response to your claim of him
being "easily" in the top 10. The 10 I mentioned all trump Pedro in
all of the HoF measures that baseball-reference lists; not that those
measures are objective by any means, but were he top 10 I'd expect him
to be top 10 in at least one of those measures.

That said, Pedro would be a good selection for the 2nd 10.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yanks are .500
    ... I completely agree that he didn't pitch great. ... ERA is not the primary statistic to use when making a judgment ... The point you keep missing is that pitchers don't win games; ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: OT: Triple Crown?
    ... In your example the pitcher with 20 wins and a 4.00 ERA wouldn't win ... pitchers that win 20 and didn't pitch pretty damn well that year. ... That is why I thought complete games would be a better barometer of how ... Obviously in my example there would be no triple crown that year, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Its official !!!
    ... this I mean that the Sox often had several pitchers who were ... Pat Rapp had a freaking 123 ERA+ for the 1999 Sox -- that's ... and Rapp was only the third best starter on that team! ... He started 26 games and relieved in 11 more -- sounds like ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: OT: Triple Crown?
    ... Kind of taking a look at the Triple Crown for the pitchers. ... offense is supporting him and an ERA of 4 in those games a better pitcher ... the other team tie or take the lead, his team rallies in the bottom ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Recently deceased celebrities
    ... a 1.75 ERA in 44 games. ... hitting is one of the statistics that would be effected, ... he started 41 games and threw 27 complete games, ... and pitch counts causing starting pitchers to get pulled early. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)