Dwight Gooden's season in 1985 was the most electrifying season by a MLB pitcher in the last 25 years.
Jazinho said 09/28, 09:22 PM
It was his second year in the Bigs. He was just a kid and he took the baseball world by storm.
He went 24-4.
ERA - 1.53 over 278 innings.
TradeAngelos said 09/28, 10:06 PM
I'll take Pedro Martinez in 1999 or 2000. Gooden pitched in a big ball park in the National League with no DH. He also pitched to a lot fewer power hitters. Dale Murphy led the National League in homeruns with 37. Think about all the disadvantages Pedro had. He had to pitch in Fenway Park against the American League with players who were juicing on a regular basis. In 1999, his ERA was 3 RUNS below league average. During 2000, his ERA of 1.74 was less then 1/2 of the second place Clemens' 3.70 ERA. It was comical how good this guy was in his prime.
Jazinho said 09/28, 11:18 PM
Good pick, but, you should decide on one year or the other as per the premise, but anyhow...
Electrifying. Gooden was a wonder kid. It was his second year. Gooden's rising fastball was an unhittable pitch.
Martinez did not pitch nearly as many innings as Doc did in '85.
Doc - 278
Martinez - 213 or 217, depending on what year you choose. That's an appreciable difference.
The word "electrifying" is up for interpretation, clearly, but Martinez was already a proven commodity. Dwight was a kid.
TradeAngelos said 09/29, 12:38 AM
If pitching 6 no hit innings out of the bullpen in Game 5 of the 1999 ALDS after straining a back muscle isn???t electrifying, I don???t know what is. How about allowing 1 hit and striking out 17 Yankees at the Stadium? I???m definitely not a Red Sox fan but Pedro was easily the most thrilling pitcher I've ever seen take the mound.
Jazinho said 09/29, 03:14 AM
I said "electrifying season" not "game" or "games". I'm talking about the year, the season. The whole city knew when Doc was pitching. Even marginal fans knew. Dwight Gooden, in 1985, created a level of excitement that has not been rivaled since. Certainly not by a former Cy Young winner already on his third team. Doc was young and new and unstoppable. He infused hope and excitement into legions of Met's fans. Everybody knew when Doc's next start was.
TradeAngelos said 09/29, 02:54 PM
I don???t think Doc infused the Mets fan base with excitement and hope. The Mets were already loaded with young talent. Howard Johnson, Daryl Strawberry, Lenny Dykstra, Ron Darling, Sid Fernandez and Rick Aguilera were all under 25 and showing great promise. He was just the biggest jewel in the crown.
Pedro was so electrifying opposing crowds gave him standing ovations and no, it wasn???t filled with Red Sox fans. People knew they were watching a pitcher perform at a level that won???t be reached for a very long time.
Faces at the U.S. Open
Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines.
© 2008 STATS LLC
Comments (29)
1985 wasn't in the last 25 years...
Basketball Jesus: CHAMPION! | 09/28/07, 09:52 PM
Report Offensive CommentOH MY GOD I'M STUPID! Sorry about that.
Basketball Jesus: CHAMPION! | 09/28/07, 09:53 PM
Report Offensive CommentGotta be Pedro.
The stats aren't as impressive on paper when compared to Gooden, but Angelos' analysis of the respective level of competition is spot-on.
hyperRevue | 09/28/07, 10:37 PM
Report Offensive CommentNo, I think Mike Scott. The following year with Houston. He was unhittable that season
Ruby salutes President Obama! | 09/28/07, 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Commentvote to Don Vito Corleone.
thejetstolehome: hiatus? | 09/28/07, 10:46 PM
Report Offensive CommentNo, jets. He wasn't a Don yet in that scene... Just Vito.
Ruby salutes President Obama! | 09/28/07, 11:24 PM
Report Offensive CommentHow come it says I can use 1200 characters but I got shut down at 500 something?
This is isn't just about stats. Stats are a huge part though :)
I'm only going to get votes from old timers here, if I get any, I know. But the energy that Doc brought to NY baseball was HUGE. The Mets became a glamour team on his fastball and sweeping curve.
Doc wasn't a previous Cy Young winner. He was just a kid and turned the baseball world upside down. That may border on hyperbole, but the truth is there. Martinez was a Cy Young winner and so he didn't shock anybody with his performance.
Doc did.
Gooden's
Jazinho | 09/28/07, 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Commentyeah i know, Noon. i realized after i should've put "future."
thejetstolehome: hiatus? | 09/28/07, 11:33 PM
Report Offensive CommentBird,
I'm glad you caught that. You actually scared me. **** at math... :)
Jazinho | 09/28/07, 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment"I'm only going to get votes from old timers here"
You aren't going to get votes from old-timers, either.
"Martinez was a Cy Young winner and so he didn't shock anybody with his performance."
Gooden didn't shock anyone, either. He was 17-9 with a 2.60 ERA as a rookie the year previous when he was Rookie of the year, finished 2nd in Cy Young, and 15th in MVP. It's not like he came out of no where that season, as you seem to be claiming.
Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox | 09/28/07, 11:41 PM
Report Offensive CommentI said " I **** at math"
Jazinho | 09/28/07, 11:46 PM
Report Offensive CommentI claim that not Sir. I'm just saying that he wasn't the proven pitcher that Martinez was. Lot's of guys have had big rookie years. (Kerry Wood).
Jazinho | 09/28/07, 11:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment"No, I think Mike Scott. The following year with Houston. "
Mike Scott in '86?
He was 18-10 with a 2.22 ERA. The year before he was 18-8 with a 3.29. How did he shock anyone and how was that the most electrifying season for a pitcher? A sub-2 ERA in the AL beats a 2+ in the national league EVERY TIME.
Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox | 09/28/07, 11:48 PM
Report Offensive CommentI said "I succ at math"
Jazinho | 09/28/07, 11:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment" 'I'm only going to get votes from old timers here'
You aren't going to get votes from old-timers, either."
Who are you to decide if I get votes or not? Castro? Some Burmese General?
Jazinho | 09/28/07, 11:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment"Lot's of guys have had big rookie years. (Kerry Wood)."
Sure, but when a guy has a great year, it's not a surprise when he has a better year the following season.
Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox | 09/28/07, 11:53 PM
Report Offensive CommentSophomore slump. Sometimes it IS a surprise. Sometimes a guy comes around with a different pitch, or a wacky wind up (Nomo) and baffles hitters the first year, but then gets figured out.
Jazinho | 09/29/07, 12:01 AM
Report Offensive CommentYes, some players fall off after strong rookie debuts, but you don't "EXPECT" that sort of downfall. A strong rookie season logically leads one to believe that that player will also have a strong sophomore season and so on.
Just because some players fall off after strong debuts doesn't mean that people we're shocked that Gooden went 24-4, 1.53 a year after going 18-10, 2.22. It's just illogical.
I'll give you that Gooden in '85 may not have been AS established as Pedro was in '99/'00, but he certainly didn't come out of nowhere that year.
hyperRevue | 09/29/07, 01:22 AM
Report Offensive CommentContinuing what hyper said, it only stands to reason that a young player will get BETTER with experience. You would have done better to argue Goodens ROOKIE year than his second season. He might very well have put up the best rookie season as a starting pitcher in history. The Mets were a BAD offensive team (only scored 652 runs) and still he won 18 games with a 2.22 ERA as a Rook.
Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox | 09/29/07, 01:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment"Who are you to decide if I get votes or not? Castro?"
LMAO. You voiced your opinion and I countered with mine. since you don't LIKE mine, I'm a dictator? It's your lack of ability to rationalize, punctuated by this post, that caused me to form that opinion in the first place...
Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox | 09/29/07, 01:53 AM
Report Offensive CommentAdd a comment
Remember to keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed. More Guidelines