Views
1182
Comments
110
  • 09/01/2011, 07:49AM ET

Pedro 2000 vs. Maddux 1994

Schad - Notorious Deadbeat (54-39-9) vs Marlins Fan (156-78-31)
13
Votes
15
Votes
13
Votes
15
Votes


A lot of people talk about Pedro's brilliant 2000 season, and deservedly so. But Maddux's 1994 season was comparable.

It wasn't comparable.

Maddux faced only 8 hitters each time through the lineup, Martinez faced 8 + DH, and the DH was usually the best hitter in a lineup.

Maddux didn't have to face the 2000 AL which was better hitting than the 1994 NL.

Slugging percentage for the AL in 2000 was .443 and the NL in 1994 was .415
Batting average for the AL in 2000 was .276 and the NL in 1994 was .267

Let's look at a few other numbers.

Maddux's ERA that year was 1.56 and the next pitcher was 2.74 in Saberhagen. Difference of 1.18

Pedro's ERA that year was 1.74 and the next pitcher was 3.70 in Clemens. Difference of 1.96

Maddux's WHIP was 0.896 and the next pitcher was 1.026 in Saberhagen. Difference of 0.130

Pedro's WHIP was 0.737 and the next pitcher was 1.187 in Mussina. Difference of 0.450

SO/BB: Maddux 5.03, Pedro 8.88 Higher is better
SO/9: Maddux 7.0, Pedro 11.8 Higher is better
BB/9: Maddux 1.4, Pedro 1.3 Lower is better

Pedro also set the lowest WHIP in a season for a starter in baseball history.


First things first. I never said Maddux's season was better, just that it was comparable.

Moving along...

I don't care what the difference was between Maddux and the next best pitcher's ERA, or the difference between Martinez and the next best pitcher's ERA.

Fact is, Maddux's ERA was 1.56, Pedro's was 1.74.

Pedro beats Maddux on WHIP, but Maddux's was still a preposterously low 0.896, compared to Pedro's 0.737.

So far they're one for one in the major categories.

Now as far as K's, of course Pedro had more. He was a strikeout pitcher while Maddux wasn't.

It's not a relevant point in this argument, because neither of them were hittable in those particular years.

You also mentioned that the 2000 AL had a slightly better BA than the 1994 NL, and how Pedro set a MLB record for lowest WHIP in a season.

These are true statements, and I'm not disputing them.

If I had stated that Maddux's 1994 season was better than Pedro's 2000 season, it would be a lie and I would expect to get creamed in this TD. Pedro's season was slightly better.

But Iactually said the two season were comparable.

And they were.


Interesting what you qualify as "major" categories. I brought up many others, such as BB/9, which Maddux should be since he was considered a "control" pitcher, and k/bb ratio, which again, is a comparison based on control. Pedro won those handily.

Now, you say his ERA is lower.

2 things. First off, the NL only has 8 hitters per trip thru the lineup where the AL has 9. That's a huge difference right there.

Secondly, and more importantly. Pedro did his in the height of the "steroid era". This was the time when the whole "chicks dig the longball" commercials were happening and that MLB wanted more offense in the game.

I also compared the pitchers to their contemporaries of the same season and Maddux is much closer to the pack in every category than Pedro was. Pedro's ERA was almost 2 runs below the #2 pitcher in the AL. Or, to put it another way, the #2 pitcher had more than double the ERA that Pedro has. It shows the complete dominance that Pedro had compared to the rest of the league.

I'm not saying that Maddux didn't have a great season, but to say Pedro's season was "slightly better", is preposterous. Pedro had possibly the greatest season for a starter, ever.


The K/BB ratio is irrelevant, as I said earlier.

Maddux wasn't a strikeout pitcher, and it didn't matter.

Both Maddux and Martinez got hitters out at an amazing rate in their respective season, and although Martinez's WHIP was lower, it's negated by the fact that Maddux gave up less runs per 9, as evidenced by his ERA which was .18 lower than Pedro's.

So I'm back at the conclusion I drew in my first argument:

Pedro gave up less in terms of hits and walks, but Maddux gave up less runs.

Give me the pitcher who keeps his opponent's score lower than the pitcher who gives up less walks and hits.

The point is to win games, and your opponent has a better chance of winning by scoring runs, not by getting hits and base on balls that don't lead to runs.

Maddux's lower ERA is more important than Pedro's lower WHIP, no matter how sexy said WHIP might've been.

Also you mentioned that Pedro's BB/9 ratio was lower. Yeah, 1.3 to Maddux's 1.4.

That's a tenth of a walk per start.

That's one walk every ten starts.

Miniscule difference.

And it's just more evidence that Maddux's and Pedro's seasons were comparable.


If you want to play the run game, that's fine with me. Here's an interesting stat:

Pedro gave up 44 runs, 42 of which were earned over 217 innings.

Maddux gave up 44 runs, 35 which were earned over 202 innings.

Huh, so Maddux actually gave up MORE runs per inning than Martinez did. Kinda makes the ERA stat seem kinda insignificant, doesn't it. So, you want to talk about giving up runs is the most important part, and the keystone of your argument, but it turns out that Maddux actually gave up more runs.

Let's look a little deeper, shall we?

In 1994, there were a total of 7422 runs scored in the NL, an average of 530 per team. 4.62 per team per game.
In 2000, there were a total of 11995, or 857 per team. 5.30 per team per game.

Offenses were much better in the AL, yet Pedro still gave up fewer runs per outing.

If ERA is the final determination, that would make Tim Keefe in 1880 the greatest season ever. His ERA was 0.857. In the world of no context, this would make sense. If you bring up the "dead ball era", and everything else going on, it stops making sense.

You don't want the context and want the numbers to exist in a vacuum.


Ok, so Maddux gave up more unearned runs than Martinez.

Which indicates that the Braves fielding was not as good as the Red Sox.

So Maddux was played on a team with an inferior defense - how exactly does that mean that Pedro was better? Hmm???

As a pitcher, the better the defense you have behind you, the better the chances of doing your job effectively.

If ERA is the final determination, that would make Tim Keefe in 1880 the greatest season ever.

I never said that Maddux was superior to Pedro because he had a better ERA!!

I'm not sure why this point isn't coming across, but all I said was that the season were comparable!

I gave the ERA as an example of how Maddux was on the same level as Pedro, just like you gave the example of WHIP.

So... Pedro wins WHIP, Maddux won the ERA, it's a little give and take.

Which proves my point - their seasons were comparable!!!


Again, I never once said that Maddux's year was better than Pedro's, but you keep distorting stats to try to prove that Pedro was better.

Distort away, my friend.

It's irrelevant.

[b]Their seasons were comparable, period.[b]

September 1, 2011  07:50 AM ET

For Marlins Fan only. He stated they were comparable.

September 1, 2011  07:52 AM ET

Vote right. AL isn't real baseball.

September 1, 2011  07:56 AM ET

In a strike shortened season, Maddux had nearly the same amount of innings pitched as Pedro, who played a full season.

But, 95 Maddux>94 Maddux.

I already beat Schade in the the 95 Maddux>2000 Pedro.

September 1, 2011  08:03 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

In a strike shortened season, Maddux had nearly the same amount of innings pitched as Pedro, who played a full season.But, 95 Maddux>94 Maddux.I already beat Schade in the the 95 Maddux>2000 Pedro.

Yeah, because a contest here determines who had the better season.....

September 1, 2011  08:03 AM ET

When talking about Greg Maddux, using strikeouts as a comparison is just stupid. He wasn't a strikeout pitcher. Definitely leaning right.

September 1, 2011  08:04 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

In a strike shortened season, Maddux had nearly the same amount of innings pitched as Pedro, who played a full season.But, 95 Maddux>94 Maddux.I already beat Schade in the the 95 Maddux>2000 Pedro.

Also, if you "beat" someone in a debate over the Civil War, does that mean the south really won even though the north beat them down?

September 1, 2011  08:05 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

When talking about Greg Maddux, using strikeouts as a comparison is just stupid. He wasn't a strikeout pitcher. Definitely leaning right.

Pedro had fewer walks per nine than Maddux as well.

I know you are trying to make the args in the comment section, but leave it to him.

September 1, 2011  09:46 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Pedro had fewer walks per nine than Maddux as well.I know you are trying to make the args in the comment section, but leave it to him.

Fair enough. MF is usually a night owl, but if he declines or doesn't see this, I'll be happy to argue Maddux's 95 season over Pedro's 2000.

But wait until Sunday or Monday.

September 1, 2011  10:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Vote right. AL isn't real baseball.

NL baseball is like women's basketball, it is nice and all, but I'd rather watch the more exciting style of play.

September 1, 2011  10:02 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

NL baseball is like women's basketball, it is nice and all, but I'd rather watch the more exciting style of play.

Real pitchers hit and real hitters field.

September 1, 2011  10:38 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Real pitchers hit and real hitters field.

But real fielders don't always pitch??? You missed something there...

September 1, 2011  10:42 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Real pitchers hit and real hitters field.

And some women can dunk a basketball, but they are the exception. The days of winning teams have weak hitting SS and 2B are less and less as well.

September 1, 2011  11:32 AM ET

Plus ... Maddux wasn't required to throw strikes. Worked a foot off the plate and still got the calls.

September 1, 2011  12:20 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Real pitchers hit and real hitters field.

Amen.

September 1, 2011  01:22 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Real pitchers hit and real hitters field.

Not just the white ones?

September 1, 2011  02:54 PM ET
QUOTE(#16):

Not just the white ones?

You know the saying.

If it ain't white, it ain't right.

September 1, 2011  03:35 PM ET

This isn't even close. Pedro had possibly the greatest year ever by a pticher.

September 1, 2011  03:36 PM ET

Vote right.

September 1, 2011  03:37 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Yeah, because a contest here determines who had the better season.....

It's true. TDs mean everything.

 
Comment #21 has been removed

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 Darth Maim 76 21 7 76.4%
2 fvkasm2x 193 58 12 75.7%
3 7#bag _ Com 996 338 74 73.4%
4 HOOTZ 33 14 9 67.0%
5 Marlins Fan 156 78 31 64.7%
6 Argos. 184 101 29 63.2%
7 Goodell: Fannation Savior 643 429 71 59.4%
8 J-Business 78 66 19 53.7%
9 Highway... 175 848 64 19.0%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    3187
    Comments
    926
  2. 2
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2854
    Comments
    866
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2467
    Comments
    528
  4. 4
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5219
    Comments
    332
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2264
    Comments
    140

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Robataille
  2. 2
    ~Mother-Marge~
  3. 3
    TxHeat
  4. 4
    buddhaa.luck
  5. 5
    Deep Creek

Message Boards

  1. NBA > General NBA

    nba play off predictions
    Views
    12
    Replies
    0

Blogs