- 09/01/2011, 07:49AM ET
Schad - Notorious Deadbeat said 09/01, 07:49 AM
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.
Mrlns Fn said 09/01, 10:48 PM
First things first. I never said Maddux's season was better, just that it was comparable.
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.
Schad - Notorious Deadbeat said 09/02, 05:17 AM
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.
Mrlns Fn said 09/02, 05:40 AM
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.
And it's just more evidence that Maddux's and Pedro's seasons were comparable.
Schad - Notorious Deadbeat said 09/02, 06:58 AM
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.
Mrlns Fn said 09/03, 03:20 AM
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.
[b]Their seasons were comparable, period.[b]
|2||7#bag _ Com||1098||333||88||75.2%|
|5||Dyhard is a certified stoner||54||25||3||67.7%|
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia