Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Sandy or Pedro?

By Dave Fleming

September 17, 2009

Another time,
I devised a left-hander
Even more gifted
Than Whitey Ford: A Dodger.
People were amazed by him.
Once, when he was young,
He refused to pitch on Yom Kippur.

-Robert Pinsky, “The Night Game”

More words of verse have been written about Sandy Koufax than any other baseball player in history. He is the poet’s player; the skinny southpaw with the devastating curve; the Jewish kid who sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series to observe Yom Kippur. The Brooklyn native who went west with Da Bums when O’Malley broke the city’s heart. The great pitcher who suffered his pain in silence. The man who quit at the very peak of his ability.

When people speak about Sandy Koufax as a great pitcher, they are referencing the peak of his abilities: that stretch of years when he dominated the National League, winning three unanimous Cy Young Awards and three Triple Crowns in five seasons, his arm carrying the Los Angeles Dodgers to the World Series in each of those three seasons.

They are not referring to Koufax’s career: Koufax threw 2324 innings over his career: twenty-one pitchers in major league history have thrown twice as many innings, including Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven and Tom Seaver and Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux.

Any argument that Koufax is the Greatest Pitcher of All-Time is, inherently, an argument about his peak ability: Koufax didn’t have the greatest career, but he reached a level of skill unsurpassed in the history of the game. Pitch-for-pitch, he was the greatest ever. If you have to win a game, take Koufax.

But is that correct? Was Koufax’s peak the greatest of all-time?

The greatest peak I’ve ever lived through was the peak years of Pedro Martinez. At one point, Pedro had career numbers that were nearly identical to Koufax’s: at the end of 2003, Pedro was 166-67, with a 2.58 ERA and 2426 strikeouts. In his career, Koufax was 165-87, with a 2.76 ERA and 2396 strikeouts.

Pedro’s career has continued: he is currently enjoying a renaissance with the Philadelphia Phillies, where he is 5-0 this year, with a Pedro-esque 2.87 ERA. Pedro’s career record is now 219-99: he has moved past the likes of Koufax and Dizzy Dean and Addie Joss, and should now be counted among the Hall-of-Fame pitchers who had middle-length careers: Whitey Ford and Catfish Hunter and Carl Hubbell.

But was peak years? How does Pedro’s peak compare with Koufax’s? At their best, who was better?

That’s what this essay is about.

Defining Peak: Four Questions

How’d you define peak?

For Sandy Koufax’s peak, I used 1962-1966, the five consecutive years when he led the NL in ERA. For Pedro Martinez, I used the seven season between 1997-2003.

Why?

Because the innings pitched levels out: in the five Koufax seasons he notched 1377 innings pitched. In the seven Martinez seasons, he notched 1408 innings pitched. That’s the closest to even I could find in matching their peak seasons.

Isn’t that unfair to Koufax? He pitched a lot more innings than Pedro?

Right. But that has more to do with contexts than manliness. Pedro was in the top-ten in innings pitched six time, in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2004. Koufax was in the top-ten in innings pitched four times: 1961, 1963, 1965, and 1966. Pedro was just as hard a worker, considering his contexts, as Koufax was. Pedro didn’t invent the five-man rotation: it seems silly to hold him accountable for it.

The argument that Koufax is greater than Pedro because Koufax threw 300+ innings while Pedro threw 220 is, when carried to a logical conclusion, silly. The best peak, by that logic, would belong to Charley Radbourn and Pud Galvin and John Clarkson and Tommy Bond; the dead-ball guys who threw 500-600 innings each year.

The goal of measuring players of different eras isn’t to remove contexts, not necessarily. We should, however, consider all contexts.

What about Koufax’s 1961 season? Why not include that?

In 1961 Koufax won 18 games, led the league in strikeouts, and had an ERA of 3.52. It was a good year, but it doesn’t fit the context of the next five years. Even considering the change in park effects, it doesn’t fit. He walked 96 batters and had a strikeout-to-walk ratio of 2.5-to-1. It doesn’t fit. It actually hurts Koufax to include it: his ERA and adjusted ERA and WHIP all go up. His winning percentage goes way down (he was 18-13 on the year).

And Pedro misses a few years, too. He was 16-9 in 2004, and won a World Series ring. He was 15-8 with an ERA of 2.82 in 2005. Led the NL in WHIP and had a terrific strikeout-to-walk ratio. We’re not counting it, either. We’re counting the peak years of each pitcher: their seasons of brilliance.

So let’s see how they stack up:

Koufax vs. Martinez

	W-L	IP	K	ERA	ERA+	K/9	K/BB	WHIP
Koufax	111-34	1377	1444	2.07	167	9.44	4.57	.926
Pedro	118-36	1408	1761	2.20	213	11.26	5.59	.940

This is as close as close can be. Martinez has seven more wins and two more loses, in thirty more innings pitched. Koufax has a slight lead in ERA and WHIP, while Martinez has an edge in strikeouts and strikeout-to-walk ratio.

In terms of leading their respective leagues:

Sandy led the National League in ERA during all five of his peak seasons, while Pedro notched five ERA titles in seven years. That said, when adjusted for contexts, Koufax loses three of those titles, while Pedro keeps all five.

- In 1962, Koufax led the NL with a 2.53 ERA. Adjusting for contexts, it wasn’t as good as the ERA’s of Bob Gibson, Bob Purkey, or Ernie Broglio.

- In 1963 Koufax led the NL with a 1.81 ERA. Adjusting for contexts, it wasn’t as good as Dick Ellsworth’s 2.11 ERA.

- In 1965, Koufax led the NL with a 2.04 ERA. Adjusting for contexts, it wasn’t as good as the ERA’s of Juan Marichal or Vern Law.

Koufax led the league in strikeouts in three of his five seasons. Pedro led the league in strikeouts in three of his seven seasons. Koufax had the best strikeout rate in four of his five seasons, while Pedro was the best in five out of seven seasons.

Koufax led the league in wins three times, while Pedro led just once. That said, Pedro led in winning percentage five times, while Koufax led just once.

Both players won three Cy Young Awards. Koufax finished in the top-five in four of his five peak seasons, while Pedro finished in the top-five in six out of seven seasons.

That’s getting confusing. Here’s all that (and more) in chart form:

	Koufax	Martinez
ERA	5 of 5	5 of 7
Wins	3 of 5	1 of 7
Win %	2 of 5	5 of 7
Strikeouts	3 of 5	3 of 7
ERA+	2 of 5	5 of 7
WHIP	4 of 5	5 of 7
Hits per IP	4 of 5	5 of 7
Strikeouts per IP	4 of 5	5 of 7
K/BB Ratio	2 of 5	3 of 7
Cy Young Awards	3 of 5	3 of 7
Top-Five in CY	4 of 5	6 of 7

Bottom line: both pitchers were excellent in their peak seasons: both pitchers regularly led their respective leagues in most pitching categories.

Let’s look at those numbers again:

	W-L	IP	K	ERA	ERA+	K/9	K/BB	WHIP
Koufax	111-34	1377	1444	2.07	167	9.44	4.57	.926
Pedro	118-36	1408	1761	2.20	213	11.26	5.59	.940

The most striking difference is in Adjusted ERA (ERA+), a measure that considers league and park effects. Let’s look at those contexts a bit further.

I Can’t See Without My Contexts

First, average runs per game, during their peak seasons:

Koufax		Martinez
Year	R/G	Year	R/G
1962 NL	4.48	1997 NL	4.60
1963 NL	3.81	1998 AL	5.01
1964 NL	4.01	1999 AL	5.23
1965 NL	4.03	2000 AL	5.30
1966 NL	4.09	2001 AL	4.86
		2002 AL	4.81
		2003 AL	4.87

The highest offensive context Koufax ever pitched (1962, NL), was lower than the lowest offensive context that Martinez pitched in (1997 NL).

We all knew this, I suspect. The 1960’s were the decade of the pitcher: in an effort to curtail offense following 1961, baseball raised the mound and widened the strike zone, and pitching dominated the decade. A common game of the 1960’s was a 2-1 nail-bitter, with a lot of stolen bases and a lot of sacrifice bunts. Old-school baseball, the game John McGraw was a practitioner of. It’s a shame the Koufax didn’t make it to 1968, a season when the average NL team scored 3.43 runs per game. It is within the realm of possibility that a healthy Koufax would have posted an ERA of 1.00.

How about park contexts?

Sandy		Runs	Runs
Year	Team	Home	Away
1962	LAD	698	841
1963	LAD	544	646
1964	LAD	518	668
1965	LAD	486	643
1966	LAD	506	590
Total		2752	3388

Koufax spent the majority of his peak years in the best pitcher’s park in baseball, a stadium that decreased offense by 18.8% during his peak years. In 1965, the Dodgers and their opponents scored a combined 486 runs in L.A. Stadium, and 643 runs on the road.

Pedro Martinez, by contrast, spent his peak years in parks that favored offense:

Pedro		Runs	Runs
Year	Team	Home	Away
1997	MON	732	699
1998	BOS	803	802
1999	BOS	814	740
2000	BOS	774	763
2001	BOS	769	748
2002	BOS	749	775
2003	BOS	927	843
		5568	5370

With the exception of 2002, when the Red Sox and their opponents averaged more runs in road games than home games, Martinez spent his peak years in hitter’s parks. They weren’t drastic hitter parks: with the new stadiums being built, Fenway has gradually shifted from bring a great hitter’s park to being a neutral stadium. Pedro’s home stadiums have been about 3.8% better for offense than the road stadiums.

How about defense? Defensive efficiency measured the percentage of ball in play that a defense converts into an out. I’ve listed the defensive efficiency of both teams, along with the team’s league rank:

Sandy
Year	Def. Eff.	League Rank
1962	.691	7th out of 10
1963	.702	8th out of 10
1964	.708	1st out of 10
1965	.727	1st out of 10
1966	.706	3rd out of 10

Koufax had two years when his defense was below average, and three years when his defense was one of the elite defenses in the game.

It’s hard to see how, exactly, the Dodgers’ defense improved dramatically between 1963 and 1964. The defensive alignment changed in two regards: Jim Gilliam moved from second to third base, taking over for Ken McMullen, and Nate Oliver took over second base. The team’s defensive efficiency didn’t change too much, from .702 to .708, but the rest of the league declined dramatically.

Four of the five of Koufax’s defenses managed to turn 70% of balls-in-play into outs.

Pedro
Year	Def. Eff.	League Rank
1997	0.696	5th out of 14
1998	0.703	2nd out of 14
1999	0.693	4th out of 14
2000	0.696	3rd out of 14
2001	0.684	8th out of 14
2002	0.702	6th out of 14
2003	0.683	11th out of 14

Pedro also enjoyed strong defenses: though he never had a #1 ranked team, the Boston clubs of 1998-2000 played strong defense behind him. In 2001 and 2003, that defense was a below average, but mostly Pedro has enjoyed a solid defense behind him.

Koufax might have an edge in contextual defenses, but I have little doubt that, matched head-to-head, the defenders behind Pedro would outperform the defense behind Koufax. We can call it the ‘Mays Paradox’: Willie’s catch in the 1954 Series was iconic, but it might not merit an ESPN web-gem in this age of balletic outfielders.

What are some other contexts?

One could argue that Koufax, playing in a league that had ten teams, probably played against better players. That said, baseball in Pedro’s time drew from a far wider base of talent than baseball in Koufax’s time. And the adoption of weight lifting and conditioning among hitter certainly suggests that Pedro’s had his own challenges.

Post-season play deserves a mention. Koufax’s Dodgers went to three World Series’ during his five peak seasons, winning two championships. And Koufax pitched brilliantly: he posted an ERA under 1.00 in seven starts.

During his peak years, Pedro’s teams went to the postseason in 1998, 1999, and 2003. The Red Sox played in five series’, winning two and losing three. Pedro’s record during his seven starts was 4-1 with a 3.11 ERA.

Who You Gonna Take?

The biggest context in Koufax’s favor is the overwhelming degree to which most baseball fans think he had the greatest peak of all-time. It is accepted as truth the same way that my grandfather’s generation accepted that DiMaggio was greater than Williams. The same way that sportswriters knew that Pete Rose embodied the best qualities of the game. The same way we all assume that Lou Gehrig is the greatest first baseman of all-time. Say something enough and it becomes true. It becomes fact.

Do I think Koufax had the greatest peak of all-time?

One more table should answer that. The first- and second-place finishers in ERA, in the years Koufax and Pedro led their leagues in ERA:

1962		1997
Sandy Koufax	2.54	Pedro Martinez	1.90
Bob Shaw	2.80	Greg Maddux	2.21
1963		1999
Sandy Koufax	1.88	Pedro Martinez	2.07
Dick Ellsworth	2.11	David Cone	3.45
1964		2000
Sandy Koufax	1.74	Pedro Martinez	1.74
Don Drysdale	2.18	Roger Clemens	3.70
1965		2002
Sandy Koufax	2.04	Pedro Martinez	2.26
Juan Marichal	2.13	Derek Lowe	2.58
1966		2003
Sandy Koufax	1.73	Pedro Martinez	2.22
Mike Cueller	2.22	Tim Hudson	2.70

The largest distance between Koufax and his nearest competitor in ERA is forty-nine points, when he was out ahead of Mike Cueller in 1966. But the largest distance between Pedro and his nearest competitor is one-hundred and ninety-six points, when he lapped Roger Clemens and the rest of the AL in 2000.

Koufax, in his prime, was one of the greatest pitchers anyone’s ever seen. All poetry aside, Pedro was even better.

Dave Fleming is a writer living in Iowa City, IA. He welcomes comments, questions, and critiques of his articles by the folks at FireJoeMorgan here and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com.

COMMENTS (16 Comments, most recent shown first)

evanecurb
Kev / Dave:

Williams claimed in The Science of Hitting that he went to left a lot in 1957, when he hit .388. He had the best year of his later years that season, and attributed it to going to left. This would seem to support Kev's position that he should have gone to left more.

On the other hand, he said nothing in the book about bunting, so the proper play in his mind was to hit the ball hard to left.

As an aside, going to left is not as simple as just wanting to do so; you still have to have a pitch you can handle and you still have to hit the ball hard. The other factors to consider are that the left fielder is still out there and there is still one player (the third baseman, albeit in the shortstop position) on the left side of the infield.
10:12 AM Sep 21st

stevebogus
A few quibbles:

The pitching mound was not raised in 1963, nor was the strike zone widened. The strike zone became taller as a result of the 1963 rules. The pitching mounds were the same height as they had been for years. The issue is that in some parks it was claimed the mound was taller than in others. Dodger Stadium was reputed to have a high mound. Whether it was illegally high is another question. Perhaps some parks did not build the mound to the maximum allowable height (15").

Now for my real point. There is no doubt that Sandy was worked harder than Pedro. I believe it is possible to at least partially compensate for this by comparing their records given 4 days rest (or more) and adjusting for how well they performed going through the lineup multiple times. In this way we can get an idea of how good Koufax was when given a little extra rest or if removed earlier in each game. I cannot remove the cumulative effects of a 41-start season vs. a 33-start season, but let's see how this turns out anyway. I'll post my results in the "Reader Posts" section.
12:59 AM Sep 21st

ventboys
Lost in the "he didn't do this" and "he wouldn't do that", is that his numbers reflect what he DID do, not what he didn't. Williams led the league in OPS pretty much every year of his career until he was past 40, only missing when he was injured or in the Military. Dimag's best argument is the home field differences and defense. I'd take him over Teddy overall, slightly, but with misgivings. His career was short, he wasn't consistent or durable (at least not at a superstarlevel, he wasn't bad or anything....) in his later years, and if you give him the 3 lost years to the service you have to give Teddy 4 or 5.
2:14 AM Sep 20th

Kev
Dave,

I didn't say Williams was a loser. I said he wasn't a winner. And really, your arguement is based on a false premise and yields a false conclusion. He was a scientific hitter, yes, but you presume to know what was in his mind, and that he concluded not to go to LF. Do you deny that he could have, with lttle effort, gone to left? Do you deny that there were times when he should have, but didn't? I don't equate arrogance (your word) with prideful (mine). He was too proud to even hint that the shift could beat him. He wasn't arrogant, he was all about hitting. Again you say I said that arrogance caused Ted to hit into the teeth of the shift, despite his (say you)rational analysis of the situation. Uh-uh. Ted already knew he could hit, he had murdered AL pitching at will; he welcomed the shift--it gave him the opportunity to show his skill. Do you really think Ted ever considered going too left to win a game? You put words in my mouth and thoughts in Ted's brain, and make them support an unsupportable premise while beginning by mis-directing the issue by
using "loser" instead of not a winner. Ted did not do all the things he was capable of doing to help his team win. Were Stephens and Doerr such chopped liver that Ted couldn't build a run but felt he has to settle the issue himself? He knew (because he was so rational and analytical)that going to left would win sometimes, but he didn't. He didn't WIN when he might have. There's no doubt in my mind that Ted felt as I go so goes the team. He was so good it was almost true.
Dave, I see your arguement as pure sophistry: fallacious reasoning leading to the inevitable fallacy. I never said arrogance motivated Ted to challenge the shift. You say I did , but I didn't; again misleading ('tho unintentionally) and using your error as the cornerstone of your case. And I cited Joe's speed as a factor relating to his fielding skill, not relating to SB. I thought that was obvious. And I think your represntation of my post bore little resemblance to it.
Dave, I say without rancor that I enjoy crossing swords with you. We obviously don't agree, but please don't hesitate to have at any of my reader's posts should you have a mind to. You give all the reader's the chance to say yea or nay, and for me I extend the same to you, and look forward to harmony or disagreement.

10:30 PM Sep 19th

DaveFleming
Thanks, Chuck, for the terrific looks at Maddux and Grove. I'd guess that Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens would be the other two peaks deserving consideration, if we're to leave out all the dead-ballers.

As for Kev's comments about Teddy and Joe D:

Did DiMaggio's defense and base running make up for Williams' edge as a hitter? It's a tough call. Just looking at walks, which has nothing to do with park effects: Williams walked 143 times per 162 games, while DiMaggio walked 74 times per 162 games. As far as speed goes, DiMaggio might have been a better base runner, but he stole thirty bases in his career, in 39 chances. Williams was 24 for 41. Not a drastic difference. So it comes down to defense, a place where DiMaggio merits a big edge. Is it enough to make up for the 556 more games that Williams played? I don't know that it is.

Finally: to your point, Kev, that Williams was 'not being a winner' because he refused to hit against the shift: to me, that’s a silly and lazy argument.

Think about it: the thing Williams is best known for is his scientific approach to hitting, an obsession that lasted his entire life. He thought about hitting constantly: he was always trying to find an advantage, always thinking about what he should do; how he should approach hitting.

You suggests that the reason Williams hit into the shift was because of arrogance, but you fail to consider the possibility that his decision was made through rational thought. You fail to consider that Williams, when confronted with the shift, sat down and actually gave some thought about how he should deal with the defensive shift. That is inconsistent with everything we know about Williams. Yes, he was an arrogant SOB. But he was also extremely logical about hitting. To assume that his arrogance trumped his rationalism is, I think, unsubstantiated.

Think about it: if arrogance motivated Williams to hit into the shift, wouldn’t that same arrogance cause him to chase pitches a fraction of an inch off the plate? Wouldn’t his profound confidence in his ability overwhelm exceed his rational understanding that chasing bad pitches is a fool’s errand?

But he didn’t. He always took the bad pitches. His rational beliefs always trumped his ego.

Isn’t it far more likely that Williams considered bunting, and then decided that, all things considered, he was better off not acquiescing to the shift? Doesn’t it seem reasonable that Williams figured out (as Bill did in his Gold Mine) that defensive shifts are useless?

Williams may indeed have been an arrogant man, but to call him a loser because he didn’t bunt against the shift is, I think, a judgment without any merit at all.
7:28 PM Sep 18th

Kev
Ventboys,

WOW! Never looked closely enough to see. Great post, great pitcher, and I, like you, harbor resentment against him for not throwing his magic for the Yankees.
6:07 PM Sep 18th

evanecurb
Dave:

This is an excellent piece. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have one objection to the methodology, though. Koufax has one clear, glaring advantage over Pedro, in the area of innings pitched, number of games pitched, and innings per game. You dismiss this advantage as a function of the times. I understand your point, but I believe this factor is too easily dismissed. Both pitchers were playing a 162 game season, and the fact of the matter is that Koufax pitched a far greater percentage of his team's innings than Pedro did. That should count for something, and he should get credit for that, just as Pedro gets credit for pitching in a high run scoring environment.
2:10 PM Sep 18th

chuck
Lefty Grove does belong in the discussion of top peaks. He really had a 6-year peak- 1928-33, but for comparing similar innings, I’ll use 1928-32.

Grove:
1408.1 ip / 128 W to 33L / 925K, 346 BB / 1297 hits / 172 ERA+ / 16 shutouts.
(He also had 29 saves.)

Pedro:
1408 ip / 118W to 36L / 1761K, 315BB / 1009 hits / 213 ERA+ / 11 shutouts.

Grove has the edge in win and win%, also shutouts. Pedro in ERA+ and the K and BB stats as well as H/9. Obviously, two different eras, with strikeouts much more prevalent now. The hits per 9 innings ratio is affected by this as well, with fewer balls in play. Of course Pedro would have dominated back in the 30’s. Hard to say what Grove’s strikeout rate would be in the current era. Now that so many throw as hard as he did, I’d think it would be more than his rate of the 30’s, but less than Pedro’s.

Park factors:
Grove: 1.44, 1.12, .94, 1.02, 1.30 (avg. 1.16; median 1.12)
Pedro: (see above in Maddux comp) avg. 1.04; median 1.02.

League context:
In Grove’s five years, after subtracting the A’s offense, the league scored 5.00 runs per game on average.
In Pedro’s seven, minus his teams’ offense, the league scored 4.93 runs per game.
Grove had the tougher park and tougher league context.

Defense:
Grove had very good defenses. In defensive efficiency, they were:
1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, and 2nd in those years.
Pedro’s teams average about 5th or 6th out of 14, so Grove had more help there.

How about in leader categories?
ERA: Grove 4 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
Wins: Grove 3 of 5; Pedro 1 of 7.
win%: Grove 3 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
K’s: Grove 4 of 5; Pedro 3 of 7.
ERA+: Grove 4 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
whip: Grove 3 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
H/9: Grove 0 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
K/9: Grove 2 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
K/BB: Grove 5 of 5; Pedro 5 of 7.
Cy Youngs: I figure Grove for at least 4 of 5. In ’29 his teammates George Earnshaw probably would have had the award had they voted at the time. More wins than Grove.
Pedro had 3 of 7.
Top 5 in Cy Young: Grove would have had 5 of 5; Pedro 6 of 7.

It’s pretty close.

In the years where he led in ERA+, they led by these points:
Grove: +12, +39, +70, +19.
Pedro: +30, +106, +159, +25, +46.
Clear win for Pedro there.

A very close comparison til the end there. I still give Pedro the nod, especially accounting for the timeline adjustment. Grove had the edge in wins and win %, but had tremendous run support and great defense behind him to help achieve this edge.
1:16 PM Sep 18th

chuck
Maddux 92-98:
ERA: 3 of 7 (K and P both better)
wins: 3 of 7 (better than P)
win %: 2 of 7 (P is better)
K's: 0 of 7 (K&P better)
ERA+: 5 of 7 (tied with P)
whip: 4 of 7 (K&P better)
h/9: 1 of 7 (K&P better)
K/9: 0 of 7 (K&P better)
K/BB: 3 of 7 (tied with P)
Cy wins: 4 of 7 (better than both)
Top 5 in Cy: 7 of 7 (better than both)

In the Cy Youngs, Maddux is the leader.
He ties as the leader in the departments of wins, ERA+, and K/BB ratio.
He comes in 2nd or 3rd in ERA, win%, k's, whip, H/9, and K/9.

Park factors, 1992-98:
Maddux: 1.01 / .98 / .93 / 1.09 / 1.07 / .98 / 1.00 (avg 1.01)
Martinez: 1.05 / 1.00 / 1.10 / 1.01 / 1.02 / .97 / 1.10 (avg. 1.04)

When leading in ERA+, led by this number of points:
Maddux: +7, +8, +93, +112, +17
Pedro: +30, +106, +159, +25, +46

I think Maddux belongs in the discussion, but doesn't compare in terms of domination via strikeouts to the other two. He was a marvel of efficiency. A constant gold glove winner that induced easy ground ball comebackers to the mound. If one can do that in 3 pitches, isn't that better than a strikeout- particularly with a man on in a dp situation?

That said, Maddux did have very good defenses behind him. In defensive efficiency, his teams were:
tied for 1st in 1992 and 1993. 3rd in '94, 4th in '95. Just over league avg in '96. 2nd in '97 and '98.
That 1996 season, the worst in the run, he led the league only in k/bb and tied for a distant 5th in Cy voting. That year, his teammate Smoltz won, leading the NL in wins, K's, K/9. Maddux had the better ERA, though Smoltz slightly the better whip.
He was phenomenal, but he relied on his defenses more than Pedro or Koufax for his success and I'd have to give the nod to Pedro for peak performance.

12:11 PM Sep 18th

BillP
Good work, though I think Maddux's peak of 1992-1998 or so beats Koufax's, too--destroys it, actually--and could challenge Pedro's, though Pedro's probably still wins.
9:09 AM Sep 18th

greggborgeson
Very well presented, Dave. Couldn't agree more with the conclusion.
Question: you take into account how each pitcher's home stadium affects their stats. But did you also consider how the away parks (taken as a whole) compare with each other? Seems to me that this is exactly equally important as the home field factor.

There must be a way to calculate it. I suppose one could compare the ranking among hitters parks of stable stadiums like Fenway or Wrigley in the two periods. If Fenway is an extreme hitters park in 1964, but a neutral park in 2004, the difference would be the collective effect of changes in the leagues other stadiums as a whole.

I think the result would be yet another factor which strongly favors Pedro.
7:45 AM Sep 18th

Kev
Dave,

If by chance you've seen some of my screeds on Reader's Posts, you'll recall that I don't consider ranking players unless I have seen them frequently (live or on TV). Stats are not enough. I've ranked players whom I've not seen as long as they're of the same era. That said:

Koufax vs Pedro? Great job; many stats, comparables, etc. BUT:

Don't we agree that ERA and Wins are practically useless in measuring pitcher's skills?
And don't we agree that Pedro and Koufax are great pitchers?
And don't (or do) we agree that the K/BB ratio is the purest method of evaluation?...and that winning is all that counts?
Here's why I ask:
Pedro's career regular season K/BB ratio tops Sandy, 4.16 to 2.93.
No mystery there, because as you point out, peak performance narrows the gap. And where is peak performance most critical? I'd say post-season, where winning is the ONLY goal and peak performance the best chance to get there.
And, in this most critical of stats, at the most critical of times: Koufax: 5.55, Pedro: 4.16.
And as mentioned by you, the moment of truth: For that one game, who? Pedro or Sandy?
Finally, in their primes, other factors neutral, would you trade Sandy for Pedro?... bearing in mind that all that counts is winning?

Inquisition over, thanks for listening and, if I may presume, answering.

Now about Joe and Ted:
It's commonly agreed that Ted was the greater hitter. I agree, in fact I'll say he was the best hitter I've ever seen. As good as DiMag was, and he was better than, most other hitters, there can be no arguement: Ted over Joe in hitting. Ted said all he ever wanted was to walk down the street and hear, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter of all time." He should have aet his sights higher.
Unfortunately Ted, Joe just passed you. You made your wish work, but here's the price for that cavalier goal, and it's a heavy one:
You were not a winner. Hitting was more important to you than winning. Like another great hitter, Frank Thomas, you would not expand the zone to move a runner, loft a sac fly, and most damning of all, you were too proud to beat the shift by going to left, which you probably could have done with little loss to your BA. Yout
supporters would squeak that you would be doing the enemy a favor by hitting a single. But if you don't expand the zone, you walk 100% of the time. Not even you could bat 1,000 going to left. So who's doing whom a favor? You were a self-centered non-pareil hitter who hurt his team's chances for winning--no sin is greater.
You don't really want to compare fielding do you? Safely squirreled away in lf, all you had to learn was the wall. You did. Good. Now look at Joe: regarded by many as the greatest cf who ever lived (pre-Willie). He played 77 games in an outfield the size of a farm. The games he won with his fielding, featuring the all-important native gift of "the jump", can't be measured, nor can the confidence his presence instilled in Yankee pitchers because he made it look easy. And until the end, a power arm--Ted, you never saw the day you could compete in that area.
And really, with Dom and Pesky ahead of you, and Buster Stephens and Doerr behind you, it wasn't as though you were the only one who could rake. In the Boston juggernauts of '49 and '50, Stephens tied, and then topped you in RBI.
On the bases? Joe relentlessly took every extra base he could. His focus was on winning. Joe was an egotist, Ted was prideful. Heretical or not, Joe was a better player than Ted, and I consider that to be an easy call (although I'll never forgive Joe for causing Mantle to tear up his knee just so the vainglorious DiMag could make a running catch though poaching on Mickey's territory).

Anyway, for me, best pitcher I've ever sen was Koufax with Pedro 2nd. No one else is even close. Ted was the best hitter I've ever seen; DiMaggio was a better player than Ted.

Kev

2:44 AM Sep 18th

ventboys
Unit's peak years look to be 1999-2002, when he won his 4 consecutive Cy Youngs. He averaged an era under 2.50 in a hitters' park in the middle of the steroid era, striking out an average of 354 batters a year in 258 innings. He missed the record for K's in a season by 11 in 2001, in 249.2 innings. 372 K's in 250 innings. Think about that one. He put up a league leading 2.49 era in the league that Barry Bonds hit 73 homers in, in his own division. His Babip was over .300. He was 21-6, and also won 3 games in the World Series. How good was that season? I think that you can argue that it is at least in the argument for the best single season ever, and his record was even better in 2002, when he went 24-5, lowered his era to 2.32. I respect Grove and Koufax, but Unit is #1 on my personal lists in peak and career value for lefty pitchers, and his argument as best pitcher ever, period, is not laughable.

That said, I hate the bastard. He tanked the 1998 season for my M's, in a childish fit when they wouldn't give him a 5 year contract. While I agree with him that he deserved it, and hindsight tells us that the M's made a huge mistake, there is no justification in the world to not give your best effort. It wasn't just the bad record. He was in more than one fight in the clubhouse, and his personal problems tore apart a very good team.
1:14 AM Sep 18th

ventboys
Personally I would compare Koufax to Randy Johnson as well. Johnson, like Koufax, struggled with his control for several years before developing outstanding control. He won 5 Cy Youngs, and also finished 2nd 3 times, 3rd once, 7th once, in a 12 year period with his only 2 misses coming in injury years. He has gone 222-104 since his 31st birthday. When he started out the 2000 season 5-0, his career record was 165-88. He was a few months short of his 37th birthday.
11:35 PM Sep 17th

evanecurb
Can we just say that Sandy is the best lefty and Pedro the best righty? How does Pedro's peak of these seven years compare with Maddux's peak of 1993(?) through 1999 (?). I recall a couple of seasons in there where he had an ERA in the low 2.0s in that high powered 1990s context. I know he was a completely different pitcher from either of these two, but still...

How about Koufax vs. Walter Johnson and, as another reader already suggested, Pedro vs. Lefty Grove? That would give you the best peak pitcher in each type of context.
11:00 PM Sep 17th

jdrb
Presumably before either of our times, but in some ways I believe the more interesting comparison might be Lefty Grove-- both vastly outperformed the bar for pitchers in the two greatest hitting eras we've seen. In some ways, I think the comparison is more meaningful-- it is really hard to compare individuals from such hugely different run environments. Extrapolations dont work in simple ways-- not everyone benefitted to the same extent from the lively ball, not everyone turned into Dante Bichette in Coors Field. I think your conclusion is probably correct but I really dont know-- how would Koufax have pitched in the 90's? Would Martinez been as proportionately dominant in the 60's?
5:54 PM Sep 17th

Sandy or Pedro?

COMMENTS (16 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: