Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
I'm kidding about all of that crap I said.
I was just saying that since sp33demon is such a homer
LOL, 5/10.Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
6. He hasn't had a shutout in 3 years. That is again pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
I'm kidding about all of that crap I said.
I was just saying that since sp33demon is such a homer
but seriously, i'm asking.
Pettite, to me anyway, really proved himself last post season, he went out and won 3 VERY VERY important games for the yankees and the one game he lost to beckett was still a VERY VERY good performance by pettite.
he doesn't have the stellar overall numbers that pedro does, but he has been good when it counted.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
I'm kidding about all of that crap I said.
I was just saying that since sp33demon is such a homer
but seriously, i'm asking.
Pettite, to me anyway, really proved himself last post season, he went out and won 3 VERY VERY important games for the yankees and the one game he lost to beckett was still a VERY VERY good performance by pettite.
he doesn't have the stellar overall numbers that pedro does, but he has been good when it counted.
Remember to subtract 2 HR's off Pedro's postseason record from "Game 7" last year. Giambi's stats are irrelevant and will be asterisked since he used THG in 2002, 2003 (federal investigation on him, Gary Shtfield, and Fairy Bonds for receiving THG from Balco in the mail to their houses).
Pettite pitched well last year and is decent, but will never have the numbers to get in the HOF like Pedro.
Also funny how Schilling (and everyone else in this group) has better peak year ERA+ numbers than Drysdale (who's in the HOF) and a better career ERA+ as well (129 vs 121). Was Drysdale only voted in b/c he played with Koufax? If Drysdale is in, Pedro will without a doubt be in if he dropped dead today.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
I'm kidding about all of that crap I said.
I was just saying that since sp33demon is such a homer
but seriously, i'm asking.
Pettite, to me anyway, really proved himself last post season, he went out and won 3 VERY VERY important games for the yankees and the one game he lost to beckett was still a VERY VERY good performance by pettite.
he doesn't have the stellar overall numbers that pedro does, but he has been good when it counted.
Remember to subtract 2 HR's off Pedro's postseason record from "Game 7" last year. Giambi's stats are irrelevant and will be asterisked since he used THG in 2002, 2003 (federal investigation on him, Gary Shtfield, and Fairy Bonds for receiving THG from Balco in the mail to their houses).
Pettite pitched well last year and is decent, but will never have the numbers to get in the HOF like Pedro.
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Also funny how Schilling (and everyone else in this group) has better peak year ERA+ numbers than Drysdale (who's in the HOF) and a better career ERA+ as well (129 vs 121). Was Drysdale only voted in b/c he played with Koufax? If Drysdale is in, Pedro will without a doubt be in if he dropped dead today.
You go on for 10 minutes about how important pedros ERA is and how good it is, then say its meaningless in your last sentence, not a very good argument.
2/10Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
I'm kidding about all of that crap I said.
I was just saying that since sp33demon is such a homer
but seriously, i'm asking.
Pettite, to me anyway, really proved himself last post season, he went out and won 3 VERY VERY important games for the yankees and the one game he lost to beckett was still a VERY VERY good performance by pettite.
he doesn't have the stellar overall numbers that pedro does, but he has been good when it counted.
Remember to subtract 2 HR's off Pedro's postseason record from "Game 7" last year. Giambi's stats are irrelevant and will be asterisked since he used THG in 2002, 2003 (federal investigation on him, Gary Shtfield, and Fairy Bonds for receiving THG from Balco in the mail to their houses).
Pettite pitched well last year and is decent, but will never have the numbers to get in the HOF like Pedro.
LOL. I think Pedro is on steroids, too.
ROFL... Drysdale was the Scottie Pippen of the 60's Dodgers... If Drysdale is HOF material, so should Schilling!!Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Petey has stats but no heart. Drysdale had twice the heart and talent as the little headcase!Originally posted by: SP33Demon
World Series are a function of your TEAM. Koufax had HOFer Drysdale for every World Series win, their team was a dynasty. Care naming the WS pitcher that complements Pedro? Didn't think so.Koufax won three World Series - Martinez has won zero.
If you want to compare 57 innings to 52.3, then go ahead. Pedro had a 3.61 ERA, and fanned 48 in 52 innings. Koufax had a 0.95 ERA, and fanned 61 in 57 innings. I will give u this if it makes you feel better, but hardly much of a comparison.Koufax had a 0.95 ERA in the four World Series that he pitched - Martinez hasn't exactly shined in the post season
Again, Koufax had Drysdale to pitch for him and pitched for a dynasty, Pedro does not have either so wins don't mean much (they are a function of your team, for instance, how many times did Pedro lead last year and then the bullpen blew it? FOUR times).Koufax won 25 games three times - Martinez has won 20 twice
Yes, I agree, and Pedro absolutely destroys him in career ERA+ and ERA. He even destroys him in his peak years in ERA+, although Koufax did have a good peak for regular ERA.Nevermind the fact that Koufax had his career shortened by an arm injury in the middle of the best years of his pitching life. Most people consider him to be the most dominant pitcher of any era.
You're joking right? Look at career ERA for Guidry (3.29) vs Koufax (2.76). Or ERA+, Guidry (120) to Koufax (131). That's like saying Curt Schilling was better than Roger Clemens (3.33 vs 3.19, 129 vs 140). Why wouldn't Schilling be in the Hall right now, and Roger would be?Ron Guidry had comparable statistics to Sandy Koufax. Why isn't he in the Hall of Fame?
Yet you jest! Pedro destroys Koufax and Drysdale in career ERA and ERA+. Pedro career ERA+ is 174, Koufax 131, and Drysdale 121. Pedro career ERA is 2.58, Koufax 2.76, and Drysdale 2.95.I'm not saying that Martinez will never make it. I am just saying that, if he retired today, he would NOT be in the hall of fame.
Let's even look at their peak years (best 3) in ERA and ERA+ (I also added the "shoe ins" from the list just for broader scope). I'm not going to bring wins into the equation b/c wins are not indicative of individual performance (things the pitcher can control) but more a function of team:
ERA - Pedro, Koufax, Drysdale, Rocket, Maddux, Johnson, & Schilling (just for kicks)
-----------------------------
P - 1.74, 1.90, 2.22
K - 1.73, 1.74, 2.04
D - 2.15, 2.18, 2.63
R - 1.93, 2.05, 2.48
M - 1.56, 1. 63, 2.18
J - 2.28, 2.32, 2.48
S - 2.35, 2.95, 2.97
ERA+
----------------------------
P - 285, 245, 221
K - 190, 187, 161
D - 154, 149, 140
R - 226, 211, 177
M - 273, 259, 191
J - 198, 190, 184
S - 159, 154, 149
Out of these groups for peak years, Pedro owns everyone in ERA+, and beats all but Koufax and Maddux in peak ERA years. Keep in mind that Pedro rocks Koufax and Maddux in career ERA (not to mention EVERYONE in this group). Pedro would most certainly be in the Hall today just on stats alone, considering his dominant ERA+/ERA numbers compared to the rest of the group. Scary to think that he will have another good 2-3 years!
Also funny how Schilling (and everyone else in this group) has better peak year ERA+ numbers than Drysdale (who's in the HOF) and a better career ERA+ as well (129 vs 121). Was Drysdale only voted in b/c he played with Koufax? If Drysdale is in, Pedro will without a doubt be in if he dropped dead today.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
2/10Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think that I would have to say that Pedro isn't even one of the top 100 pitchers of all time.
1. He's a clubhouse cancer. He adds -10 wins to any club just by being on the roster. He whines and cries most of the time and doesn't care about the team.
2. He has no heart. Another -10 wins.
3. He can't pitch in the big games. He hasn't been exceptional in the postseason, therefore he is worse than any other pitcher that has been better in about 50 postseason innings.
4. He's so weak that he can't even pitch 200 innings. I think that anyone could do awesome in just 180-190 innings or whatever. But it takes a real pitcher to go 200-230 innings. Therefore Pedro isn't a real pitcher. I think this might be because he has no heart, too.
5. He doesn't win a lot of games. He's only won more than 20 games once in his entire career. That's pathetic.
Bottom line is that Pedro is just a big baby.
knowing what you do about their respective careers, if you could choose one of the two pitchers at the beginning of their careers, who would you pick Pedro or Pettite?
I'm kidding about all of that crap I said.
I was just saying that since sp33demon is such a homer
but seriously, i'm asking.
Pettite, to me anyway, really proved himself last post season, he went out and won 3 VERY VERY important games for the yankees and the one game he lost to beckett was still a VERY VERY good performance by pettite.
he doesn't have the stellar overall numbers that pedro does, but he has been good when it counted.
Remember to subtract 2 HR's off Pedro's postseason record from "Game 7" last year. Giambi's stats are irrelevant and will be asterisked since he used THG in 2002, 2003 (federal investigation on him, Gary Shtfield, and Fairy Bonds for receiving THG from Balco in the mail to their houses).
Pettite pitched well last year and is decent, but will never have the numbers to get in the HOF like Pedro.
LOL. I think Pedro is on steroids, too.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
ROFL... Drysdale was the Scottie Pippen of the 60's Dodgers... If Drysdale is HOF material, so should Schilling!!Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Petey has stats but no heart. Drysdale had twice the heart and talent as the little headcase!Originally posted by: SP33Demon
World Series are a function of your TEAM. Koufax had HOFer Drysdale for every World Series win, their team was a dynasty. Care naming the WS pitcher that complements Pedro? Didn't think so.Koufax won three World Series - Martinez has won zero.
If you want to compare 57 innings to 52.3, then go ahead. Pedro had a 3.61 ERA, and fanned 48 in 52 innings. Koufax had a 0.95 ERA, and fanned 61 in 57 innings. I will give u this if it makes you feel better, but hardly much of a comparison.Koufax had a 0.95 ERA in the four World Series that he pitched - Martinez hasn't exactly shined in the post season
Again, Koufax had Drysdale to pitch for him and pitched for a dynasty, Pedro does not have either so wins don't mean much (they are a function of your team, for instance, how many times did Pedro lead last year and then the bullpen blew it? FOUR times).Koufax won 25 games three times - Martinez has won 20 twice
Yes, I agree, and Pedro absolutely destroys him in career ERA+ and ERA. He even destroys him in his peak years in ERA+, although Koufax did have a good peak for regular ERA.Nevermind the fact that Koufax had his career shortened by an arm injury in the middle of the best years of his pitching life. Most people consider him to be the most dominant pitcher of any era.
You're joking right? Look at career ERA for Guidry (3.29) vs Koufax (2.76). Or ERA+, Guidry (120) to Koufax (131). That's like saying Curt Schilling was better than Roger Clemens (3.33 vs 3.19, 129 vs 140). Why wouldn't Schilling be in the Hall right now, and Roger would be?Ron Guidry had comparable statistics to Sandy Koufax. Why isn't he in the Hall of Fame?
Yet you jest! Pedro destroys Koufax and Drysdale in career ERA and ERA+. Pedro career ERA+ is 174, Koufax 131, and Drysdale 121. Pedro career ERA is 2.58, Koufax 2.76, and Drysdale 2.95.I'm not saying that Martinez will never make it. I am just saying that, if he retired today, he would NOT be in the hall of fame.
Let's even look at their peak years (best 3) in ERA and ERA+ (I also added the "shoe ins" from the list just for broader scope). I'm not going to bring wins into the equation b/c wins are not indicative of individual performance (things the pitcher can control) but more a function of team:
ERA - Pedro, Koufax, Drysdale, Rocket, Maddux, Johnson, & Schilling (just for kicks)
-----------------------------
P - 1.74, 1.90, 2.22
K - 1.73, 1.74, 2.04
D - 2.15, 2.18, 2.63
R - 1.93, 2.05, 2.48
M - 1.56, 1. 63, 2.18
J - 2.28, 2.32, 2.48
S - 2.35, 2.95, 2.97
ERA+
----------------------------
P - 285, 245, 221
K - 190, 187, 161
D - 154, 149, 140
R - 226, 211, 177
M - 273, 259, 191
J - 198, 190, 184
S - 159, 154, 149
Out of these groups for peak years, Pedro owns everyone in ERA+, and beats all but Koufax and Maddux in peak ERA years. Keep in mind that Pedro rocks Koufax and Maddux in career ERA (not to mention EVERYONE in this group). Pedro would most certainly be in the Hall today just on stats alone, considering his dominant ERA+/ERA numbers compared to the rest of the group. Scary to think that he will have another good 2-3 years!
Also funny how Schilling (and everyone else in this group) has better peak year ERA+ numbers than Drysdale (who's in the HOF) and a better career ERA+ as well (129 vs 121). Was Drysdale only voted in b/c he played with Koufax? If Drysdale is in, Pedro will without a doubt be in if he dropped dead today.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I could say that Koufax pitched in a pitcher's stadium (which you've said about LA, not me), pitched against hitter's who have never faced him before, and did not face the DH. I don't think that Piazza's and Bench's comparison was offbase for that discussion, both played in the NL, both had over 100 AB's, played in 29 or more postseason games, and both played in the WS (against NYY ironically). Bringing up the Piazza Bench thing is hilarious, get over it!Or we could say that Koufax faced the best of the best of competition in the WS and pitched better! I like how you are trying to justify your previous horrible comparison and trying to ignore this current horrible comparison. Maybe they were both just plain ridiculous. However, I guess some people have trouble applying the same set of rules to every player. Your excuse that 50 IP is equal to 35 at bats was ridiculous and you know it. Saying that Pedro pitches in a hitter's park is the same as a certain catcher hitting in a pitcher's park. Saying that you can't compare the two because of the WS and non-WS is funny because the same is of the previous comparison.
Any half witted baseball fan knows that Fenway Pahk is a hitter's park with the Green Monster 315 ft away and 302 to Pesky Pole. This has been common knowledge for over 90 years, lmao! Proving that Shea is a pitcher's park is harder, it's not common knowledge unless you follow the Mets/baseball closely and research it.
Getting emotional on us Rabid? lol, sorry if you feel you still have a chip on your shoulder b/c of me. Yes I know it angers you that I'm using the same stats that you have used to judge Pedro, cry about it some moreYou're using some statistical analysis now to show that Pedro was better than Koufax, but only because it helps a Red Sox player out. I and anyone else could make a very easy 'common' fan case to say that Koufax was easily better - similar to the way that you argued previously. It would be stupid, but possible.
I think ERA+ and ERA over a player's career are enough to prove superiority, it shows overall dominance and dominance relative to peers of the era. Yes, I don't like how the park adjustment is calculated, but I'm sure you could take that away and Pedro would still whoop Koufax in ERA+ for career and peak years... the only argument you would have is that Koufax was better in peak years b/c of WS and ERA, so what? Pedro, in your words, is the "most dominant pitcher in history". I'll take that any day of the week... you could never say that Piazza was the most dominant catcher in history, b/c of Bench.
Your witty repartee is making my brain hurt! No more, no more!I think it's time that you claim your homer crown
My friend told me it was in the Total Baseball Encyclopedia (Official MLB Encyclopedia for the uninformed). Of course I haven't bought it, so I'm taking his word on it... either way it doesn't matter, b/c you accept it as a relevant stat.BTW, where did you learn that ERA+ is an 'official' MLB statistic?
You must be quoting Red Dawn again, tsk tsk. You should know better than that! And many people will say that Scottie Pippen had heart too! Let the embellishment begin... 300 innings? lol, wait, what's a closer and a middle reliever mama? Da-da, do u know?Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
If your argument for a certain player to be in the HOF is because another player is in the HOF, then you need to think of a better argument. Not that I'm not saying that Schilling isn't a HOF or Drysdale shouldn't be one.
Bottom line is that Drysdale had heart. Pedro doesn't. Drysdale could pitch 300 innings. Pedro can't even pitch 200. Pedro is a CANCER in the clubhouse. He doesn't care about the team. Drysdale would have taken a bullet for his teammates.
I could say that Koufax pitched in a pitcher's stadium (which you've said about LA, not me), pitched against hitter's who have never faced him before, and did not face the DH. I don't think that Piazza's and Bench's comparison was offbase for that discussion, both played in the NL, both had over 100 AB's, played in 29 or more postseason games, and both played in the WS (against NYY ironically). Bringing up the Piazza Bench thing is hilarious, get over it!
Any half witted baseball fan knows that Fenway Pahk is a hitter's park with the Green Monster 315 ft away and 302 to Pesky Pole. This has been common knowledge for over 90 years, lmao! Proving that Shea is a pitcher's park is harder, it's not common knowledge unless you follow the Mets/baseball closely and research it.
think ERA+ and ERA over a player's career are enough to prove superiority, it shows overall dominance and dominance relative to peers of the era. Yes, I don't like how the park adjustment is calculated, but I'm sure you could take that away and Pedro would still whoop Koufax in ERA+ for career and peak years... the only argument you would have is that Koufax was better in peak years b/c of WS and ERA, so what? Pedro, in your words, is the "most dominant pitcher in history". I'll take that any day of the week... you could never say that Piazza was the most dominant catcher in history, b/c of Bench.
My friend told me it was in the Total Baseball Encyclopedia (Official MLB Encyclopedia for the uninformed). Of course I haven't bought it, so I'm taking his word on it... either way it doesn't matter, b/c you accept it as a relevant stat.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I could say that Koufax pitched in a pitcher's stadium (which you've said about LA, not me), pitched against hitter's who have never faced him before, and did not face the DH. I don't think that Piazza's and Bench's comparison was offbase for that discussion, both played in the NL, both had over 100 AB's, played in 29 or more postseason games, and both played in the WS (against NYY ironically). Bringing up the Piazza Bench thing is hilarious, get over it!
Any half witted baseball fan knows that Fenway Pahk is a hitter's park with the Green Monster 315 ft away and 302 to Pesky Pole. This has been common knowledge for over 90 years, lmao! Proving that Shea is a pitcher's park is harder, it's not common knowledge unless you follow the Mets/baseball closely and research it.
And Koufax and Pedro had control in over 150 at bats - 50 innings, 150 outs. Piazza only had control of 110 himself. A pitcher that pitches 50 innings has more of an impact than a batter with 110 at bats.
Both may have played in the WS, but Bench played a lot more often in the WS. Piazza had to face pitchers that knew him. Blah blah blah.
think ERA+ and ERA over a player's career are enough to prove superiority, it shows overall dominance and dominance relative to peers of the era. Yes, I don't like how the park adjustment is calculated, but I'm sure you could take that away and Pedro would still whoop Koufax in ERA+ for career and peak years... the only argument you would have is that Koufax was better in peak years b/c of WS and ERA, so what? Pedro, in your words, is the "most dominant pitcher in history". I'll take that any day of the week... you could never say that Piazza was the most dominant catcher in history, b/c of Bench.
So let me get this right...you like ERA+, but don't like OPS+? Especially when ERA is also somewhat team dependent - as in team defense. You do realize that there are also DIPS statistics, right? And not to mention that it's also statistically different when the average ERA is 5.00 and 3.00 - as in it's most likely harder to achieve a better ERA+ when the league average ERA is so low. But ERA+ is still OK.
My friend told me it was in the Total Baseball Encyclopedia (Official MLB Encyclopedia for the uninformed). Of course I haven't bought it, so I'm taking his word on it... either way it doesn't matter, b/c you accept it as a relevant stat.
If ERA+ is there, then I guarantee that OPS+ is there, too.
I guess you thought that I was serious about all of that Pedro is evil stuff after I basically said he was awesoome and admitted that I was just joking around, too.
All I was doing was basically using some of your and other people's hilarious arguments...but I guess since it's going against a Red Sox player, it's now ridiculous.
Not necessarily. Look at appearances and get the %. Pedro: 7 Postseason games/30.75 avg regular season games of 29 games started = 22.76%, and Piazza: 28 postseason games/144 games (avg of at least 135 games or more in a season) = 19.4%. 22.75% to 19.4% isn't that much of a difference(3.35%), both are roughly 20% of games played in a regular season.And Koufax and Pedro had control in over 150 at bats - 50 innings, 150 outs. Piazza only had control of 110 himself. A pitcher that pitches 50 innings has more of an impact than a batter with 110 at bats.
Nah, I already know u like Pedro and the Red Sox... hey, they won you a World Series for your Mets!
Yes, OPS+ is in there so I guess it's an official stat. But hey, so is SLG%. and WHIP. We could even look at DIPS. Pedro is probably better, if not close, to Koufax in all of them. ERA+ is ok b/c it still measure Koufax's performance against his peers, yes he did pitch in a pitcher's era... It's a hitter's era now, so ERA+ is still relevant whether the avg is 3.00 or 5.00... ERA+ is somewhat reliant on team D, but honestly, how many runs are scored b/c of poor fielding??? Does it really make a difference in the overall season stats? Probably not much, so I don't see what your point is.
I like ERA+ b/c it compares them to their peers at the time. I don't like OPS+ or ERA+ b/c of park adjustment, and I think SLG% is a better measure of power hitting in the Piazza/Bench case. We needed to look at SLG% with Bench vs Piazza b/c you claimed that Piazza offensively beat Bench in every category, so I was just punching holes in your case by using SLG%. It doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like OPS+, I think OPS is great... but to be the best offensive hitting catcher ever, you have to be dominant not only in OPS but in SLG as well throughout career and peak, a stat Piazza arguably didn't dominate in peak years.
Not necessarily. Look at appearances and get the %. Pedro: 7 Postseason games/30.75 avg regular season games of 29 games started = 22.76%, and Piazza: 28 postseason games/144 games (avg of at least 135 games or more in a season) = 19.4%. 22.75% to 19.4% isn't that much of a difference(3.35%), both are roughly 20% of games played in a regular season.