Printable View
Smoltz as good as Martinez? You cannot possibly be serious. I can only assume this was an attempt at levity.
I love Smoltz. He has had a great career, and he will make the HOF some day. But there is absolutely no way possible he is/was EVER in the same class as Pedro. In fact, he wasn't ever in the same class as Clemens, Maddux, or Randy Johnson.
Come on now.
Yeah....what? For one, 1996-1999 wasn't "before Pedro." In that time period, Smoltz threw 863.2 innings with a 143 OPS+. Pedro threw 905 innings with a 173 OPS+. Smoltz ranked 6th in OPS+ during that time period, behind Pedro, Johnson, Kevin Brown, Greg Maddux, and Roger Clemens.
Smoltz never came close to Pedro's level of domination. Very few pitchers have.
Roger ClemensQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Greg Maddux
Christy Mathewson
Cy Young
Sandy Koufax
Tom Seaver
Nolan Ryan
Bob Gibson
Steve Carlton
Tom Glavine
Mike Mussina
Pete Alexander
Pud Galvin
Whitey Ford
Ron Guidry
Johan Santana
Roy Oswalt
John Smoltz
Randy Johnson
Jamie Moyer
Curt Schilling
Tim Wakefield
Fergie Jenkins
Dennis Eckersley
Trevor Hoffman (Screw it, let's do relievers too!)
Mariano Rivera
Lee Smith
Billy Wagner
John Franco
Hoyt Wilhelm
Goose Gossage
Dwight Gooden
Juan Marichal
I think that's good for now on the list of "Whos better then Pedro"
Wow, I'm good at the "Who in baseball history is better then Pedro? game"
Thats wonderful. Just one problem with your list. About 80% of those guys were never even as good as Pedro Martinez.
LOLOLOL.
Dude, you make me crack up. Tim Wakefield is better than Pedro Martinez? Jamie Moyer? Dwight Gooden?
hahaaahahahahaha.
At least those guys were consistent. A good player has to be consistent- Pedro Martinez is not consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I think you've lost it. Really, I urge you, look at Pedro Martinez's career before saying these crazy statements.
You're a funny troll at least.
Most of those guys weren't especially consistent, actually. Somewhat up and down, for the most part. Certainly no more consistent than Martinez, anyway.
SHOOTER Galvin knows more about Baseball then you.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I''m actually starting to worry now, Mets. Did you suffer a blow to the head recently? Suffering dizzy spells...blackouts?Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
I think he cut off his man parts and became one of those ESPN female reporters who know nothing about the sport
As opposed to the ESPN male reporters who are masters of knowledge? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
What males? They are all women, just not attractive, and are all flat, well except for Kruk :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Wow, leave it to metsguy to sidetrack a good thread.
First, as a Red Sox fan, I thoroughly support Pesky's number being retired. I wonder if anyone knows, realizes, or finds it ironic that Pesky's number (6) is the same number worn on that infamous October, 1986 night by one Bill Buckner?
The Red Sox are well known for having the most restrictive number retirement policy in professional sports. In 107 years of history, with all the greats that have come through there, Pesky's will be only the 6th number retired by the franchise. Bobby Doerr (1), Joe Cronin (4), Carl Yastrzemski (8), Ted Williams (9), and Carlton Fisk (27) are the only currently retired numbers.
No one has worn Rice's 14 since he retired, and that will be the next to be retired, as soon has he is, deservedly, elected to the Hall of Fame.
No one has worn Boggs' 26 since he was elected to the Hall of Fame, and that number should have already been retired. Personal conflicts probably have held it up, but it should be done.
5, 21, and 45 have not been reissued since Nomar, Clemens, and Pedro left, respectively. I would be shocked if, in the present climate, Clemens' 21 is retired, but it may eventually be when the steroid furor cools. Neither Nomar or Pedro has met the 10 year service rule, and I would be shocked if either of them ever get a sign on the wall in Fenway, given the numbers who haven't.
Manny falls into the same category as above. He didn't spend 10 years in Boston, and while he may have made great contributions over a shorter period, so did many, many people who haven't had their numbers retired.
Ortiz could get there eventually. However, out of the present crop of Red Sox, I'd say the most likely to fulfil the 10-year rule would be Youkilis and Pedroia, who seem to be the building blocks of the Red Sox next generation. No, I'm not saying they'll be Hall of Famers, or that 20 and 15 will be on the right field wall, just that Youkilis and Pedroia will spend 10 years in a Red Sox uniform.
Terry Francona has been a great manager for a team that has not had an iconic manager in their history. There hasn't been a Tommy Lasorda, a Casey Stengel, a Sparky Anderson, a Bobby Cox, or an Earl Weaver in Boston. But I'd want to see at least another 10 years in the dugout and another couple titles before retiring his number (or his turtleneck, since I've never seen Tito with a jersey number visible). I think you have to be on the level of one of those icons to get your number retired as a manager.
And don't get me started on retiring numbers for executives and owners who never set foot on the field except to collect trophies and toss first pitches.
I'd be shocked if Pedro's number isn't retired sometime after he retires.