HOF for futute pitchers

[GregCujo]

I know this has been beaten to death, but Pedro is a surefire HoFer. Ignoring what he's done in individual seasons, a 200+ win career with an ERA below 3.00 buys you a ticket to Cooperstown. As for the whole Nolan Ryan vs. Pedro thing, yes, Ryan had a better career because he lasted (and was still good) for a much longer period of time. When talking about peak performances, Pedro blows Ryan (and any other pitcher away) away. It is impossible to describe how utterly dominant Pedro was in 2000. In 217 innings, he held opponents to 128 hits, while posting more than twice as many strikeouts (only pitcher, I'm pretty sure, who's done so in 200 innings), while only walking 32. In the American League. The only performances that could take a distant second and third are Gooden in 1985, and Maddux in 1995.

[HoustonGM]

And there's no way I'll agree with Martinez being better than Ryan. Pedro was an amazing pitcher; he'll go to the Hall and deserves to. But consider that at Pedro's current age - 36 - he's gone 16-12 for the past 3 seasons with an ERA over 4. Ryan at 36 was ninth in Cy Young voting, going 14-9 with a sub-3 ERA for a Houston team that was lucky to reach .500 on the dot, as were most of Ryan's teams.

...So...Ryan was more durable and lasted longer, yeah. That some how means he was BETTER than Pedro?

Yes, he had control problems, but those were either early in the career or in seasons where he typically pitched a ton of innings - over 300 IP twice. By contrast, Pedro only pitched over 230 IP twice; Ryan did that ten times, the latest was when he was 42.

Yes, Ryan was extremely durable.

Pedro's K/W was phenomenal, but he paid for it by letting folks hit it over the fence...Ryan had one season where he gave up 20 HR in a career over half again as long as Pedro's - Pedro went over 20 HR three times and had three more seasons with 19.

Pedro played in the highest offensive era in history. Ryan played in a much lower offensive environement.

Not to say that Pedro isn't absolutely amazing - he is. But I'll be more willing to compare them when Pedro is pitching with a winning record for a lousy team in 2014, and striking out over 150 with an ERA half a run below league average.

Well, again, nobody's saying that Pedro is more durable and longlasting than Nolan Ryan. Your entire post pretty much sums up the case for Ryan by saying exactly that - Ryan pitched more and was healthier and more durable.

Yes, in terms of career value, Ryan provided more value over his entire career than Martinez has over his entire career. He pitched nearly twice as many innings.

But, as GregCujo said, Pedro at his best was utterly and insanely dominant. From 1997 to 2003, he posted the greatest pitching peak in history. Ryan doesn't have one season to match any of those, except perhaps 1981, which was cut short by a strike.

If sheer durability and being on the mound is the only criteria, than yeah, Ryan wins. But more goes into a "who was better" discussion than that.

Nolan Ryan's 10 highest ERA+'s, followed beneath by Pedro's...minimum of 149 innings so that Ryan's best gets in there:

194, 142, 141, 139, 128, 124, 122, 118, 115, 114
291, 243, 219, 210, 202, 163, 145, 125, 123, 117

But, ultimately, we'll have to agree to disagree, as it depends on how much value one puts on longevity and durability. Myself, I'm willing to overlook those in cases of extreme dominance, and Pedro fits that. Off the top of my head, if I was making a list of the best pitchers of all time, Ryan probably wouldn't be in my top 30...

For what it's worth, in The New Bill James Historical Abstract, James ranked Ryan 24th and Martinez 29th. It was compiled after the 2000 season, and Martinez has since added 4.5 years of great pitching on top of that, so it's safe to assume that James would now rank Martinez higher. I think James last sentence in his write-up on Ryan is telling - "He rates as well as he does here, in part, because my method compares a pitcher to zero; he ranks not nearly as well if he is compared to the average."

In 217 innings, he held opponents to 128 hits, while posting more than twice as many strikeouts (only pitcher, I'm pretty sure, who's done so in 200 innings

Johnson in 2001 pitched 249.2 innings, allowed 181 hits, struck out 372 hitters.

The only performances that could take a distant second and third are Gooden in 1985, and Maddux in 1995.

Without going back to the the deadball era..Maddux in 1994 and 1995, and Gibson in 1968 are the ones that come closest, with 1997 Clemens and 1985 Gooden slightly behind.

[Frijolito]

That's the problem with using all these sabr stats and other nonsense. Because it causes some people to forget common sense. Pedro was a great pitcher who is a HOFamer however the fact that Ryan pitched for so long and was way above average makes him far more valuable and therfore better. This kinda reminds me of this fellow Brewer fan who kept throwing out all these goofy stats to say how Ben Sheets was so great. I said well he might have great stats but if he's only starting 20 games a season how great can he really be?? Whats better a great Sheets for 20 games or a good solid starter who starts 35. This is kinda the same argument a great Pedro for what 7 seasons or a good Ryan for 20 seasons??

[KowboyKoop]

Pedro's peak vs. Ryan's peak. Pedro wins easily...noone would disagree with that.

Pedro's career vs. Ryan's career........that one's pretty close. You have to give Ryan some credit for sustaining it for SO much longer than Pedro could. What's better, about 22-23 really good, above average years or about 13 dominant years. I'd give the edge to Pedor probably..b/c it's not like Pedro's peak was really short or anything....but I don't think it's a huge margin.

[KowboyKoop]

That's the problem with using all these sabr stats and other nonsense. Because it causes some people to forget common sense. Pedro was a great pitcher who is a HOFamer however the fact that Ryan pitched for so long and was way above average makes him far more valuable and therfore better. This kinda reminds me of this fellow Brewer fan who kept throwing out all these goofy stats to say how Ben Sheets was so great. I said well he might have great stats but if he's only starting 20 games a season how great can he really be?? Whats better a great Sheets for 20 games or a good solid starter who starts 35. This is kinda the same argument a great Pedro for what 7 seasons or a good Ryan for 20 seasons??

Throwing out stats about how great a guy pitches has nothing to do with how durable he is.There's a difference between how good he pitches and how valuable he is to the team.

Also, Pedro had a lot more than just seven great seasons. You'd know that if you looked at the "nonsense stats" or whatever.

[HoustonGM]

That's the problem with using all these sabr stats and other nonsense. Because it causes some people to forget common sense. Pedro was a great pitcher who is a HOFamer however the fact that Ryan pitched for so long and was way above average makes him far more valuable and therfore better. This kinda reminds me of this fellow Brewer fan who kept throwing out all these goofy stats to say how Ben Sheets was so great. I said well he might have great stats but if he's only starting 20 games a season how great can he really be?? Whats better a great Sheets for 20 games or a good solid starter who starts 35. This is kinda the same argument a great Pedro for what 7 seasons or a good Ryan for 20 seasons??

Nobody here is using ANY "sabr stats", by the way. I love how any time I discuss players, people automatically assume I'm "using sabr stats", even if I'm...not.

Nolan Ryan, for his career, was more valuable than Pedro, for his career. That's without question, but that's not the debate here.

At their peaks, Pedro was MUCH better than Nolan Ryan. Pedro's peak was also sustained for multiple seasons at a very high level. Pedro, at his worst when pitching full seasons, was what Ryan did in a good year for him. Ryan often mixed in average and below average seasons - 1971, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1988.

It all depends on how much weight you put on career value as compared to peak value. When it comes to THAT great a peak, I place a good amount of value on peak value. You don't. To each his own. Sandy Koufax's name often comes up in "greatest pitcher" discussions. Why? Because he had a dominating, historically high peak, and peak value is and has to be part of the discussion when it comes to evaluating the careers of players.

[RedsoxRockies]

How about Horacio Ramirez? He is on pace to break every pitching record!

[HoustonGM]

Throwing out stats about how great a guy pitches has nothing to do with how durable he is.There's a difference between how good he pitches and how valuable he is to the team.

Yep.

Also, Pedro had a lot more than just seven great seasons. You'd know that if you looked at the "nonsense stats" or whatever.

Pedro had 11 full seasons, 10 as a starter.

1995 and 1996 he was VERY good, but I wouldn't say great, same goes for 2004. That leaves 7 great seasons, 5 of which he was just ridiculously and stupidly great.

[Frijolito]

Throwing out stats about how great a guy pitches has nothing to do with how durable he is.There's a difference between how good he pitches and how valuable he is to the team.

Also, Pedro had a lot more than just seven great seasons. You'd know that if you looked at the "nonsense stats" or whatever.

Pedro Martinez had 7 great years - 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005.

I actually got those 7 seasons from HGM in post 13 of this thread. I also didn't look up any stats at all. Makes it easier to backtrack my statements in the event I say something really ridicoulous.

[HoustonGM]

I actually got those 7 seasons from HGM in post 13 of this thread. I also didn't look up any stats at all. Makes it easier to backtrack my statements in the event I say something really ridicoulous.

In that case, you're comparing Ryan's entire career to Pedro's 7 best seasons, when Pedro had other good seasons outside of those years...

[Pavelb1]

That's the problem with using all these sabr stats and other nonsense. Because it causes some people to forget common sense.

Wow...just, wow.

Pedro was a great pitcher who is a HOFamer however the fact that Ryan pitched for so long and was way above average makes him far more valuable and therfore better. This kinda reminds me of this fellow Brewer fan who kept throwing out all these goofy stats to say how Ben Sheets was so great. I said well he might have great stats but if he's only starting 20 games a season how great can he really be?? Whats better a great Sheets for 20 games or a good solid starter who starts 35. This is kinda the same argument a great Pedro for what 7 seasons or a good Ryan for 20 seasons??

I'll take a great Pedro. Ryan was not 'way above average' If you're going to go old school then look at his total W-L record. He's number three alltime in losses, number one in Walks and number one in wild pitchs. He never won a Cy Young.

There..that common sense/old school enough?

[Frijolito]

Wow...just, wow.




I'll take a great Pedro. Ryan was not 'way above average' If you're going to go old school then look at his total W-L record. He's number three alltime in losses, number one in Walks and number one in wild pitchs. He never won a Cy Young.

There..that common sense/old school enough?

Win/Loss is a terrible way to measure a pitcher. The only stat that matter is ERA+-*%. It fatcors in: ballpark, how many hours of sleep the pitcher had the night before, the defense he had behind him, run support and how many cups of coffee he drank in the morning...

[HoustonGM]

Ryan had 24 years of 100+ innings. Let's break it down by "great", "very good", "above average", "average", and "below average."

Great - 1977, 1981, 1987, 1991 (4)
Very Good - 1972, 1973, 1974, 1983, 1984, 1989, 1990 (7)
Above Average - 1970, 1979, 1982, 1986 (4)
Average - 1968, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1992 (6)
Below Average - 1971, 1985, 1988 (3)

Using the same 100 inning cutoff for Pedro:

Great - 1993 (reliever), 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005 (9)
Very Good - 1994, 1995, 1996, 2004 (4)
Above Average - (0)
Average - 2006 (1)
Below Average - (0)

[HoustonGM]

Win/Loss is a terrible way to measure a pitcher. The only stat that matter is ERA+-*%. It fatcors in: ballpark, how many hours of sleep the pitcher had the night before, the defense he had behind him, run support and how many cups of coffee he drank in the morning...

Thank you for displaying your ignorance.

You know, baseball discussions are really the only type of discussion I've participated in that knowledge, intellectualism, and facts are frowned upon and ridiculed. It's disturbing.

[Frijolito]

Thank you for displaying your ignorance.

You know, baseball discussions are really the only type of discussion I've participated in that knowledge, intellectualism, and facts are frowned upon and ridiculed. It's disturbing.

ignorance is bliss.