Options
IS PEDRO A HOFer?
eyebone
Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭
Watching the game tonight and some of the hyperbole around Pedro has left me thinking maybe I missed something. Is he a HOFer?
219 - 100 lifetime with an ERA about 2.9 and well over 3,000 Ks.
I suppose so, but what do you think?
Eyebone
219 - 100 lifetime with an ERA about 2.9 and well over 3,000 Ks.
I suppose so, but what do you think?
Eyebone
"I'm not saying I'm the best manager in the world, but I'm in the top one." Brian Clough
0
Comments
and its not even close.
Jim Rice Photobucket http://s87.photobucket.com/albums/k153/dpuccio/Collection Jim Rice/"
Luis Tiant Photobucket http://s87.photobucket.com/albums/k153/dpuccio/Collection Luis Tiant/"
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Even though I still think he's used PEDs.
Steve
Sandy Koufax Career Stats
165-87 2.76 2396K
Pedro
219-100 2.93 3154K
T222's PSA 1 or better
<< <i>Not even a question worth asking. Of course. Duh! >>
Geez.....I sure hope I didn't offend you.
Eyebone
Eyebone
1997 - 2000 was likely the most dominant four-year run by any starting pitcher ever. At least as good as Koufax 1963-1966.
<< <i>Only won 20 games in a season twice and never pitched 250+ innings in any single season. Only two stats but not really consistent with some of the other greats of the contemporary era.
Eyebone >>
Both are near meaningless in this era of the pitch count and emphasis on WHIP.
Eyebone >>
Both are near meaningless in this era of the pitch count and emphasis on WHIP.
Exactly. And wins are probably one of THE most misleading stats to gauge a pitcher's talent or effectiveness by, as they are significantly affected by the talent around the pitcher. Is a 2-1 loss better than a 8-7 win? For the team, no, but don't try and tell me the pitcher that wins the 8-7 game had a better outing than the guy who loses 2-1.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> Only won 20 games in a season twice and never pitched 250+ innings in any single season. Only two stats but not really consistent with some of the other greats of the contemporary era.
Eyebone >>
Both are near meaningless in this era of the pitch count and emphasis on WHIP.
Exactly. And wins are probably one of THE most misleading stats to gauge a pitcher's talent or effectiveness by, as they are significantly affected by the talent around the pitcher. Is a 2-1 loss better than a 8-7 win? For the team, no, but don't try and tell me the pitcher that wins the 8-7 game had a better outing than the guy who loses 2-1. >>
Patently ridiculous. I bet you're also one of those guys who just doesn't understand how a hitter who produces 140 RBI in 300 chances is not a better hitter than a guy who produces 70 RBI in 90 chances.
<< <i>Patently ridiculous. I bet you're also one of those guys who just doesn't understand how a hitter who produces 140 RBI in 300 chances is not a better hitter than a guy who produces 70 RBI in 90 chances. >>
Nevermind - I thought you said the opposite.
We agree then, but isn't that a similar point that was being made?
If you want discredit Martinez because he didn't complete games, pitch mega innings or top 20+ wins for a decade straight, then go ahead. You just demonstrate a complete ignorance to the dominance of the player as a whole. Personally, I couldn't stand Pedro and his act, but there is no way that ANYONE should be able to suggest that he was not one of the most dominant pitchers of his era and during his peak in the late 1990's (1997-2000), he was one of the best pitchers to ever play the game.
Eyebone >>
Both are near meaningless in this era of the pitch count and emphasis on WHIP.
Exactly. And wins are probably one of THE most misleading stats to gauge a pitcher's talent or effectiveness by, as they are significantly affected by the talent around the pitcher. Is a 2-1 loss better than a 8-7 win? For the team, no, but don't try and tell me the pitcher that wins the 8-7 game had a better outing than the guy who loses 2-1. >>
Patently ridiculous. I bet you're also one of those guys who just doesn't understand how a hitter who produces 140 RBI in 300 chances is not a better hitter than a guy who produces 70 RBI in 90 chances.
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that how many victories a pitcher has is a very ACCURATE gauge as to his effectiveness? Because that stat is much less significant than WHIP, ERA, K:BB, etc..
Don't make me call Hoopster over here to break it down, now, LOL..
Edit: My point is that the number of voctories Pedro has amassed thus far in his career has little bearing on how dominant he was. There are many pitchers with far more wins than Pedro has who couldn't hold a candle to him as a pitcher.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>< Only won 20 games in a season twice and never pitched 250+ innings in any single season. Only two stats but not really consistent with some of the other greats of the contemporary era.
Eyebone >>
Both are near meaningless in this era of the pitch count and emphasis on WHIP.
Exactly. And wins are probably one of THE most misleading stats to gauge a pitcher's talent or effectiveness by, as they are significantly affected by the talent around the pitcher. Is a 2-1 loss better than a 8-7 win? For the team, no, but don't try and tell me the pitcher that wins the 8-7 game had a better outing than the guy who loses 2-1. >>
Patently ridiculous. I bet you're also one of those guys who just doesn't understand how a hitter who produces 140 RBI in 300 chances is not a better hitter than a guy who produces 70 RBI in 90 chances.
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that how many victories a pitcher has is a very ACCURATE gauge as to his effectiveness? Because that stat is much less significant than WHIP, ERA, K:BB, etc..
Don't make me call Hoopster over here to break it down, now, LOL..
Edit: My point is that the number of voctories Pedro has amassed thus far in his career has little bearing on how dominant he was. There are many pitchers with far more wins than Pedro has who couldn't hold a candle to him as a pitcher. >>
No, no, I agree- just having a joke. Carry on.
<< <i>wins are probably one of THE most misleading stats to gauge a pitcher's talent or effectiveness >>
Spoken like a true Mets fan . . .
Apparently, I occasionally fail to grasp your sardonic wit, Boo..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Spoken like a true Mets fan . . .
Well, the Sports Talk forum is presently overrun with Philly and Yankee fans, so I ventured over here for an escape..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
easy Hallof Famer
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Steve
Pedro is 6th - all-time - in winning percentage at .6865.
He's also 6th all time in lowest WHIP with 1.054
3rd all time in Ks/9IP (ahead of guys like Ryan, Koufax, Clemens, Smoltz, etc.)
2nd in Adjusted ERA+ (behind only Mariano Rivera)
Plus, he's definitely got the "fame" aspect of it locked down.
<< <i>Heck yea he's a HOFer!
Even though I still think he's used PEDs.
Steve >>
Agreed on both counts. And I would say both points are no-brainers. For me, it's a given that he used PEDs.
There are knocks on Pedro for sure - only 2 20-win seasons, limited innings (just 2 seasons over 217), etc. But he also put together maybe the greatest season of all-time in 2000 (with ridiculous ERA+ of 293) and had a number of iconic moments. Who else but Pedro could have a perfect game broken up by a HBP - and have the batter charge the mound?!?!
Never liked the guy but he's a HOF'er, for sure.
Tabe
I am always very conservative when it comes to HOFs, my signature line is testimony to that. In fact, I think that pro sports Hall Of Fames are so flooded with players that there's no way any daily visitor to a HOF can get an appreciation for all the plaques or busts. HOF should have about 40% of their membership to keep them special. It's become so inclusive that interest for a combined "Pro Sports Hall Of Fame" may surface someday.
All that considered, yes for me Pedro Martinez should be regarded a Future HOFer. The consistent effectiveness that he has accomplished in his era is nothing short of remarkable. Most of his statistics reflect this quality too. -Keith
<< <i>
<< <i>Heck yea he's a HOFer!
Even though I still think he's used PEDs.
Is this a joke? You cannot honestly believe that Pedro was on anything. What would make you believe this other than guilty by association?
T222's PSA 1 or better
<< <i>Seems someone asks a question and wants to argue the merits of a sure-fire first ballot HOFer. What was the purpose of the question, then? Why not just state that YOU don't think he's a HOFer? And if that's what you think, present your argument rather than suggest that you have a few issues with his career and seasonal numbers and arguing with others because EVERYONE recognizes that he's a no-brainer HOFer.
If you want discredit Martinez because he didn't complete games, pitch mega innings or top 20+ wins for a decade straight, then go ahead. You just demonstrate a complete ignorance to the dominance of the player as a whole. Personally, I couldn't stand Pedro and his act, but there is no way that ANYONE should be able to suggest that he was not one of the most dominant pitchers of his era and during his peak in the late 1990's (1997-2000), he was one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. >>
Sir.
Fair enough. I did ask the question and I suppose in that context I should have simply waited for the pristine wisdom of folks like you to come rolling in.
Not sure I was attempting to discredit Pedro as you suggest, but rather to offer up a couple of stats that might bring into question his election to Cooperstown. I see you are easily offended.
BTW, you were wrong....three times! Onebamafan was not convinced, so your assertion that the forum was unanimous of Pedro's election was incorrect. Second, I clearly stated in my initial post that "I supposed" he should be a HOFer. Thus, your claim that I oppose his induction is also incorrect. I was only offering up a couple of statistics--that I personally see as telling--to try and encourage some friendly discussion. I desperately hope that you are not opposed to my perogative there, as well. Also, I never questioned whether or not he was one of the most dominant pitchers of his era, only whether or not he belonged in the HOF (there is a difference). And that was your third error.
Eyebone