are pedro and maddux comparable ?
Gover Clever Alexander
are pedro and maddux comparable ?
He is the only pitcher ever to win 15+ games in 17 straight seasons.*He was the first person in MLB history to win 4 straight Cy Young Awards (1992-1995) During that time he had a record of* 75-29 with a 1.98 ERA*Greg Maddux was awarded a record seventeen Gold Gloves.*In 94, Maddux posted an ERA of 1.56, the second lowest since Bob Gibson's historic 1.12 in 1968.*In 95, Maddux was 19-2 and posted the third-lowest ERA since Gibson's: 1.63. Maddux became the first pitcher to post back-to-back ERAs under 1.80 since Walter Johnson in 1918 (1.27) and 1919 (1.49); Johnson is the only other pitcher in history to do so. Maddux's 1.63 ERA came in a year when the overall league ERA was 4.23In September 2000, Maddux had a record streak of 39 1/3 scoreless innings.*In 2000 Maddux pitched 72 1/3 consecutive innings without giving up a walk.*..and he did it all during the steroid era
I'm gonna vote for Big Train. I would have voted for Clemens if steroids didn't matter.
Though honestly if I could have one pitcher from any era on my team. Bob Gibson. That man was terrifying.
Originally Posted by MrPoon
Our QB > Yours
Sutton threw a lot of innings, so did Ryan, Niekro, etc. and none of them had the sort of rate numbers Pedro did - not even close.
The only live ball guys that have a higher rWAR than Pedro are:
+ by far most of their excellence were in the dead ball era, both did OK in the live ball time, but they were also declining too.
Pedro was fairly close to the group starting with Niekro down.
So while 5000 innings is intrinsically valuable (Carlton 5217) at a very solid 115 ERA+ isn't as valuable as Pedro's 2827. Pick your poison.
IMO, only the pitchers on the list from RJ up are clearly better than Pedro on a career basis and none has his 1850 inning peak - nobody is even in the same zip code.
I saw him pitch live twice and I never saw a bigger strike zone in my life outside of pre 1970 MLB.
Great pitcher, but he's not better then Clemens, WJ, Alexander, Seaver or Grove. IF you rate peak and career as equally important, Pedro has an argument vs Maddux as well.
Yes, as Clemens, Maddux, RJ...remember? They're all on that list of guys with more WAR and IP after the modern era!Are you factoring in for the era he pitched in? Probably the most difficult sustained era in baseball history for a pitcher to succeed in. Cy Young and his contemporaries were throwing D2 BP speed, and before 1894 did from 50'. Surely you can't talk about any of them.
Pedro is in that tier of the elite of the elite, where Carlton is not.So while 5000 innings is intrinsically valuable (Carlton 5217) at a very solid 115 ERA+ isn't as valuable as Pedro's 2827. Pick your poison.
5000+ innings at 132 ERA+ for Maddux.
4200 at 135 is there, particularly since the peaks include 2 10 WAR seasons, and 8 in total over 7 WAR (Pedro at 5 in the same period of time).
5000 at 143 for Clemens.
Career - Pedro is not #1
Peak - Pedro is #1
Career + Peak - Pedro is not #1.
Maddux was a NL pitcher, with no DH, and lesser line-ups up and down the league. His ERA+ numbers need to be adjusted when talking about Randy, Clemens, and Pedro. Maddux had a 3.88 ERA vs AL teams in 288 innings. Compared to 3.13 in the NL. Usually in that time .45 was the difference between AL and NL, but this is .75. Interesting.
I would never argue Maddux over Clemens or probably even Johnson.
We're agreed on Pedro, though I could probably come up with something on Clemens at peak too. Just for fun...From '86-'97 Clemens put up 5 seasons at 8 WAR or more, better than Pedro's whole career. He put up two 10 WAR seasons, the same as Pedro. Crazier still is that as cartoonish as Pedro's 2000 was, Clemens' 1997 stacks right with it and comes with almost 50 more innings. I used to think people were crazy when they mentioned anyone but Pedro for peak, but I'm starting to think more and more that Clemens should have the triple crown of career, peak, and career + peak. Sucks balls that Clemens and Bonds have probably have dang close to zero shot of being appreciated for what they are during the rest of their remaining lives.
All juice talk aside, given the length of Clemens career and his excellence, and the difficulty factor of his era above earlier ones I can't see any argument that results in Clemens being anything but #1 all time.
How lucky am I? Sox fan that got to see Tiants, Clemens', and Pedros entire Sox career who was a pitcher and a pitching coach and father of two 2 way players? Yes, I've been blessed.
If I had to pick 5 SP's at peak to be on a team in 2013?
Mix up the fire ballers with the control guys, and give Pedro a few less starts in the #5 slot? That rotation could have a bunch of replacement hitters and fielders and an average pen, and still win it all.