Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Look, you won't find a bigger fan of Koufax than me. I'm a die hard Dodger fan, die hard, and I'm Jewish. So believe me, there is 0 bias against Koufax here.

But you have to give me something to prove he was better. If you can't give it statistically, give it to me in anectodal description. You say when you saw him (and I envy you for this) he was unlike anyone else, ever. Honestly, I believe it. But what did you see? I'm not trying to challenge you here, I'd sincerely like to know.

I believe Sandy Koufax, Pedro Martinez, and Walter Johnson to be the best pitchers of their generation, and the best peak-pitchers ever. So please tell me why Koufax is better than Pedro, keeping this in mind.

In one word, confidence. He couldn't be rattled. 3-0 count and he threw the next pitch the same as if it was 0-2, same intensity, same confidence, no matter what the situation. Batters feared him like no other. It was almost a foregone conclusion you were out as you stepped to the plate. In fact, we used to refer to anyone that got a hit off him as "lucky". I was a teenager and a Cleveland Indians fan and twice had the chance to go to California (once in '63 and again in '65). I also saw him in Pittsburgh in '64 (I think).

He was also one of the few pitchers I felt could throw the same quality pitch in the 9th inning he did in the first. He threw his curve and fastball with the exact same motion, so the batter didn't know what was coming until the ball left his hand.

There are, and have been, a lot of good pitchers out there - and Pedro is one of them, but I have to agree that the absolute best I ever saw was Koufax in his last 5 years. I feel honored to have seen 3 games in person.

If his elbow wouldn't have gone bad, he would have certainly won 300 and gotten over 4,000 strikeouts.... no doubt in my mind either, the best (with the possible exception of Walter Johnson since I never saw him).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BigCity

In one word, confidence. He couldn't be rattled. 3-0 count and he threw the next pitch the same as if it was 0-2, same intensity, same confidence, no matter what the situation. Batters feared him like no other. It was almost a foregone conclusion you were out as you stepped to the plate. In fact, we used to refer to anyone that got a hit off him as "lucky". I was a teenager and a Cleveland Indians fan and twice had the chance to go to California (once in '63 and again in '65). I also saw him in Pittsburgh in '64 (I think).

He was also one of the few pitchers I felt could throw the same quality pitch in the 9th inning he did in the first. He threw his curve and fastball with the exact same motion, so the batter didn't know what was coming until the ball left his hand.

There are, and have been, a lot of good pitchers out there - and Pedro is one of them, but I have to agree that the absolute best I ever saw was Koufax in his last 5 years. I feel honored to have seen 3 games in person.

If his elbow wouldn't have gone bad, he would have certainly won 300 and gotten over 4,000 strikeouts.... no doubt in my mind either, the best (with the possible exception of Walter Johnson since I never saw him).

And you can keep imagining it - but it doesnt make it any more factual. Look, JR Richard would have been a first ballot HOF if he hadn't had a stroke - the counter-factual is interesting, but not particularly relevant. Everything you've said up there could be said about Pedro, and then some - how he played in the bandbox that is Fenway as opposed to the gaping yards of Dodger Stadium - how his career ERA is lower than Koufax's, despite the latter spending his entire career in the most pitching friendly environment of the last 80 years. Pure domination ? 1999 - 9 HR's given up, with a pitcher who's home park is Fenway! a BB/K ratio of 9 - 9! a K/9 ratio of 13.2! His four losses that year consisted of him giving up no more than 4 runs in each. In the games he won, he never gave more than 3 ER (in the majority- it was 2) He struck out 15 4 times in the season!

And then of course, there was this- the Division Series Game.

You know, you keep holding on to Koufax, when all the evidence that exists says otherwise. At some point, one has to accept that this is almost religous to some of you - that Koufax was a god, and by god, he will not accept challenges. Koufax benefits somewhat from the James Dean syndrome- left young, and you only remember the great parts.

[twins15]

I once saw Eric Milton throw a no-hitter, and I can say he is the best pitcher ever. If you disagree, you obviously must not have seen that game. Stats be darned, how many no-hitters has Pedro Martinez thrown? That's what I thought.

[SWardle]

Excellent test although it'd probably be a little better if it were a larger sampling of with and without sims. But, wouldn't it be something if they won it all without him?

Also, where can I get these toadfreak rosters?

Steve-O

[UngratefulDead]

Originally Posted by twins15

I once saw Eric Milton throw a no-hitter, and I can say he is the best pitcher ever. If you disagree, you obviously must not have seen that game. Stats be darned, how many no-hitters has Pedro Martinez thrown? That's what I thought.

Roffle.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by Aadik

And you can keep imagining it - but it doesnt make it any more factual. Look, JR Richard would have been a first ballot HOF if he hadn't had a stroke - the counter-factual is interesting, but not particularly relevant. Everything you've said up there could be said about Pedro, and then some - how he played in the bandbox that is Fenway as opposed to the gaping yards of Dodger Stadium - how his career ERA is lower than Koufax's, despite the latter spending his entire career in the most pitching friendly environment of the last 80 years. Pure domination ? 1999 - 9 HR's given up, with a pitcher who's home park is Fenway! a BB/K ratio of 9 - 9! a K/9 ratio of 13.2! His four losses that year consisted of him giving up no more than 4 runs in each. In the games he won, he never gave more than 3 ER (in the majority- it was 2) He struck out 15 4 times in the season!

And then of course, there was this- the Division Series Game.

You know, you keep holding on to Koufax, when all the evidence that exists says otherwise. At some point, one has to accept that this is almost religous to some of you - that Koufax was a god, and by god, he will not accept challenges. Koufax benefits somewhat from the James Dean syndrome- left young, and you only remember the great parts.

You forget I've seen BOTH, not only BOTH but MOST of the pitchers who have worn an MLB uniform in the past 30 years anyway. I've seen 3 games by Koufax and probably a dozen by Pedro and I think Koufax was better. You can certainly have a different opinion, but there is a difference in the fact that I did see Koufax. When you've seen and studied dozens of the best major league pitchers over a lifetime, you tend to have a pretty strong opinion of who is better then who. I certainly have a right to my opinion as well without being accused of "holding onto memories".

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by BigCity

You forget I've seen BOTH, not only BOTH but MOST of the pitchers who have worn an MLB uniform in the past 30 years anyway. I've seen 3 games by Koufax and probably a dozen by Pedro and I think Koufax was better. You can certainly have a different opinion, but there is a difference in the fact that I did see Koufax. When you've seen and studied dozens of the best major league pitchers over a lifetime, you tend to have a pretty strong opinion of who is better then who. I certainly have a right to my opinion as well without being accused of "holding onto memories".

I've seen probably a couple dozen games pitched by John Halama and jeez... probably 50 by Randy Johnson (incluing the first no-no). Halama was more fun to watch when he was on* and therefore was better. You can certainly have a different opinion, but I have seen both players pitch a lot and therefore mine holds more weight.

*Seriously. When Halama has his control going, it's not out of the ordinary to see the game last an hour and a half to two hours. I heart that. As for Randy... that first no-no was a classic Nolan Ryan no-hitter; people weren't hitting him because he was EXTREMELY wild in that game and for some reason folks kept trying to hit stuff that was way out of the strike zone (IIRC the pitch that ended the thing finished a good 2 feet out of the strike zone. It missed high, but that's an awful lot of "hop").

[BigCity]

Ok, one final comment - and I'll leave it at this. Below is a side-by-side comparison of Pedro's best 5 years (plus his injury year) versus Koufax's best 5 years. Some noteworthy differences...

Koufax 100 CGs and 33 SHOs compared to Pedro's 31 CGs and 11 SHOs.

Pedro's 1,555 Ks (in less BFPs) to Koufax's 1,444 Ks.

Tell me, considering how equal these two guys are from a stats standpoint, why is it that us "old guys" are simply wallowing in memories while you are convinced your right? It seems to me there's a valid argument on both sides, and it could easily come down to nothing more than valid opinions.

Year	Ag	Tm Lg	W	L G	GS	CG SHO	GF	SV IP	H	R ER	HR	BB SO	HBP	WP BFP	ERA
		 		 		 		 		 		 		 	
PEDRO		 		 		 		 		 		 		 	
1997	25	MON NL	17	8 31	31	13 4	0	0 241.3	158	65 51	16	67 305	9	3 947	1.9
1998	26	BOS AL	19	7 33	33	3 2	0	0 233.7	188	82 75	26	67 251	8	9 951	2.89
1999	27	BOS AL	23	4 31	29	5 1	1	0 213.3	160	56 49	9	37 313	9	6 835	2.07
2000	28	BOS AL	18	6 29	29	7 4	0	0 217	128	44 42	17	32 284	14	1 817	1.74
2001	29	BOS AL	7	3 18	18	1 0	0	0 116.7	84	33 31	5	25 163	6	4 456	2.39
2002	30	BOS AL	20	4 30	30	2 0	0	0 199.3	144	62 50	13	40 239	15	3 787	2.26
		 	104	32 172	170	31 11	1	0 1221.3	862	342 298	86	268 1555	61	26 4793	2.196020634
		 		 		 		 		 		 		 	
SANDY		 		 		 		 		 		 		 	
1962	26	LAD NL	14	7 28	26	11 2	2	1 184.3	134	61 52	13	57 216	2	3 744	2.54
1963	27	LAD NL	25	5 40	40	20 11	0	0 311	214	68 65	18	58 306	3	6 1210	1.88
1964	28	LAD NL	19	5 29	28	15 7	1	1 223	154	49 43	13	53 223	0	9 870	1.74
1965	29	LAD NL	26	8 43	41	27 8	2	2 335.7	216	90 76	26	71 382	5	11 1297	2.04
1966	30	LAD NL	27	9 41	41	27 5	0	0 323	241	74 62	19	77 317	0	7 1274	1.73
		 	111	34 181	176	100 33	5	4 1377	959	342 298	89	316 1444	10	36 5395	1.947712418

[Johnny Slick]

Henry, that's a much more convincing argument than "I saw both and I know what I saw." There are a lot of problems, not the least of which are:

a. We (all of us, not just you, not just MD, all of us) tend to remember things that happened when we were younger as being more grandiose and washed away of exceptions than things that just happened a couple years ago. You know as well as I that the "player X from a prior generation was better than anything you kids have ever seen" is not a new argument; it's been used pretty much since baseball was old enough to have a history. That's not because the players were actually better; it's because of that phenomenon.

b. Given that this is the case, many of us prefer performance analysis to straight human perception. Saying that Koufax had more endurance than Pedro and as such didn't leave it to the bullpen to finish what he started is something that can be quantified by the data. I still think you need to adjust for what the league as a whole was doing in order to properly make those comparisons (it's entirely possible that Pedro's 33 CGs were more valuable to the teams he played for than Koufax's 100 because holding a team to 2 runs over 9 innings was far more valuable in Fenway in 1998 than in Dodger Stadium in 1963). Still, it's a better start.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by BigCity

Ok, one final comment - and I'll leave it at this. Below is a side-by-side comparison of Pedro's best 5 years (plus his injury year) versus Koufax's best 5 years.

Only problem with posting raw numbers is lack of context. Without that, they lose a great deal of their meaning.

Koufax career DERA is 3.50 in 2,324 innings.

Martinez career DERA is 2.86 in 2,296 innings.

Pedro isn't just superior. He's much better.

DERA is a rate stat. Let's see how they compare on career value, with no adjustment for quality of league play.

Koufax career WARP1 is 66.9

Pedro clocks in with a career WARP1, to date of course, of 100.9 in virtually an identical amount of innings.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Henry, that's a much more convincing argument than "I saw both and I know what I saw." There are a lot of problems, not the least of which are:

a. We (all of us, not just you, not just MD, all of us) tend to remember things that happened when we were younger as being more grandiose and washed away of exceptions than things that just happened a couple years ago. You know as well as I that the "player X from a prior generation was better than anything you kids have ever seen" is not a new argument; it's been used pretty much since baseball was old enough to have a history. That's not because the players were actually better; it's because of that phenomenon.

b. Given that this is the case, many of us prefer performance analysis to straight human perception. Saying that Koufax had more endurance than Pedro and as such didn't leave it to the bullpen to finish what he started is something that can be quantified by the data. I still think you need to adjust for what the league as a whole was doing in order to properly make those comparisons (it's entirely possible that Pedro's 33 CGs were more valuable to the teams he played for than Koufax's 100 because holding a team to 2 runs over 9 innings was far more valuable in Fenway in 1998 than in Dodger Stadium in 1963). Still, it's a better start.

OK, agreed. I tend to get a bit "nerved", however, when those of us who are older are dismissed because we're relying on our so-called "faltering" memories. I'll agree that something I saw 35 years ago can be easily exagerated, but I think in this case it's fair to say that both these players have comparable statistics - and thus it is valid if the "analyzers" find themselves split on their opinions.

The other side of the "old-timers perception phenomenon" is the the fact that the younger crowd tends to discount the older players once a new set of stats hits the record books. This is a tendency to want to be able to say you saw the "best players" of all time (in your own lifetime) as well - the same thing we, the older crowd, either believe or want to believe. If BOTH of us realize that we want the same thing, then we should be able to look at the players, the times, and the stats fairly without discounting the other for reasons of seeing things through "rose-coloured glasses".

Koufax and Pedro are certainly close in those 5 year periods - almost identical. Adjustments could shed some additional light, but probably not enough to result in a clear winner. From my standpoint, I think I'm leaning toward Koufax because I remember the general opinion of him at the time. It wasn't just the fans that made him into a God, it was the media AND his piers. When I compare that memory with my experience with Pedro, I tend to think Koufax had a slight edge. Personally I think it was because a dominent pitcher in the 60s was simply feared more than a dominent pitcher today.

In any case, the stats say they were close - awful close - thus some of us will side with Koufax and some with Martinez. As long as we do that on the basis of true analysis - and not because of the "age phenomenons", then our discussions are valid as well.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Only problem with posting raw numbers is lack of context. Without that, they lose a great deal of their meaning.

Koufax career DERA is 3.50 in 2,324 innings.

Martinez career DERA is 2.86 in 2,296 innings.

Pedro isn't just superior. He's much better.

DERA is a rate stat. Let's see how they compare on career value, with no adjustment for quality of league play.

Koufax career WARP1 is 66.9

Pedro clocks in with a career WARP1, to date of course, of 100.9 in virtually an identical amount of innings.

Understood, but I think the argument centers around only the five years I posted. Koufax was admittedly "wild" in his previous years before that, and his shortened career makes it necessary to compare his best 5 years with Pedro's best five years. I have no argument that Pedro's "total value" as an SP is more because he had a longer career.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by BigCity

Understood, but I think the argument centers around only the five years I posted. Koufax was admittedly "wild" in his previous years before that, and his shortened career makes it necessary to compare his best 5 years with Pedro's best five years. I have no argument that Pedro's "total value" as an SP is more becasue he had a longer career.

But, as you can see Henry, their careers have spanned an almost duplicate number of innings. Pedro has 13 big league seasons under his belt, and Koufax ended his after 12.

Lets see how their five best seasons compare with WARP1.

   Pedro             Sandy

2000: 13.9    1966 11.8
1999: 12.8    1963 11.0
1997: 11.2    1965 10.7
2003:  9.6    1964  8.7
1998   9.5    1961  6.5

I'd also add that Pedro has another season, 2002, the equal of his 1998 campaign, using this tool.

[IatricSB]

Sandy's 1962-1966 an ERA of 1.95 with a league ERA of 3.29 (1.34 better)
Pedro's 1997-2002 and ERA of 2.20 with a league ERA of 4.64 (2.44 better)

Pedro's 2000 season of a 1.74 ERA in a league with an ERA of 4.97 is just incredible.

Sandy was a true artist from what I've seen (a few broadcast games, none live). I just think we should all appreciate what we've been able to see of Pedro this last decade as it's been at times historical.

[DamnYankees]

OK, what the hell is WARP1? I'm sorry, but I don't trust this statistic at all. I know it stands for Wins Above Replacement Player, but how is it derived? I'd like to learn, because frankly there has been an incredible glut of new statistics in the recent years, and many, if not most, of them are nothing but numerical masterbation, pardon the term.

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by BigCity

Understood, but I think the argument centers around only the five years I posted. Koufax was admittedly "wild" in his previous years before that, and his shortened career makes it necessary to compare his best 5 years with Pedro's best five years. I have no argument that Pedro's "total value" as an SP is more because he had a longer career.

Koufax DERA

1962 - 3.32
1963 - 2.77
1964 - 2.64
1965 - 3.32
1966 - 2.71

WARP3

1962 - 5.4
1963 - 10.8
1964 - 8.7
1965 - 10.9
1966 - 12.1

Pedro DERA

1997 - 2.51
1998 - 2.90
1999 - 2.13
2000 - 1.71
2002 - 2.88

WARP3

1997 - 11.0
1998 - 9.8
1999 - 12.8
2000 - 13.8
2002 - 9.1

Not much doubt by looking at the adjusted statistics that Pedro was better in his peak years than Koufax was in his. Whether the numbers are trumped by "I was there, you weren't" fallacies is up to the reader.

[darkhorse]

After studying this issue, this is why I would not vote for Koufax in the HOF, if the election were held today. His career boils down to three great seasons, and one, maybe two, excellent ones. I don't believe that is a strong enough peak to earn induction. His career value isn't even close.

He was a great pitcher. There are lots of great players who missed induction because of bad luck.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Sandy's 1962-1966 an ERA of 1.95 with a league ERA of 3.29 (1.34 better)
Pedro's 1997-2002 and ERA of 2.20 with a league ERA of 4.64 (2.44 better)

Pedro's 2000 season of a 1.74 ERA in a league with an ERA of 4.97 is just incredible.

Sandy was a true artist from what I've seen (a few broadcast games, none live). I just think we should all appreciate what we've been able to see of Pedro this last decade as it's been at times historical.

No doubt its incredible, and I'm on the side who thinks Pedro is probably the best peack-pitcher ever. But something must be said for the law of diminishing returns, as it were. Sandy was pitching in an era so pitching-heavy that it was incredibly hard to be an outlier. Pedro's time is so offensive that greatness has more room to work on the lower side of the ERA spectrum. In order for Sandy to have matched Pedro's 285 ERA+, he would have had to have an ERA of 1.06. It simply isn't possible to post an ERA of 1.06 with any sort of consistency. The game of baseball will almost never allow it, with very, very rare single-season instances.

I mean, for chrissakes, Gibson's 1.12 was 'only' a 258 ERA+. I defy anyone to say if you put Pedro in 1968 he would have put up an ERA of 1.05, which is what a ERA+ of 285 would have needed. Same with Walter Johnson in 1913.

As you getter closer to a 0 ERA, every .01 taken off your ERA is even more impressive than the last one.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

As you getter closer to a 0 ERA, every .01 taken off your ERA is even more impressive than the last one.

This is an excellent point, and something you can color your evaluation with, but I don't believe it comes close to making up the gap between these two great hurlers.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

This is an excellent point, and something you can color your evaluation with, but I don't believe it comes close to making up the gap between these two great hurlers.

Well, that's very hard to say.

If you have a .33 ERA in a League of a 1.00 ERA, I think that's much much better than a 2.00 ERA in a league ERA of 6.00. These are very complicated issues, but I think it might make up the gap. Frankly, I don't know.