Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[IatricSB]

My cousin sent these to me in an E-Mail today. Some (I deleted most) seemed to fit this thread

================================
40 THINGS YOU'D LOVE TO SAY OUT LOUD

1. I can see your point, but I still think you're full of ****.

2. I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

4. I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

5. I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to see it my way.

6. I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

11. I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.

14. I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth.

16. Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.

17. The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.

18. Any connections between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.

20. I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant.

36. Chaos, panic, and disorder .... my work here is done.

40. Oh I get it ... like humor ... but different (This one is in honor of this post)

[DamnYankees]

I seriously don't understand why there is such antagonism here. I think everyone here will agree than both Pedro and Koufax are among the greatest pitchers who have ever lived. Pedro may beat out Koufax in the stats, and Koufax maybe had a special grace, a special intangible, that the stats just don't manage to gather. Can anyone else agree to this?

Jesus people, this is baseball. None of you sound like you're having any fun here!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

I seriously don't understand why there is such antagonism here. I think everyone here will agree than both Pedro and Koufax are among the greatest pitchers who have ever lived. Pedro may beat out Koufax in the stats, and Koufax maybe had a special grace, a special intangible, that the stats just don't manage to gather. Can anyone else agree to this?

Jesus people, this is baseball. None of you sound like you're having any fun here!

I'm having a good time actually - I just object to conventional wisdom being accepted as factuality when all evidence points to the contrary. I mind it when objectivity is being cast aside for irrationality, with the irrationality is being branded as factual! Look, I'm not going to change the minds of some of the old guys here- Koufax to them is a greater than life symbol, someone who did it while looking effortless, and I imagine that he would have been one of my favorites if I grew up around that time. That being said, it always bring to light one of baseball's issues for me- the reverence of the past has the unfortunate side effect (by some) of damning the present - as someone said it, if baseball was a car dealer- it would be telling that the 2005 model sucks, and you should go back to the 1930's model, when car's were car's and men were men.

I'm sure Koufax was great to watch in his prime - he really ended up being , all set and done, a poor man's Pedro - they are each other's most similar pitchers on B-r. They share a similar build, similar look - and were/are amazing to watch. Pedro is better by far- and that's no knock on Sandy- losing to one of the top 10 pitchers of all time is hardly a crime, and Koufax is probably still a HOF.

[DCG12]

Aadik I don't post much even though I lurk here every day but I finally have to put in my 2 cents. I am one of those "old" guys you mention (in my 50's). While it pains me greatly to agree with Mal ,who I find to be a condescending know it all, in this case I have to.

I grew up in a Red Sox household, both my brother and father lived and died with them but my first team at about age 9 was the Dodgers because of Koufax. Now I never had the pleasure of seeing him in person but I did see him often on the NBC game of the week and World Series which in those days was on in the late afternoon so a kid could watch. I later (1967 impossible dream) became a true Red Sox die hard and as such have been able to watch Pedro up close and personal for the past 7 years. I watch at least part of most Sox games on NESN and have seen him at Fenway on 4 occasions so I have a good idea when it comes to Pedro.

Even in 1999 when Pedro was dominant I never had the feeling when he walked to the mound that the Sox would win with out a doubt. I think that was what Mal was trying to get across about Koufax, he started and you knew the Dodgers would win. Now we know that didn't happen all the time but you had that feeling.

Now I agree that some of Pedro's stats suggest he is the better pitcher but these are the stats that show dominance vs. the league like era+, look at some other things like the fact that Koufax pitched 54 complete games his last 2 years. Pedro has 42 in his whole career.

Or look at shutouts 40 for Koufax 16 for Pedro. I know you will say Sandy pitched in a depressed offensive time but I would say expansion hadn't watered down talent so he faced tougher hitters and ther were more good pitchers . Look at IP Koufax last four yrs 311,223,335,323 vs Pedro 116,199,186,217. Koufax pitched more innings(223) in an injury year then Pedro in a healthy 2004. So does this mean that maybe Pedro goes out and throws hard for 5 innings and bails while Koufax knew he was going 9 and therefore was in a position where he faced hitters later in the game when he was more tired?


If i had to pick one guy to give the ball in an all or nothing game it would be Koufax.With Pedro he would go 5 or 6 and then leave it too the bullpen too decide whether you win or lose. And because I have gone on long enough I won't even get in to the other baggage Pedro brings to a game.

[Vris]

Hell, why not?

+1


I'm not reading through 28 pages of arguements. When did the discussion go over to Koufax and Martinez?

[rogmax11]

DCG12 gets it.

When I was in my 20's, most of the old-timers that I listened to spoke of Lefty Grove in the same reverential tones we are using about Koufax. I never saw Grove pitch, except for a few grainy newsreel-type clips, so Ive got the same frame of reference as the guys here who missed Koufax. I just assumed that the old guys were lost in nostalgia and unable to appreciate greatness displaying itself in front of them. Perhaps the same mechanism is at work here, but my deepest gut feelings tell me I am recalling correctly the sense of seeing something unlike anyone else in my experience.
Ive seen overpowering performances: Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson being literally unhittable, Burt Hooten throwing screwy breaking stuff that looked like whiffleball curves, Dick Radatz and Sam McDowell seemingly 10 feet tall with supersonic fastballs. Hell, for hilarity alone, watching Phil Neikro bedevil the Giants with knucklers that looked like my grandson could hit--and that Mays couldnt--was awe inspiring. Koufax was just...different, and I wish I could quantify that difference, but I suspect that it transcends mere numbers.
So I agree: we codgers will cheerfully agree to disagree on Pedro vs. Sandy since its impossible to prove anyway, and leave it at that. I do hold Pedro responsible for being the prototype for all these damned uber-pitchers that OOTP cranks out so routinely: the numbers he has posted are as cartoonishly one-sided for a pitcher as are the ballooning HR totals put up by the juice generation. Its all good, at least for impassioned discourse.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by Vris

Hell, why not?

+1


I'm not reading through 28 pages of arguements. When did the discussion go over to Koufax and Martinez?

Page 15/16. It's a good read, good discussion.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Page 15/16. It's a good read, good discussion.

i only show 14 pages

[Vris]

Oh you people and your custom settings. Bah!

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by rogmax11

So I agree: we codgers will cheerfully agree to disagree on Pedro vs. Sandy since its impossible to prove anyway, and leave it at that. I do hold Pedro responsible for being the prototype for all these damned uber-pitchers that OOTP cranks out so routinely: the numbers he has posted are as cartoonishly one-sided for a pitcher as are the ballooning HR totals put up by the juice generation. Its all good, at least for impassioned discourse.

Well put. I hold the opposite position, but I can't argue: transcendence is not something either quantifiable or provable, and your transcendence isn't better than mine -- it just is.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Well put. I hold the opposite position, but I can't argue: transcendence is not something either quantifiable or provable, and your transcendence isn't better than mine -- it just is.

And really. Two gods in a religion is UnAmerican.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by DCG12

Even in 1999 when Pedro was dominant I never had the feeling when he walked to the mound that the Sox would win with out a doubt. I think that was what Mal was trying to get across about Koufax, he started and you knew the Dodgers would win. Now we know that didn't happen all the time but you had that feeling.

....

And because I have gone on long enough I won't even get in to the other baggage Pedro brings to a game.

I find all the "something special"/"transcendant" arguments about Koufax to be interesting, because I've always felt the same way about Pedro. Watching Pedro pitch in '99/'00 gave me feelings about baseball that I've never had watching other people pitch, and that includes watching Roger Clemens throw some damn good games while I grew up. Pedro just looked like he was toying with hitters. To me, I felt like he was the proverbial chess player cleaning up at the checkers tables. He was not only dominating them from a physical standpoint but was also a step beyond the hitters mentally. I didn't see Koufax pitch, but I've watched Johnson, Maddux, and Clemens and none of them compared in what they did for me. And that's a very personal thing and I see that in everything that's being said about Koufax.

And I think it's easier for the older crowd to brush off Pedro's dominance because he brings to the table everything that they don't like about today's game. He's arrogant to a ridiculous degree. He's shown an appalling "lack of loyalty" to his team. He's a whining crybaby. But he's also a special pitcher to me because when he pitched it looked like he was on a rehab assignment from the God League. And I don't need numbers to tell me that... I saw it. I respect what you all saw in Koufax, but isn't it possible that the rest of us can see the same level of transcendance in Pedro that doesn't quite click in for you because you've seen it before?

[rogmax11]

Not only possible, it is almost certainly so. And you're very correct: I tend to downgrade Pedro a bit because of all those traits you cite. I cant help it; its a cultural divide as powerful as the gap between rap/gangsta and Buddy Holly. I cheerfully concur that Pedro has developed a mystique not shared by anyone else of his era, with the possible exception of Johnson, Clemens, and Maddux, who echo the likes of Gibson, Drysdale, and Marichal: almost as mythic as the dominant paradigm, but still juuuust a bit outside.

[Crapshoot]

Fair enough then (Rogmax, DCG12)- I'll gladly concede that Sandy's mystique may be greater you lot (and that is a personal thing), as long as we can agree that Pedro is the better pitcher- and I think all of us (with the exception of MD) have come to that conclusion.

Hell, I can understand picking Sandy over Pedro in the game of your life- its a question of personal faith, and who you would believe in. My beef, throughout is when this personal faith gets taken as factuality - see my response to Damn Yankees. In a sense- it bring a bigger issue than baseball to the table.

[BigCity]

I think maybe QuestGAV has hit the nail on the head.

There's a number of things going on here, (1) the crowd that saw both of them pitch (of which I am one), and the crowd that saw only Pedro pitch. In addition, few of us would argue that Koufax was a well respected "person" in baseball, while Pedro leaves a lot to be desired. Looking at the stats, Pedro edges out Koufax in many categories - and comes woefully short in the ones Koufax dominated in.

The reality is that from a "talent" standpoint, these two pitchers are AWFUL close. From a personality standpoint, Koufax wins hands down.

From the group that never saw Koufax pitch, all you have is the stats and Pedro, again, has the edge. From the "old-timers" standpoint, we saw them both - and most (if not all of us) think Koufax was better.

Both sides can find quotes from all kinds of individuals that say one was better than the other - simply confirming the judgement is split.

Unless we could put both of them on the field at their peak, we'll never know for sure, but the bottom line for me, anyway, is that if they were both free agents today, and each wanted the same money, I would choose Koufax. If he would have stayed healthy, I think he would have proven he was better. He was 30 years old and had just put together the best 4 seasons of anyone of his time or before. Had he pitched an entire career, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

In my mind, THAT is what makes him better.

One final thing that might explain better where us "old gys" are coming from - or at least the way I'm looking at it...

The 4 years from age 27 to 30 were probably the best of both pitchers (to date for Pedro). If you average those 4 years for both players, you get the following. It's hard not to imagine how good Koufax would have been had he pitched another 6-7 years. Pedro's numbers suggest a heavy reliance on the bullpen.

Maybe the way Koufax pitched is what ruined his arm - maybe he would have fell flat on his face the next year even if he was healthy - but these are the last 4 years us oldtimers remember. He was the absolute best of our time - and has a mystique about him very similar to Ruth in some ways. It's fun to wonder what he might have done - and yet to be determined what Pedro will do.

http://www.bigcitybaseball.com/library/pandm.jpg

[jeheinz72]

So...what were the results of the DMB sim?

[Mariner and Giants Fan]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

So...what were the results of the DMB sim?

I am on my 12th season without Bonds. The Giants have won the division once with an 82-80 record. They have won 80 games or more twice. Mostly coming in at around 74-76 wins. I will post the results soon. Once I finish the 20 seasons without Bonds, I will run 20 with him after the Allstar break. Then 10 with him for the entire season, even though that is not gonna happen, it will be good to see the results and what DMB is prediciting.

I was also thinking about comparing Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez in DMB. I am thinking of how to do this. I have some thoughts:
(1) Put both on the Dodgers in 1965 and the Red Sox in 1999.
(2) Copy them and fill the entire rotation with each pitcher with same teams as support and same schedules.

Any other ideas would be appreciated. I know the results would be subjective, but they would be interesting never the less

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Hell, I can understand picking Sandy over Pedro in the game of your life- its a question of personal faith, and who you would believe in. My beef, throughout is when this personal faith gets taken as factuality - see my response to Damn Yankees. In a sense- it bring a bigger issue than baseball to the table.

Therein lies our problem Aadik. You've agreed that you can understand picking Koufax over Martinez on a question of personal faith - yet you insist on us admitting Pedro is better. Let's turn that around... why would anyone pick a player over another on personal faith if it was black-and-white clear that one player was better than another?

The reality is there is more than stats - whatever you want to call it that would cause someone to pick Sandy over Pedro - something that the person choosing feels will have an effect on the game. To me, that is durability (more innings, more complete games) and personality. Koufax's cool confidence and talent respect from other players worked better for him than the "fear" that Pedro produces. Add that to the fact I can stay with Koufax the entire game rather than go to the bullpen where I don't have anyone of Pedro's qulaity - and Sandy becomes an easy choice.

We should probably just agree to disagree

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BigCity

Therein lies our problem Aadik. You've agreed that you can understand picking Koufax over Martinez on a question of personal faith - yet you insist on us admitting Pedro is better. Let's turn that around... why would anyone pick a player over another on personal faith if it was black-and-white clear that one player was better than another?

The reality is there is more than stats - whatever you want to call it that would cause someone to pick Sandy over Pedro - something that the person choosing feels will have an effect on the game. To me, that is durability (more innings, more complete games) and personality. Koufax's cool confidence and talent respect from other players worked better for him than the "fear" that Pedro produces. Add that to the fact I can stay with Koufax the entire game rather than go to the bullpen where I don't have anyone of Pedro's qulaity - and Sandy becomes an easy choice.

We should probably just agree to disagree

Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head. You like a player more, so you overlook his flaws- as with Koufax. Pedro is better by every conceivable measure (which has been proven ad nauseum in this thread) - but you don't like him, so you don't choose him. No one said your decision had to be rational - only that one's evaluation should be. As for duration, if you do not adjust for the environment and lower pitch count, we have a whole different ballgame- its ridiculous not to do that. Lastly, when did this become only about the 1 game ? It started out with the arguement that Sandy was a better pitcher- which has been rightfully cast aside. Then it went to peak value- again, where Pedro emerged. Now its down to the zone, or the mythical one game - where sample size is shot to hell, and where we can cite countless examples on both side. By all means, pick Sandy - just do not attempt to claim he is the better pitcher.

Also, I find your criticisms of Martinez to be amusing - I think Pedro is just fine, and I prefer him to the generic, HTWG that seem to be popular. He speaks his mind, and I always find people who criticize atheletes for that absurd. He says some stupid things, but how that makes him different from anyone else I'm not sure.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BigCity

I think maybe QuestGAV has hit the nail on the head.

There's a number of things going on here, (1) the crowd that saw both of them pitch (of which I am one), and the crowd that saw only Pedro pitch. In addition, few of us would argue that Koufax was a well respected "person" in baseball, while Pedro leaves a lot to be desired. Looking at the stats, Pedro edges out Koufax in many categories - and comes woefully short in the ones Koufax dominated in.

The reality is that from a "talent" standpoint, these two pitchers are AWFUL close. From a personality standpoint, Koufax wins hands down.

From the group that never saw Koufax pitch, all you have is the stats and Pedro, again, has the edge. From the "old-timers" standpoint, we saw them both - and most (if not all of us) think Koufax was better.

Both sides can find quotes from all kinds of individuals that say one was better than the other - simply confirming the judgement is split.

Unless we could put both of them on the field at their peak, we'll never know for sure, but the bottom line for me, anyway, is that if they were both free agents today, and each wanted the same money, I would choose Koufax. If he would have stayed healthy, I think he would have proven he was better. He was 30 years old and had just put together the best 4 seasons of anyone of his time or before. Had he pitched an entire career, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

In my mind, THAT is what makes him better.

One final thing that might explain better where us "old gys" are coming from - or at least the way I'm looking at it...

The 4 years from age 27 to 30 were probably the best of both pitchers (to date for Pedro). If you average those 4 years for both players, you get the following. It's hard not to imagine how good Koufax would have been had he pitched another 6-7 years. Pedro's numbers suggest a heavy reliance on the bullpen.

Maybe the way Koufax pitched is what ruined his arm - maybe he would have fell flat on his face the next year even if he was healthy - but these are the last 4 years us oldtimers remember. He was the absolute best of our time - and has a mystique about him very similar to Ruth in some ways. It's fun to wonder what he might have done - and yet to be determined what Pedro will do.

http://www.bigcitybaseball.com/library/pandm.jpg

Henry, you are repeatedly ignoring the era adjustments. Koufax played in the most dominant pitching era in the last 80-100 years of baseball - Pedro's played in amongst its most offensive. Then, Koufax played in Dodger Stadium, while Pedro in Fenway. Without that, any analysis is essentialy meaningless. And giving Koufax credit for what he could have done is in no way relevant to what he did- see J.R Richard. Also, your cherry picked seasons include the one where Pedro was injured and pitched only 116 innings- again biasing the analysis.