Pedro Wins Number 200

[MC Hammer]

wins are such a stupid stat for pitchers.. think about 2003, he only had 14 wins in 190 ip with a 2.22 era.. that's rediculous. with a 2.22 era today even the devil rays could have given pedro at least 16. last year the mets blew at least 3 games for pedro alone. stats that should be looked at when judging a pitchers HOF is his amount of quality starts, stats like WHIP, K/9, bb/k, bb/9, hits allowed, hr's allowed, era+, wins should be the last thing they look at.

 

but with this mets lineup pedro could give up 4 runs in 6 and still get the W

 

john

There are a lot of numbers in baseball that are overrated, or misinterpreted. Wins for a pitcher is definatly at the top of that list. Too many people use Wins as a barometer for pitchers when in reality they're only responsible for half of the W.

 

Pedro was a HOF when we won the WS. He was probably in before, but the WS win made is definite. He doesn't need 300, but seeing how much 200 ment to him I think he's going to make every effort to get 300.

[a700hitter]

i agree ,i remember when he lost the cy young award zito that was BS ,the only thing zito had better on him was 23 wins compare to 20 ,pedro had him beat on every other stats ,he should have 4 cy youngs insted of 3

...and he got robbed of the VP in 1999.

[ahhchon]

i agree ,i remember when he lost the cy young award zito that was BS ,the only thing zito had better on him was 23 wins compare to 20 ,pedro had him beat on every other stats ,he should have 4 cy youngs insted of 3

 

as much as i love pedro and think he's the most dominant player to ever live that was actually a very close cy young race.

 

in bill james and rob neyers guide to pitching book bill james wrote a cy young formula. in the end zito came out ahead by almost 10 points. personally i think he put too much emphasis on wins.. 6 points a piece.. that right there gave zito an 18 point lead. losses were not emphasized enough, they were a subtraction of 2 points.

 

personally imo, when a pitcher wins it's not necessarily because he pitched a good game, sometimes it could be due to the fact that his team scored a lot of runs. i've seen too many times where a pitcher goes 6, gives up 4 and still gets the W. that's not good, that's garbage.

 

more than often when a pitcher gets the L it's because he choked it up, not because his team couldn't score. pedro went 14-4 in 2003 with a 2.22 era. granted that 4 could have been an 8 if things happened to go right. more often than not if a pitcher gets the L it's because he pitched himself into the L.

 

pedro was not "robbed" of the cy young. he was beat because the voters put too much emphasis on the W. most of them write for newspapers, most of them just tell a story, most of them have no idea what baseball really is. it happens. i wouldn't get too caught up and upset about it.

 

if you want to talk about robbed talk about randy johnson 2 years ago. he beat out clemens in almost every category by a landslide and still lost because he had less wins. the cy young award is a joke. they should name it "pitcher with most wins and decent numbers award", i guess that's what happens when you name it after the pitcher with the most wins.

 

john

[ahhchon]

...and he got robbed of the VP in 1999.

 

that we can all agree with.. especially since pudge had to drop 15 lbs last offseason to be more "mobile".... hate to say it, but it sounds pretty BS.

 

john

[redsoxrules]

as much as i love pedro and think he's the most dominant player to ever live that was actually a very close cy young race.

 

in bill james and rob neyers guide to pitching book bill james wrote a cy young formula. in the end zito came out ahead by almost 10 points. personally i think he put too much emphasis on wins.. 6 points a piece.. that right there gave zito an 18 point lead. losses were not emphasized enough, they were a subtraction of 2 points.

 

personally imo, when a pitcher wins it's not necessarily because he pitched a good game, sometimes it could be due to the fact that his team scored a lot of runs. i've seen too many times where a pitcher goes 6, gives up 4 and still gets the W. that's not good, that's garbage.

 

more than often when a pitcher gets the L it's because he choked it up, not because his team couldn't score. pedro went 14-4 in 2003 with a 2.22 era. granted that 4 could have been an 8 if things happened to go right. more often than not if a pitcher gets the L it's because he pitched himself into the L.

 

pedro was not "robbed" of the cy young. he was beat because the voters put too much emphasis on the W. most of them write for newspapers, most of them just tell a story, most of them have no idea what baseball really is. it happens. i wouldn't get too caught up and upset about it.

 

if you want to talk about robbed talk about randy johnson 2 years ago. he beat out clemens in almost every category by a landslide and still lost because he had less wins. the cy young award is a joke. they should name it "pitcher with most wins and decent numbers award", i guess that's what happens when you name it after the pitcher with the most wins.

 

john

 

 

W W Pct. GS IP CG SHO K

Pedro 20 (3) .833 (1) 30 (T23) 199.1 (20) 2 (T17) 0 (T35) 239 (1)

Lowe 21 (2) .724 (7) 32 (T15) 219.2 (9) 1 (T32) 1 (T9) 127 (25)

Zito 23 (1) .821 (2) 35 (1) 229.1 (5) 1 (T32) 0 (T35) 182 (T3)

 

And now how well they pitched:

 

 

ERA WHIP H/9 BB/9 K/BB Opp. BA Opp. OPS

Pedro 2.26 (1) 0.92 (1) 6.50 (1) 1.81 (4) 5.98 (1) .198 (1) .561 (1)

Lowe 2.58 (2) 0.97 (2) 6.80 (3) 1.97 (8) 2.65 (14) .211 (3) .567 (2)

Zito 2.75 (3) 1.13 (5) 7.14 (4) 3.06 (T27) 2.33 (21) .218 (4) .626 (4)

 

It looks pretty clear to me!

[ahhchon]

don't get me wrong, i completely agree that pedro should have won it.. it's just that the voters will always put more emphasis on wins.. not to mention that lowe probably took some votes away from pedro.