Debate: Pedro vs. Koufax

[ksushi]

So, I'm at work today and I have nothing to do but sit and stare at BaseballReference.com and think about baseball. Today, I was looking at Sandy Koufax for awhile and the traditional wisdom seems to be that he is the best pitcher ever. Obviously, there are a whole bunch of other names you can throw in that discussion (Randy Johnson, Bob Gibson, etc...), but I want to start a debate. I think Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher to ever tow the rubber.

 

To start, look at each of their best years. They both had great careers, and dominated for a decent stretch (Pedro longer, but if Koufax was around in our day, he wouldn't have had to retired early). Someone could call me out on what I consider to be each of their best years, but to determine that I'm only using the staple-stats (W-L, IP, ERA, and K). I think that paints a clear enough picture for the sake of starting this thing off.

 

For Pedro we're looking at 1999. Koufax, 1963.

 

Koufax dominated 1963 hardcore. 25 - 5, 306 K in 311 IP and and a 1.88 ERA. Dominant. It's not by accident people think he is the best. I heard somewhere that his curveball spun twice as fast as the average major league curveball. I don't know how they measured it, or anything like that, it could just be myth, but thats very impressive if true. Clearly had very good stuff. I just don't think this qualifies as one of the best years ever. Randy Johnson had a six or seven year stretch in his 30's in which I would say every year he had until his back injury was better than Koufax's best year. In a tougher league, for nine years, Johnson sustained a high level of dominance against more impressive competition facing over 1000 batters a year, I think twice. I think Koufax is very very good, but even though it wasn't the best pitching era, I would argue that the 90's into the early 2000's (?) was an era that featured the best pitchers ever. The league ERA in 1963 was 2.99, and how can you judge the dominance of one player without taking into consideration the performance of the rest of the players of that era? He dominated in a pitching dominated league. Impressive, yeah, he is crazy, but Pedro RAPED 1999.

 

 

I'll get to Pedro later, I'm getting kicked off of this computer, but come on, debate! someone yell at me for being wrong cause I must be some where.

[ORS]

Pedro, and the year is 2000.

 

Pedro has the highest ERA+ in the modern era. He shows up on the single-season leaders list 5 times, all over 200, before Koufax's first appearance at 190. Lower career WHIP (#3 all-time), higer career K/9 (#3 all-time).

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_season.shtml

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher to ever tow the rubber.

 

Dunno about that, but IMO the three MLB starting pitchers with the highest established peak performance levels (levels sustained over three or more years) are Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, and Greg Maddux, from best to worst. Pedro > Koufax.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Pedro, and the year is 2000.

 

Pedro has the highest ERA+ in the modern era. He shows up on the single-season leaders list 5 times, all over 200, before Koufax's first appearance at 190. Lower career WHIP (#3 all-time), higer career K/9 (#3 all-time).

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_season.shtml

 

Yeah, but ERA+ is a little misleading in inter-era comparison because runs vary with the square of offensive output...Maddux and Martinez have an edge over Koufax because of the higher-scoring era.

 

At his peak, Koufax struck out 1,228 batters in just four years. In an era of HIGHER strikeout rates, from 1997 to 2000 Pedro earned 1,153, his best four-year stretch. I give the overall edge to Pedro for other reasons, but it's closer than you're making it out to be, ORS.

[ORS]

He struck out more on a higher mound and with significantly more innings pitched. The counted total number is, of course, higher. I'd be interested to see a K/9+. It doesn't need to be adjusted, but it would be interesting to see how each pitcher's rate compares to league average at the time.

 

Seven of the top 20 seasons are from the deadball era, a lower run scoring environment than when Koufax pitched. This, to me, suggests we might consider mitigating the edge we assign due to statistical variance. The names that appear twice on the top 20 list is a who's who of the greatest of all time. Big Train, Mathewson, Maddux, Clemens, and Pedro (the only guy there 3 times).

[Jayhawk Bill]

Seven of the top 20 seasons are from the deadball era' date=' a lower run scoring environment than when Koufax pitched. This, to me, suggests we might consider mitigating the edge we assign due to statistical variance. The names that appear twice on the top 20 list is a who's who of the greatest of all time. Big Train, Mathewson, Maddux, Clemens, and Pedro (the only guy there 3 times).[/quote']

 

Your second paragraph first.

 

The deadball era was an era of far lower competitive level. The HOF players from that era might possibly have been HOF players today, but the everyday players weren't MLB-caliber today--they might not even have been AA-caliber. Many teams of that era would have lost 100+ games in today's MLB, maybe even 120+ games. What we regard as competitive balance at the MLB level didn't exist until after World War Two. The deadball era was a competitive joke--and the stats from that era need to be discounted accordingly.

 

He struck out more on a higher mound and with significantly more innings pitched. The counted total number is, of course, higher. I'd be interested to see a K/9+. It doesn't need to be adjusted, but it would be interesting to see how each pitcher's rate compares to league average at the time.

 

It would be interesting to see how well Pedro Martinez would have done in an era where starting pitchers were expected to throw 7+ innings every fourth day.

 

Koufax had 89 complete games in the four years of his prime. Pedro had 28 in his best four years and just 46 in his entire career.

 

***

 

Pedro > Koufax. I grant that.

 

Don't push it, ORS. I can remember Koufax on Saturday afternoon baseball...in his time, he was more dominant to public perception than Pedro was in his day. My best take on serious analysis is that Pedro was better, but it's really close.

[ksushi]

Pedro, and the year is 2000.

 

Pedro has the highest ERA+ in the modern era. He shows up on the single-season leaders list 5 times, all over 200, before Koufax's first appearance at 190. Lower career WHIP (#3 all-time), higer career K/9 (#3 all-time).

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ERAplus_season.shtml

 

And the avg. league ERA during 2000 was over 5. Amazing.

 

 

Dunno about that' date=' but IMO the three MLB starting pitchers with the highest established peak performance levels (levels sustained over three or more years) are Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, and Greg Maddux, from best to worst. Pedro > Koufax.[/quote']

 

Randy Johnson had a very very dominant 8 or 9 year stretch from 95 - 2004 that makes me drool. Struck out over 300 in 240+ IP in like 5 straight years. His stretch, IMHO, was more impressive than Maddux's stretch.

[a700hitter]

Don't push it' date=' ORS. I can remember Koufax on Saturday afternoon baseball...in his time, he was more dominant to public perception than Pedro was in his day. My best take on serious analysis is that Pedro was better, but it's really close.[/quote']I remember Koufax too. I don't doubt that he was more dominant in the public's perception than Pedro was in his, but that is surprising coming from someone who uses stats to contradict many common perceptions. That Koufax was more dominant in the fans and media's perception is not proof of superiority or actual on the field dominance. Pedro's performance in his prime years was better than that of his contemporaries by a wider margin than Koufax's performance with relation to his peers. Finally, while I would agree with you that Koufax had a more dominant public perception nationwide than Pedro, I am not so sure that he was considered any more dominant in L.A. than Pedro was considered in Boston. When Pedro was in his prime, everyone in Boston knew when he was pitching. In L.A., sports have never dominated the public psyche in quite the same way.

[ksushi]

I think it is important to mention that Pedro was dominating while baseball was just in the beginning stages of its return to the forefront of the sports scene in the U.S.

 

AND it wasn't pitching that brough us all back. It was the long ball. America fell in love with the home run. Pitchers were not as idolized as hitters in the 90's which I think is interesting because five of the best pitchers ever to throw (Johnson, Clemens, Pedro, Maddux and Glavine) thrived during the 90's. And I'm sure I'm leaving some pitchers out.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I remember Koufax too. I don't doubt that he was more dominant in the public's perception than Pedro was in his' date=' but that is surprising coming from someone who uses stats to contradict many common perceptions. That Koufax was more dominant in the fans and media's perception is not proof of superiority or actual on the field dominance. Pedro's performance in his prime years was better than that of his contemporaries by a wider margin than Koufax's performance with relation to his peers. Finally, while I would agree with you that Koufax had a more dominant public perception nationwide than Pedro, I am not so sure that he was considered any more dominant in L.A. than Pedro was considered in Boston. When Pedro was in his prime, everyone in Boston knew when he was pitching. In L.A., sports have never dominated the public psyche in quite the same way.[/quote']

 

Yes, but Koufax pitched more innings than Pedro, had a much better W-L record in his prime with a much weaker-hitting team (97-27 Koufax vs. 77-25 for Pedro), and posted a far, far lower absolute ERA--it's not as if all of the stats favor Pedro Martinez.

 

And I already posted Pedro > Koufax...my point is that it's not a decisive edge.

[ORS]

Well, if you find someone to add, I think you can let him have Glavine's place. He'll get into the HOF because he got to 300, but he falls short of the "Best of All-Time" conversation, IMO.

[ksushi]

Yes, but Koufax pitched more innings than Pedro, had a much better W-L record in his prime with a much weaker-hitting team (97-27 Koufax vs. 77-25 for Pedro), and posted a far, far lower absolute ERA--it's not as if all of the stats favor Pedro Martinez.

 

And I already posted Pedro > Koufax...my point is that it's not a decisive edge.

 

The usage patterns for starting pitchers now as opposed to back in the sixties is drastically different, and last time I checked people are still being built the same way, but the game has changed. A starting pitcher then was expected to finish a game, where as now, completing six innings is acceptable. Point: (all you really need to read) Pitchers now can't be knocked for their lack of IP per season as compared to their predecessors. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

 

I'd like to see the avg. IP for a starter now as compared to the 60's. I bet the difference makes guys now look like sissies.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Point: (all you really need to read) Pitchers now can't be knocked for their lack of IP per season as compared to their predecessors.

 

Sandy Koufax left MLB because the then-current pattern of usage caused him unendurable pain.

 

Pedro got extra rest and tender treatment to preserve his arm.

 

Yeah, I think that it makes a difference. YMMV.

[ksushi]

I know it makes a difference, but what I'm saying is simply that the pitcher doesn't neccessarily determine how many innings he pitches during a season because we know now the reprucussions of a workload of Koufax-esque proportions and keep our pitchers now from putting such stress on their shoulders. It is a difference in era, the game has changed drastically over the last 50 years.

[a700hitter]

Yes, but Koufax pitched more innings than Pedro, had a much better W-L record in his prime with a much weaker-hitting team (97-27 Koufax vs. 77-25 for Pedro), and posted a far, far lower absolute ERA--it's not as if all of the stats favor Pedro Martinez.

 

And I already posted Pedro > Koufax...my point is that it's not a decisive edge.

The 2000 Red Sox had every bit as weak an offense, maybe weaker, than any of Koufax's Dodger teams and the 1962 Dodger team had a very strong offensive team with many different weapons. They had superb speed and power.

[Jayhawk Bill]

The 2000 Red Sox had every bit as weak an offense' date=' maybe weaker, than any of Koufax's Dodger teams and the 1962 Dodger team had a very strong offensive team with many different weapons. They had superb speed and power.[/quote']

 

But the prime of Koufax was 1963-66...and, FWIW, which of the 1963-66 Dodgers teams scored as many runs as the 2000 Red Sox?

[a700hitter]

But the prime of Koufax was 1963-66...and' date=' FWIW, which of the 1963-66 Dodgers teams scored as many runs as the 2000 Red Sox? [/quote']I know that you know that is not a valid comparison to the 2000 Red Sox offense. Also, Koufax's 1962 was pretty good. He finished first in ERA, WHIP and Hits/9 inn, k's/9 inn. I don't know why this isn't considered one of his prime years.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I know that you know that is not a valid comparison to the 2000 Red Sox offense. Also' date=' Koufax's 1962 was pretty good. He finished first in ERA, WHIP and Hits/9 inn, k's/9 inn. I don't know why this isn't considered one of his prime years.[/quote']

 

I was looking at Koufax 1963-66 and Pedro 1997-2000, four years...YYMV.

 

If you check mean ordinal rank of Pedro's teams' batting vs. Sandy's teams' batting through the cited years, it's exceptionally close.

 

I still like the 792 run comment, though.

[ksushi]

If you look at just the time spent on the field and you don't consider time on the DL as a strike against, Pedro was dominant from 97 to 03.

[YAZMAN]

I give Pedro the edge, even without the midget.

[ksushi]

edit - nevermind actual work to do, pedro stuff coming eventually.

[rician blast]

I was looking at Koufax 1963-66 and Pedro 1997-2000, four years...YYMV.

 

If you check mean ordinal rank of Pedro's teams' batting vs. Sandy's teams' batting through the cited years, it's exceptionally close.

 

I still like the 792 run comment, though.

 

What about opponents total runs? So the Sox of 2000 were a high scoring team...what about the teams Pedro pitched against as compared to those Koufax pitched against? Was Pedro pitching in a higher-scoring environment overall?

[rician blast]

Dunno about that' date=' but IMO the three MLB starting pitchers with the highest established peak performance levels (levels sustained over three or more years) are Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, and Greg Maddux, from best to worst. Pedro > Koufax.[/quote']

 

Maddux > Gibson?

[ORS]

That's what ERA+ does, rician. ERA+ is....

 

(League Average ERA / Pitcher's ERA) x 100

 

The league average ERA is adjusted to account for the pitcher's home park. The better the pitcher's ERA, the higher his ERA+. Pedro has the best ERA+ of all time among qualified pitchers - Rivera will qualify soon and take the lead.

[jacksonianmarch]

Pedro was the best pitcher I have ever seen for his first 5 yrs in Boston. It wasnt even close. His season where his ERA was in the 1s and the league ERA was in the 4s is likely the biggest ERA+ of all time.