Pedro Martinez: The Best Ever?

[Ewing]

Pedro Martinez career strikeouts: 3,117
Pedro Martinez career baserunners allowed: 3,062

He's struck out more people than he's allowed on base in his career. Wanna know how many other pitchers with at least 2,000 strikeouts can say that? One, Randy Johnson and he actually had more baserunners than strikeouts up until a couple seasons ago. Not to mention that can change over the course of this season and Pedro could be right back to being the only one.

Among starting pitchers, Pedro Martinez is the all-time leader in career ERA+ and he's fourth all-time in career WHIP. The three starters ahead of him are Addie Joss, Ed Walsh and John Ward. Ward played his entire career before 1900, so his accomplishments are pretty much irrelevant. Walsh and Joss both pitched in the early 1900's, so they have some more weight to their accomplishments. What does this all mean though? Outside of a trio of guys that pitched before games were even played at night, Pedro Martinez is the all-time leader in career ERA+ and WHIP. Two of the most telling statistics regarding the success of a pitcher.

It gets even better though. Pedro is not only the career leader in those areas, but he set the single season records for ERA+ and WHIP... IN THE SAME SEASON. In 2000, he put up the greatest year by a pitcher in history with an insane 0.74 WHIP and 291 ERA+.

Why isn't this guy brought up more when talking about the best pitchers in the history of the sport? Looking at those accomplishments, I don't think anyone even really comes close to him.

[YankeePride]

You're going to get different names getting dropped in here and for good reason, but you bring up a valid argument.

Whether or not you acknowledge Pedro as the best ever, he's in the argument and must always be lumped with the greatest of pitchers. I think that's good enough.

[Ewing]

Quote: Originally Posted by YankeePride

Whether or not you acknowledge Pedro as the best ever, he's in the argument and must always be lumped with the greatest of pitchers. I think that's good enough.

I'm just blown away that the media never brings up this guy when talking about the best ever. Hell, they barely bring him up when it comes to the best pitcher of his era.

[camulos]

I'm obviously biased but I think so. He's definitely the best pitcher I've ever seen and probably the best I will ever see.

He didn't have the career longevity that some of the other greats have had but from 1997 to 2003 he was as dominant a pitcher as the game has ever seen. Especially considering the era he pitched in.

[JJLinn]

Hopefully the writers don't screw him over because he hasn't reached 300 wins and let him get the first ballot induction he deserves.

[YankeePride]

With Pedro I see Koufax.

Guys who were always dominant pitchers - even beyond their prime years - and just had injury cut short their dominance.

Koufax would have won more than 300 games if he pitched in his 30's. Pedro would have won 300 games if he wasn't injured in his 30's.

I don't like the "what if's" being a reason to select a HOF player, but if you do it once (for Koufax) then you have to do it all the time especially when the talent is similar and just as dominant, if not more so.

[SPTO]

The Pedro/Koufax comparison is a good one. I do think you have to put him in the argument as one of the best ever but to me he isn't. I've personally seen guys who've dominated a big game situation just as much or more then Pedro did.

I think it's a personal preference really as when you look at it statistically the top 5 pitchers of all time (using a 1960 cut off date) would be all pretty similar.

[CWood2]

When I think of Pedro, I think of unparalled dominance in this era of pitching. In 2000, on the heels of home run races and all that, the guy had an ERA of 1.74 in 217 innings, walking 32 hitters all year and holding the league to a .167 BA. The fact that he wasn't a serious MVP candidate that year is an obomination to voters. Again, all at the peak of baseball's steroid era. Truly, truly remarkeable, even if he pitched during the dead ball era.

And if you look 3-4 years before and after, he was still putting up dominant numbers, striking out 300+ 2 times and wielding some of the nastiest stuff I've ever seen as a baseball fan. The guy had 3 plus plus pitches, including a filthy change that was about 10-15 mph slower than a dominant fastball, and a knee-buckling breaking ball.

Being a smaller guy than most power pitchers, his body obviously took a toll from all the torque he put into his motion. But pound for pound, and in his absolute prime, I think only Koufax compares. Bob Gibson is up there, and personally, I don't think Greg Maddux gets enough credit for his run of Cy Youngs in the 90's with a borderline screwball and scientific precision. But when Pedro was pitching in the late 90's - early 2000's, all of Boston paid attention and the buzz inside Fenway was higher than normal. We knew what we had with the guy, and I would agree with everyone's assessment ... he should atleast be in the discussion.

[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ewing

I'm just blown away that the media never brings up this guy when talking about the best ever. Hell, they barely bring him up when it comes to the best pitcher of his era.

They used to. Actually, Tim Kurkjian and Peter Gammons used to bring it up all the time (Timmy more recently when discussing the possibility that Pedro might be done).

Of course, in the "right here, right now" media, a guy like Pedro will be quickly forgotten. Add in the fact that he doesn't even sniff 300 wins and he's a lock to NEVER be in the mainstream "best ever" discussion.

That said, I agree 100%. I've said it for awhile that there is no pitcher I've ever seen in my lifetime that was better than Pedro in his prime. He at one point had like 4-5 straight season with a WHIP under 1. Even his "traditional" stats (wins, era, etc) that most people gauge a pitcher on are impressive.

The guy was a monster. If he didn't flame out (either due to small frame throwing so hard or performance enhancement) there would be no question of his dominance IMO.

He's certainly my #1.

[rsox]

Not winning 300 games is going to be why Pedro does not get mentioned as the "best ever", however he certainely is right up there. I don't think that not reaching 300 wins will mess with his chances of being a first ballott Hall of Famer. As it stands he has yet to lose 100 games and is right now 115 games over .500. Has an ERA under 3.00 and 3 Cy Young awards to go with the stats mentioned in the original post.
Plus he was consistant. Only once from 1993-2005 did Pedro fail to reach double digits in wins (injury shortend 2001 season) and reached double digits in losses only twice in his whole career (1995-96 on a couple of really bad Expos teams).

His time with the Mets is for the most part forgetable but prior to that he was one of the most dominating pitchers in the game.