Maddux vs. Pedro
Posted: April 27th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 62 Comments »
The question came up: Who had the better seven-year stretch, Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez. Well, first of all, they were both utterly brilliant. So I guess it will depend on what you mean by “better.” Maddux was more durable during his stretch. Pedro was more dominant. Maddux walked fewer. Pedro struck out more. And so on.
But here are the numbers for you to enjoy. And I’m also trying to put a chart up for the first time so, well, expect failure.
| Name | Greg Maddux |
Pedro Martinez |
| Years | 1992-98 |
1997-2003 |
| Games started | 226 | 201 |
| Wins | 127 | 118 |
| Losses | 53 | 36 |
| Win percentage | 0.706 | 0.766 |
| ERA | 2.15 | 2.20 |
| Complete games | 56 | 34 |
| Shutouts | 19 | 11 |
| Inning pitched | 1675.3 | 1408 |
| Hits | 1352 | 1009 |
| Hits per 9 | 7.3 | 6.4 |
| Home runs | 66 | 93 |
| Walks | 269 | 315 |
| Walks per 9 | 1.4 | 2 |
| Strikeouts | 1286 | 1761 |
| Strikeouts per 9 | 6.9 | 11.3 |
| Strikeouts/walks | 4.78 | 5.59 |
| ERA+ | 191 | 213 |
Loading ...
Hello
Obviously you couldn’t go wrong with either of these guys, but I’d take Pedro. He was almost always the most exciting player on the field to me, and I don’t know that I could say that about Maddux, which may be just because I’ve watched mostly AL games in my life.
Pedro was more dominant (facing the AL instead of the NL) but Maddux’s 267 inning advantage is tough to overcome, even for this Red Sox fan.
Wouldn’t mind a chart showing how many one-run appearances, two-run appearances, etc. Petey always seemed to have a surprising number of off-days in his Boston stint, given his brilliance. I didn’t follow Maddux closely, but my guess would be that he was more consistent.
Just to put Pedro’s 213 ERA+ into perspective –
Since 1920, only 7 pitchers (including Pedro) have had an ERA+ of 213 or better in a single season. To do it over a 7-year stretch is ridiculous.
Ed, ERA+ takes into account the difference in leagues though. It wasn’t always that the AL was thought superior to the NL. But I too would take Pedro, over anyone ever, while I am at it. At least in terms or when they were at their *best*.
I remember a post a while back where you put up Frank Thomas as a choice for “clean hero of the Steroid Era” and I thought that, unless we learn something extremely surprising, these two guys would also be great choices for that title.
Putting up two of the all time great stretches of pitching well into the Steroid Era, neither a classical power pitcher type.
What were the number of no decisions each had?
I followed them both very closely in their respective primes and I have to say that Maddux get the edge based on durability. On his best day Petey was better bur Maddux had more best days.
RE: mike
I think that ‘off days’ phenomenon for Pedro was more prevalent after his 2001 injury, he definitely had games in his generally superlative 2002/2003 where he would get smacked around.
My memory of his 1999-2000 is pretty much wall to wall dominance though, sometimes betrayed by his bullpen.
I’d take Maddux.
The 267 extra innings stand out when you factor in the 1994 and 1995 strike-shortened seasons. Maddux SHOULD have had an extra 17-18 starts in there during those two seasons. His best two seasons, some would say, statistically.
It’s really interesting the dominance Maddox had in complete games — given that he was in a league where he would have likely been pinch hit for in key occassions.
Pedro gave up 50% more HRs — even with 250 fewer innings pitched. Some of that, no doubt, is due to pitching in the AL, but still interesting — and reinforces in my mind that it never seemed like anyone ever hit Maddux hard — even when they got a hit, they seemed fooled by it.
The 1.4 Walks per 9 for Maddux is also interesting.
Pedro was always more exciting to watch pitch (IMO), but I think for consistency, I would choose Maddux over Pedro…
Maddux pitched more than full-season’s worth of innings over Pedro, even though his best two seasons were strike shortened. Do you want 8+ years of Maddux or 7 years of Pedro (which is essentially the choice here)? I’m taking the former.
Matth –
Maddux had 46 ND, Martinez 47 (GS-W-L=ND).
Based on these stats, Maddux and Martinez were roughly comparable (with the exception of K/9I), but Maddux pitched 20% more innings. To be more precise, Maddux averaged about 3.5 extra starts per year (32.3 v. 28.7), and about 7.4IP per start vs. Pedro’s 7.0IP/start.
Even if one were to posit that Martinez was better, how much better would he have to be to overcome Maddux’ 40 or so innings per year of extra pitching?
To this observer, not enough for me to pick him over Maddux.
Joe–Just curious what the comparisons are between Pedro’s best five-year span and Sandy Koufax’s 1962-1966??
I was born in 1970 and missed Koufax’s career, but I’ve always heard he was the best-ever over a five-year span…
When you consider he had his career cut short due to arthritis, we’ll never know what he could have done (or if he could have been better had he been healthy and not in constant pain during that five-year span)…
Just curious…
Thanks,
Put me down for Maddux. This illustrates to me the limitations of a rate stat like ERA+, while I would accept someone telling me that Pedro’s superior ERA+ proves he was better per inning, it doesn’t take into account the big innings edge that Maddux delivered.
Pedro’s 1999 & 2000 were so strong I need to give him the edge.
I am a Maddux fan, but I think pitching in the senior circuit is a factor.
Maddux has a large innings advantage despite his prime containing two strike shortened seasons.
Both are absolutly brilliant pitchers, but I would take Pedro. He wasn’t afraid to pitch hard inside and I always liked his fire. He was also robbed out of a couple perfect games because his team couldn’t score either and he had to go to extra innings.
Maddux in 94-95 was absolutely dominating–and quite exciting to watch as well, if you missed it, trust me, you really missed out–and his numbers would have been even better if not for the strike. And they are amazing as is. Those of us who saw both pitch at their best are truly fortunate, and while I have plenty of admiration and respect for Pedro, I’d take Maddux without much hesitation.
Maddux has nearly a 20% innings advantage, and that’s just too much for Pedro’s slightly superior numbers to overcome.
I would take Maddux.
At the end of the day I think you take Pedro, but I have just a little more love for Maddux. So elegant in his dominanace.
My heart says “take Pedro!” But my mind says “take Maddux and his greater number of innings so that you have fewer innings pitched by your mediocre spot starters and middle inning guys.”
Nate
Got to go with Pedro. He was amazing, pitching in a tougher ball park, in a superior league.
My favorite memory of Pedro is him entering the game as a reliever against the Cleveland Indians. He was injured, couldn’t start the game. He came in the 3rd inning (tied 8-8, and pitched 6 shutout innings. He was throwing junk, yet shut down a great Indian team. (Thome, Manny, Alomar)
It depends…
You take the 7 year sample and Pedro comes a little bit better. If you reduce it to 5-3 years, then Pedro’s lead is even bigger … But, if you go the other way, let’s say a 10 or 12 or 15 year career then you see Maddux’s true brilliance.
Pedro’s peak is perhaps the best ever… but if you take a combination of peak and longetivity, then Maddux’s your guy.
260 some odd more innings of Maddux over 7 years means I would take him. That’s like doing it for 1.25 more seasons than Pedro did.
i find it interesting that each of these two began their incredible seven-year stretch with one team, and then switched over to another.
i agree with those who have said that all the extra starts and innings give the edge to maddux (especially if you tack on 14-15 starts and 100+ innings lost to the strike), i’ll take his seven-year stretch.
if i had to pick one pitcher in his prime to win one game, i’d go with pedro, not just over maddux, but over anyone.
I love me some Maddux but watching a skinny 6′ 180 pound kid whip it 98MPH with vicious late movement was just too much fun.
Awesome comparison because their styles were so different. Here are two questions for you.
Who had the better skill set pitch by pitch?
And
If each man had the other man’s arsenal and limitations, who would have the better career? My point is – Imagine Maddux with Pedro’s heat?
I remain in awe of both. Maddox = genius and Pedro = savant.
Joe…you let Bob Dutton break the news!?!?! How dare you. Congrats, and lets hope Zack doesn’t fall victim.
Wow interesting. i didnt realize maddux had all those shut outs. i suppose, id want to see playoffs in there too. one of the most memorable playoff games i’ve ever seen was that game pedro came in throwing mid 80’s against the indians and dominated.
Pedro is also why i’m ok with the DH. one of the best regular season game i ever saw (on TV) was the pedro vs clemens dual with matching complete games. i just dont think that could happen in the NL with desperate managers having to pinch hit for a run. sure, it’s more exception than rule, but it was amazing experience.
There’s only one line item up there that takes into account park and quality of competition, and it has Pedro ahead by a large amount.
It’s close, but Pedro wins out barely.
Pedro has 51.1 Wins Above Replacement over his 7 year period.
Maddux has 50.9 Wins Above Replacements over his 7 year period.
That is too close to say one was significantly better than the other.
All numbers gotten from:
http://www.baseballprojection.com/pwar/pitcherindex.htm
They were both brilliant, and to some extent, the choice comes down to taste. Maddux or Pedro? Only answer I can come up with is “Yes”.
Wait, why is everyone referring to the AL as the “superior league” during this timeframe? Obviously that’s the case today, but from 1992-2003 they were pretty darned even, according to what I’ve read but cannot for the life of me find with google.
Regarding Koufax: It’s difficult to adjust for the large difference in innings pitched – due to the way the use of pitchers has changed – but Koufax’s best ERA+ was a 190 in 1966. Pedro Martinez has FIVE full seasons with higher ERA+s – 219 in 1997, 243 in 1999, 291 (!) in 2000, 202 in 2002, and 210 in 2003, along with a near-miss 189 in his injury-shortened 2001. I suppose league quality should be brought up, as the NL was much stronger in the sixties, but I have to believe that Pedro’s vastly higher level of performance per inning outclasses Koufax’s amazing but lower level of performance per inning. Another way to look at it: If you’re managing the Boston Red Sox in, say, 1999, and there’s no way you’re going to sell the idea of a four-man rotation to your bosses, would you pick Pedro or Koufax? I think you have to go with Pedro.
Maddux. Call me crazy, but I always found Maddux getting guys to hit one-hoppers back to the mound enthralling. Watching game 1 of the 1995 World Series is still one of my fondest baseball memories. Funny that game doesn’t get talked about more.
I wonder what provoked this post…
Instead of guessing how many starts Maddux missed due to the strike, let’s look at it this way:
Maddux in his seven year span pitched 17.4% of his team’s innings.
Pedro pitched 13.9%. In a full (162 game) season that works out to about 50 innings a year that the team with Pedro has to find that the team with Maddux does not have to find.
Across 7 seasons that is about 350 innings.
Maddux got 2+ free outs a game due to pitcher(more if they GIDP’d). Can’t go wrong either way though.
I think Pedro did more than shut out the Indians in that playoff game in ‘99 — I don’t believe he gave up a single hit.
Anyhow, I would take Pedro because he’s a little crazy. I like crazy.
For one game, Pedro. For those seven years, Maddux.
Looking at these numbers is utterly amazing. I had to go back and look over the chart. Like one of the above posters said, my heart is constantly saying Pedro, my head Maddux because all of the innings. It’s funny that picking 7 years (rather than 5 or 10) makes it so much harder. In the end, I gotta go with Pedro because I might not have the luxury of having a good defense and all those strikeouts would help.
Another reason Maddux has so many more innings (and a lower K/9 rate) is he was such an efficient pitcher. I suspect he could have struck out a higher rate but he had great movement that induced (there’s that word) weakly hit balls into pitch-saving outs. Fewer pitches equaled more innings.
I would go with Maddux on the strength of far more innings and being a much better hitter. If I needed to win one game or get out of one inning, it’s Pedro. But if I needed to get to the playoffs or have a great run of years, I think it’s Mad Dog (perhaps the least telling nickname ever).
But both were indeed wonderful.
Pedro’s peak value was probably slightly higher than Maddux’s, but Maddux’s career value is considerably higher than Pedro’s. If I could have one pitcher at his peak for a key game, I’d take Pedro, but if I could have either one of them for his whole career, Maddux is the obvious choice.
Whatever. They’re both incredible pitchers and first-ballot Hall of Famers.
I’d say the decision on whether you’d rather have Pedro or Maddux depends to a great extent on the efficacy of one’s bullpen and the potency of one’s offense. If you’re going to hand off to the bullpen in the 6th or 7th inning with a 6-1 lead, well then Pedro’s just dandy. If you’re frequently getting to the 8th inning with a 3-2 lead, you’d rather have Maddux.
The unspoken assumption in the “Maddux pitched 20% more innings” argument is that the quality of the innings pitched were equivalent, or at least close enough to call it even. But they weren’t. Pedro’s ERA+ was better than Maddux’s by pretty large margin. Great as Maddux was, Pedro in his prime was clearly giving you better quality innings.
In fact, taking 100 as the baseline for ERA+ (which makes sense, because an ERA+ of 100 equates to league average performance), Martinez’s deviation from the baseline is more than 20% greater than Maddux’s:((213-100)-(191-100))/(191-100)= 24.2%.
So, roughly speaking: Maddux gave you 20% MORE innings, and Petey 20% BETTER innings. And to me, it’s hard to say which better fits the definition of dominance. They were both among the best ever, and what makes the comparison so fascinating is they achieved the same standard of excellence with such different styles.
Regarding Jeremy’s post (#34), would the numbers suggest that Koufax wasn’t as brillant as his legendary status would imply? I realize that many things have added to the legend since his last pitch in 1966–the ailment that forced him to retire early, his religious views and not pitching on Yom Kippur, his ability to almost totally disassociate himself from baseball (except his rare appearances every year at the Dodgers’/Mets’ spring training)–but is it that easy to quantify his numbers and totally dismiss him from the argument?
I love crunching numbers, and the facts that come with them, but how would Koufax perform in today’s environment? With better medical techniques would he have had a longer career–or would a team have shut him down in hopes of getting him to 100% and him never seeing the mound (early Rich Harden)?
That’s what I love about baseball–Bill James, SABR and the numbers they’ve introduced have opened a lot of the mysteries of how baseball players are evaluated, but there’s still a TON of room for argument…
I’ll be honest, I don’t know exactly how ERA+ is computed or what it tells us, but I find it hard to believe that it can be totally accurate when it can dismiss Koufax that easily… Times were different, pitchers were different and their usage/approach was COMPLETELY different–and some of how pitchers approach their craft is influenced by what the numbers have uncovered during the past 30+ years…
You won’t see 50+ complete games in a 7-season span again, while Koufax had 115 in his last six years, including 54 in his last TWO YEARS… I wonder what the difference was in his effectiveness in innings 7-9 versus the rest of the game, considering he probably finished most of his wins (53 wins in 1965-66 alone)…
Just throwing it out as everyone seems to be basing their decisions solely on the numbers combined…
I’ll still take Koufax over both Maddux and Pedro, with his high leg kick, his knee-buckling curveball and the chance to see him in person one time…
BTW, that might be the only time the word “outclass” was used for someone OTHER THAN Koufax in a comparison between him and someone else… AND, in refence to someone that “threw down” Don Zimmer in a bench-clearing brawl… Jim Murray is probably rolling over in his grave…
Maddux’s numbers suffer a bit since his window includes two shortened seasons. He delivered a bit more value, but I’d still take Martinez. He was electric, superbly entertaining, and I’ve never seen a team (or fan base) with more pure “we will win tonight” confidence when Pedro was taking the mound (and that includes seeing Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, Ryan, and some other greats).
I like the comment imagine if Maddux had Pedro’s heat, now that would be good. Take arguably the smartest pitcher ever and then add serious heat on top, if Maddux had that he would have insane stats.
I think over 7 years I take Maddux for sure but for one game (say in the World Series) I probably lean slightly towards Pedro.
Put it this way if I am starting a new franchise and can draft one or the other as my franchise player than I take Maddux. Sure Pedro may get more strikeouts and his top 2-3 seasons are better but all those extra innings are so much more valuable. The arguable drop in talent is irrelevent since Maddux dominated as well anyway so the extra innings are what really count here.
Actually, about Maddux’ “lost innings” in 1994 and 1995… don’t forget those were his best two seasons, and regression to the mean would tell us those missing innings would have been pitched at a worse level than the rest of the innings that season. They still may well have been better than his 1993 or 1996 averages, who knows. Just saying.
Additionally… as many Maddux supporters bring up… he pitched a TON of his team’s innings those years. If 1994 actually finished, with postseason as well, he’s putting a lot more mileage on his arm that year, and may well have been hurt. If Pedro’s 1999 had been cut off after August, he may not have gone on the DL at all, and this may very well be no contest. So hypotheticals introduce a ton of bias that’s not really helpful here.
I go with the poster above, who cited WAR. That’s the best metric out of all of these, since it factors in league quality (both that of the AL, and 1997-2003) and playing time. And really, it says too close to call.
The difference in innings is of course significant (it is one reason why Pedro’s win total isn’t as high as Maddux’s, if not the only reason).
Another way to look at it, is it better to have 24 outs of Greg Maddux and 3 outs from Atlanta’s closer or 21 outs of Pedro and 6 outs from Boston’s bullpen?
Kyle,
ERA+ is a pretty simple stat. It just tells us how a pitcher pitched relative to the league in which he played. You take the overall league ERA and then show a pitcher’s ERA relative to the league. No one would (or, I suppose, should) argue that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA was as valuable in 1968 as a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA at the height of the steroid era.
In 1968 (the year of the pitcher), the overall league ERA was 2.98, meaning that pitcher would be right around league average. In 2000, league ERA was 4.77, meaning that that 3.00 ERA would make a pitcher more than 50 per cent better than his peers.
Of course, there are going to be variations on the overall league quality – some years there will be more talent than in others, but the difference between Koufax and Pedro/Maddux in terms of ERA+ is great enough that I don’t think Koufax can lay claim to best-ever status. He was dominant, sure, but I don’t think his best five-year run compares to Pedro’s or Maddux’s seven-year primes.
As for the Pedro/Maddux debate, I went in thinking Pedro would be my easy choice, but looked at some of the numbers and am now of the mind that it’s a coin flip. Pedro has the best single season of the two, but Maddux has the second- and third-best (followed by four more Pedro seasons.)
I’d probably still take Pedro, given the choice, but it’s by a much narrower margin than I thought, largely due to the innings discrepancy.
Can’t go wrong with either, but one thing that stands out in my memory is the SI 2000 season preview. They polled players, coaches, and managers on who had the best whatever, and Pedro came back tops in Best fastball, curve, and change-up.
I consider myself lucky that I got to see probably 15 of Perdo’s starts in person between ‘99 and ‘00.
A few final comments on the ERA+ statistic in regards to Koufax–hopefully the logical progressions make sense…
Point 1
*For argument’s sake, we can say the pitching is better in a league with an overall ERA of 3.61 (1966, Koufax’s last year) than in one with a 4.24 ERA (1998, in both Maddux’s and Pedro’s 7-year range)…
*Therefore, a 190 ERA+ would be more impressive in 1966 than 1998… Is there something that adjusts the number to indicate it’s harder to be when the overall league is better? (Does that make sense? LOL)
Point 2 (using LAD ‘66 vs. ATL ‘98)
*Atlanta scored 5.1 runs per game, up from the league average of 4.6 R/Gm… Los Angeles scored 3.73 R/Gm, down from a league average of 4.09 R/Gm…
*Does ERA+ factor in that Maddux played for a team with an offense that (theoretically) gave him a better chance to win than Koufax’s ‘66 Dodgers? The Dodgers average offensive night would have them losing more games than they won, which makes Koufax’s performance more remarkable considering they won the NL in 1966…
Point 3 (using same ‘66 vs. ‘98 comparison)
*Atlanta’s bullpen allowed 28% of their inherited runners to score, while the Dodgers’ pen allowed 40%…
*Might Koufax’s numbers looked BETTER had he had Atlanta’s bullpen instead of the Dodgers? (Not that Koufax needed the bullpen much with 27 complete games in 41–yes, 41–starts…)
What I’m trying to say is–looking at ERA+ as the measure of pitching greatness (and using it as the judge) is like judging a position player by OPS alone… Sure, it’s a great tool, but it’s not the whole toolbox…
Koufax was a brillant pitcher in an era full of great pitching statistics… Maddux/Pedro were brillant pitchers in an era full of mediocre pitching statistics…
I say that Maddux and Pedro stand out more because of the era in which they pitched, but doesn’t make them more brillant than Koufax in his prime…
Which is why I love baseball–everyone has an argument!!
Two other quick notes:
*Joe Po mentioned (I’m paraphrasing) that the manager’s job is to give his team the best chance to win, so why not throw your best starters as often as possible… I believe the thought was in reference to Hillman giving the Big 3 an extra day of rest to give Ramirez a start in Cleveland (which ultimately became Bannister)… In 1966, Koufax started 41 of his team’s 162 games… More than a quarter of their games, while throwing 22.2% of his teams innings… Wow…
*Koufax retired in 1966 at 30… Imagine a healthy Koufax throwing in 1968 (league ERA of 3.43)… The single season mark for pitching greatness might have been set then and there… But, like so many things in baseball, we’ll never know…
The simple fact is that Pedro was far more dominant, and the difference in innings pitched does not close the gap for me. A near 6 K to BB is unfathomably awesome, especially over 1400 innings. I’m sorry, but that’s just too good.
But goodness, no going wrong with the Professor though.
Kyle –
You are misunderstanding the point of ERA+, which is to normalize statistics across seasons. Or, to answer your question “Is there something that adjusts the number to indicate it’s harder to be when the overall league is better?” — yes, and it’s called ERA+.
In every season, an average pitcher will have an ERA+ of 100 (or, to put it another way, the ERA+ of the entire league is 100). So Koufax’ ERA+ of 190 in 1966 means that he was 90% better than an average 1966 pitcher; Martinez’ 7-year average means that he was 113% better than the average pitcher for those years. (Not to mention, of course, the obvious fact that a single-season 190 is MUCH less impressive than a 7-year 213).
As for your point #2, ERA+ has absolutely nothing to do with wins or losses. Whether Atlanta or LA had the better offense has nothing to do with the pitching performance of either (or, for that matter, any) pitcher.
Same thing for point #3: what the relievers did has nothing at all to do with the starter’s ERA+.
As you said yourself, Koufax pitched in an era of good pitchers, while Maddux and Martinez pitched in an era of good hitters (or lousy pitchers, depending on your point of view), so Koufax was just one of (relatively) many, while Maddux and Martinez were two of (relatively) few. Seems to me that that makes the accomplishments of the latter two much more impressive.
No, I don’t think ERA+ is the be-all and end-all of pitching statistics. There are many other statistical measures (WHIP, K/BB ratio, BABIP, etc.) that may indicate different levels of comparison. But as far as it goes, ERA+ clearly indicates that Maddux and Martinez were (relatively) better than Koufax.
One more thing: your second posterisk says that Koufax “might have set” the mark for pitching performance in 1968. Actually, that mark WAS set in 1968 — by Bob Gibson.
Maddux, Pedro, or Koufax? Well, I’ve got to correct the folks talking about ERA+ as percentage above average, because it doesn’t adjust that well following eras with expansion. When Koufax was pitching, there were 20 teams with probably 10 pitchers per team, or 200 pitchers in the majors. When the other two were pitching, there were 30 teams and 11 man (and even 12 man) pitching staffs were common. Call it 330 pitchers. With 330 pitchers, I assume some of them would not have been good enough to make it to the big leagues back in the 1960s, when there were fewer spots. Thus, more of the pitchers were weak, making it easier to get a larger ERA+.
As for which of the three, it depends. If for the season, five man rotation, I’d pick Maddux. In his seven season run he pitched a season more than did Pedro. If a four man rotation, Koufax. In his six year period (including 1961, which was a darned fine year where he broke the NL record for strikeouts in a season) he pitched 1632 innings, or almost as many innings in six as Maddux did in seven. If a single game out of the season, Pedro’s peaks were awfully good. But it’s worth noting that Koufax is the one with four no hitters, a perfect game, and a postseason ERA of 0.95. That’s right, in four World Series Koufax’s worst ERA was 1.5. Pedro and Maddux were both over 3, lifetime. Knock out 1959 (when Koufax lost a game despite only giving up one earned run in a complete game five hitter) and Koufax’s post season ERA improves! Koufax’s post season WHIP was 0.825. So I remain firmly in the Koufax camp if I needed a single game.
My bad. In 1959 Koufax’s total line is 9 IP, 1 start, 5 H, 1 W, 7K, 1 ER, 0 HR, WHIP 0.667, ERA 1, record 0-1. But he also relieved once, so he didn’t have a complete game. Still a damned fine pitching line, and makes one wonder what Alston was thinking of in only starting Koufax once. Actually, as per the Koufax bio, there were a lot of seasons where Koufax was wondering what he’d have to do to get a fair shot.
I would take Maddux for the simple reason that Pedro, though utterly dominant, would wilt after he got to 100 pitches. He was more reliant on having his bullpen finish up for him than Maddux (hence the higher number of complete games and shutouts). In most cases that wouldn’t be a problem since he would shut down a team for the 7 or 8 innings he was in. But if we’re talking game 7 against another quality pitcher, I think you’d have had to prefer Maddux knowing that he would take you the distance.
I’ve never thought that players from different eras were directly comparable. Koufax was playing a different brand of baseball from Pedro and Maddux. Who knows how great Koufax might have been with modern surgical techniques and common sense about pitch counts? Or how lousy he might have been when faced with Pujols, A-Rod, and bigger, stronger, better-trained hitters, not all of whom are on roids?
An ambitious proposal: Right now baseball records are divided into the pre-modern era, before 1901 and the establishment of the two leagues and the World Series, and the modern era.
I’d divide them into several different eras, analoguous with those of human history.
Pre-1876 and establishment of the NL: Paleolithic.
1876-1900: Ancient.
1901-1920 (establishment of commissioner’s position, crackdown on gambling, ban on spitball, emergence of Babe Ruth (Pope Urban?) and playing for home runs): Early Medieval.
1921-1945 (end of color bar in organized baseball, beginning of post WWII prosperity that allowed people to spend more on entertainment): Late Medieval.
1946-1968 (rule changes that reduced pitcher dominance, beginning of divisional system and playoffs, second round of expansion): Early Modern.
1969-about 1990: Modern.
About 1990- : Contemporary.
Then we’d be comparing players who were more or less playing the game in the same way.
[i]Maddux, Pedro, or Koufax? Well, I’ve got to correct the folks talking about ERA+ as percentage above average, because it doesn’t adjust that well following eras with expansion. When Koufax was pitching, there were 20 teams with probably 10 pitchers per team, or 200 pitchers in the majors. When the other two were pitching, there were 30 teams and 11 man (and even 12 man) pitching staffs were common. Call it 330 pitchers. With 330 pitchers, I assume some of them would not have been good enough to make it to the big leagues back in the 1960s, when there were fewer spots. Thus, more of the pitchers were weak, making it easier to get a larger ERA+.[/i]
The basis for this assumption being? Population growth and Latin influx of players = larger talent pool.
They’re both really close, and I recognize the ERA+, but I have to go with Maddux simply because of consistency and diversity.
Maddux threw the ball well, but he also fielded his position in a way that’s an incredible asset. Martinez is incredibly skilled, and yes, does play in the American League which is to his credit in terms of quality of hitters he faced, but then you look at innings pitched and you start to think about him getting pulled so often, even with no pinch-hitting. But you can question even THAT by wondering if Pedro’s team had a better pullpen, or his team had bigger leads, and so they could afford to take him out and rest him up, etc. etc.
When you start trying to look at some of the stats too closely, and start trying to compensate for too many external or relative factors, you start down a slippery slope of “what about…?”
Both pitchers are spectacular, and really too close to call, although I’d rather have Pedro for a single post-season big game, and Greg Maddux if I’m running a team. Pedro could be emotional, erratic, and could have disputes with other players that might’ve been a bit distracting. But Greg Maddux had some of the greatest poise and manners I’ve ever seen.
And if, unsupported and unscientifically, you wanted to ask me who the more skilled pitcher was, I’d say it was unquestionably Maddux. Pedro had talent and power, Maddux never really had power. But Maddux played the game on another level, mentally, and understood most of the hitters and their swings better than they knew themselves. You get all sorts of stories from players and coaches and umpires about Maddux about stuff like lobbing a home run hit to Jeff Bagwell in August, because Maddux’s team was up by a lot of runs, because Maddux knew the schedule and knew the next AB he’d have vs. Bagwell would be in the post-season, and he struck him out brutally that series because Maddux knew Bagwell was just waiting to see that same home-run pitch.
Pedro Martinez is amazing, and only keeps getting more ridiculously amazing the more he manages to pitch well this year (even if it’s not up to the level of his prime, the fact that he does it at all is absurd). But I really have to go with Maddux as being the better player, hands down.
Gah, sorry. I didn’t realize the date of the postings here and just assumed it was recent.
Guess this discussion would be a little different at this moment, with Pedro starting Game 6 tonight.