Why Pedro ranks among the greatest
Stemming from an interesting discussion that involved a sarcastic claim that Roger Clemens was 'the greatest pitcher ever' (c'mon ... had to be sarcasm), some folks at Hillary's blog are disputing my claim that Pedro Martinez deserves to be ranked as one of the greatest pitchers who ever lived. I've heard two primary arguments against this:
• The Karl Malone theory;
• My allegiance to the Red Sox.
OK, I've got to concede the second one somewhat. Though if I was a Bulls fan, I wouldn't not push Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time and defer to Kurt Rambis simply because I love the Bulls. That would be silly, wouldn't it?
As for Josh Love's Karl Malone theory (the belief that Malone was good, but not that good because he played on an average team for the most part and never won a title), Pedro doesn't fit the mold.
First off, and most importantly, Pedro actually won a title ... pitching a gem in Game Three of the 2004 World Series as the Red Sox swept the Cardinals to win the championship. And it isn't like Boston didn't have a lot of success, and that much of that success wasn't directly related to Pedro. He singlehandedly beat the Indians in the 1998 ALDS, helping Boston rally from a 2-0 deficit. He pitched in relief in Game Five and threw a no-hitter over the final six innings to clinch the title. And then, in the same year, he hurled Boston's only win in the ALCS over the Yankees (against Clemens no less). Had the Red Sox had something more than a retirement home as his supporting cast, they might have actually beaten them that year.
Second, the man - in his prime - was the best 'stopper' in the business. The Red Sox could lose four in a row in Shakespearean fashion, but you always knew on the fifth day there was Pedro ... ready to throw a three-hit shutout and get them back on the winning track (or at least until Frank Castillo took the mound the next day).
He had achieved the fear - and I don't mean 'fear' in the sense of Chandler urging Rachel on Friendsto quit her job so she'll be encouraged to actively seek a new one. Teams were - and, in a sense, still are - absolutely terrified to face him. They damn near went and conceded the game to him each time out.
And you can't overlook the man's stats. A career ERA of a little more than 2.70 with 212 wins. The fact that he's had a sub-2.00 ERA twice in his career (and in both leagues). Or the fact that he strung together six seasons in seven years with an ERA below 2.40 ... including the 23-4, 313 K, 37 BB, 2.07 ERA year in 1999 (how he lost four games that year is a testament to how awful the Red Sox offense was in the latter part of the 1990s ... Jose Offerman batted lead-off people).
How is he not one of the greatest of all time?
• The Karl Malone theory;
• My allegiance to the Red Sox.
OK, I've got to concede the second one somewhat. Though if I was a Bulls fan, I wouldn't not push Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player of all time and defer to Kurt Rambis simply because I love the Bulls. That would be silly, wouldn't it?
As for Josh Love's Karl Malone theory (the belief that Malone was good, but not that good because he played on an average team for the most part and never won a title), Pedro doesn't fit the mold.
First off, and most importantly, Pedro actually won a title ... pitching a gem in Game Three of the 2004 World Series as the Red Sox swept the Cardinals to win the championship. And it isn't like Boston didn't have a lot of success, and that much of that success wasn't directly related to Pedro. He singlehandedly beat the Indians in the 1998 ALDS, helping Boston rally from a 2-0 deficit. He pitched in relief in Game Five and threw a no-hitter over the final six innings to clinch the title. And then, in the same year, he hurled Boston's only win in the ALCS over the Yankees (against Clemens no less). Had the Red Sox had something more than a retirement home as his supporting cast, they might have actually beaten them that year.
Second, the man - in his prime - was the best 'stopper' in the business. The Red Sox could lose four in a row in Shakespearean fashion, but you always knew on the fifth day there was Pedro ... ready to throw a three-hit shutout and get them back on the winning track (or at least until Frank Castillo took the mound the next day).
He had achieved the fear - and I don't mean 'fear' in the sense of Chandler urging Rachel on Friendsto quit her job so she'll be encouraged to actively seek a new one. Teams were - and, in a sense, still are - absolutely terrified to face him. They damn near went and conceded the game to him each time out.
And you can't overlook the man's stats. A career ERA of a little more than 2.70 with 212 wins. The fact that he's had a sub-2.00 ERA twice in his career (and in both leagues). Or the fact that he strung together six seasons in seven years with an ERA below 2.40 ... including the 23-4, 313 K, 37 BB, 2.07 ERA year in 1999 (how he lost four games that year is a testament to how awful the Red Sox offense was in the latter part of the 1990s ... Jose Offerman batted lead-off people).
How is he not one of the greatest of all time?
posted by Jmac at 11:15 AM
1 Comments:
I don't think anybody anywhere would dispute that Pedro's an all-time great. Nobody's really disagreed with you over at Hillary's. And anybody who would is an idiot. The guy's got the best winning percentage in baseball history among pitchers with 200 decisions. Throw in the 30 or so starts he's missed due to injuries the last six years and he'd be a 200 game winner already. I'm sort of glad that this ALCS has highlighed how idiotic it was for the Sox not to resign him.
Post a Comment
<< Home