Quote:
Originally Posted by molenick
Of course, a list like this will generate a lot of debate and disagreement, so I will just mention one thing that stands out to me. I love Pedro, but saying he is the 11th best player and second best pitcher (behind only Walter Johnson) of all-time seems like a very strong take. It looks like he got a lot of credit for peak performance versus longevity and for his ERA+ (essentially, ERA as compared to league ERA).
|
He's obviously getting a ton of credit for peak versus longevity. However, it would be tough to argue that his peak isn't worth that credit. No one - no one - has ever dominated their league like Pedro did in 1999 & 2000. In 2000, he put up a 1.74 ERA in a steroid-fueled era where the league average ERA was 4.91. He was 3.17 runs better than the league average - in a high-scoring era. That's insane. In 1999, he had a 2.07 ERA in a league with an average ERA of 4.86. In 2000, he gave up 0.737 WHIP. Among pitchers throwing at least 200 innings, the next closest is Walter Johnson's 0.7803. All-time.
He had more great seasons than Sandy Koufax and his peak reached higher than anybody's ever did. Is #11 too high? Maybe. I think Roger Clemens was better thanks to his longevity. But I certainly understand how they put him there.