Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
You know who we all forgot and who had an ever better single season as a pitcher than Martinez?
In 1972: 12.1 WAR, 27 wins, 1.97 ERA, 41 games started and 30 complete games, 8 shutouts, 310 strikeouts. For a 6th place team that only won 59 games.
Peak WAR on Martinez was 11.7. He appeared in 31 games (29 started) in 2000, completed 7 (4 shutouts).
We are just never again going to see workhorse numbers like the 1960s-1970s pitchers, except maybe from a knuckleball pitcher. That cuts both ways in the argument. Is Pedro better because he worked 25% less than Carlton, or is Carlton better because he sustained his excellence with that workload? Same issue with Koufax-Johnson. Discuss. |
Personally, I lean to the importance of workload and my interest is more historical than modern. But in context, Pedro dominated to a level Carlton never came close to, which is the argument for Pedro. If the focus is on workload, we must conclude every one of the X best pitching seasons are 19th century.
In 2000, Pedro's 11.7 WAR, is less than Carlton's WAR of 12.1, but within the .5 margin of error WAR advertises. 2nd in the league was 6.2 WAR. His ERA was less than half the 2nd best pitcher in the league.
In 1972, Carlton posted a 1.97. 2nd place was Nolan at 1.99, there were five pitchers other than Carlton sub 2.50. 2nd in WAR was 7.1.
Pedro is not "better because he worked 25% less than Carlton", nobody would ever make such an absurd argument. Both were easily the best pitcher in the league those years, but Pedro's season was contextually better because he annihilated the league.