It's not like Pedro's #s were close to Koufax, he had an era 3 points higher. pedro '97-'00 was as good as any pitcher that's ever played the game but roger has done it better for a longer period of time.
More impressive is pitching shutouts in Games 5 and 7 to win the WS for LA. In 3 games pitched he pitched 24 innings and gave up 1 run w/ 29 K's. It doesn't get better than that.
Yes, it's ridiculous trying to compare pitchers of different eras based on their ERA. Koufax had some nice years but he was nowhere near as dominant as Pedro was. Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium and posted a 3 seasons with an ERA under 2, yet the league average those years was just over 3. While Pedro posted an amazing ERA of 1.74 in Boston, while the league average was 5. In addition to just ERA Pedro averages 2.3 walks and 10.3 strikeouts per 9 innings with a WHIP just a hair over 1, while Koufax averaged 3.2 walks and 9.3 strikeouts per 9, with a WHIP of 1.1 The one advantage Koufax has over Pedro is the fact that pitchers threw such an obscene amount of innings a year back then, and Koufax's numbers at 300+ innings a year top the contributions of Pedro's at 200+ innings a year. Of course the game has changed so much it's hard to fault Pedro for this.
You raise a good point. Everyone focuses on hitters using steroids and their records, etc, nobody talks about the pitchers. Clemens is one guy I'd look at. As much as I hate to say it, I've always been suspicious of my boy Eric Gagne too. He bulked up, had a couple of superhuman seasons and now he keeps hurting his arm.
Steroids are Shade's excuse for every successful non-Met player and he acts as if no Met has ever taken steroids thouigh it appears alot of their minor leaguers have.
Maybe but there's no evidence Clemens usee although I think it'sossible. it's not like looking at Bonds from the mid-late 90s to the '00s and seeing a man grow by twice the size and his #s go up dramatically. Clemens has always beeen consistent and if he had been using since the 80s then he'd probably be dead by now.
He sucked w/ the Yanks the 1st 2 years until the '00 postseason. Did he stop using then start agin in the '00 postseason?
I think they voted the top ten correctly, but maybe have the order wrong a bit. Ryan definitely doesn't belong in the top ten. I guess Gaylord Perry and Jim Bunning dropped dead? How were they overlooked and Stewart got two votes? My top five are Seaver, Clemens, Gibson, Martinez, and Koufax.
We call this the Mad Dog Defense. :lol: I don't think taking steroids guarantees you'll never have a bad run, but it does enhance your overall performance. Maybe he did get back on the juice for the '00 post-season and that's why he snapped and threw a broken bat at Piazza, since he could never get him out any other way. He could have started taking them as he got up in years and his career was declining. I don't think Bonds started in the 80s either, both were good players before and magically got better at an age when most human beings wear down. That leads to legitimate suspicion, is all I'm saying. Same as Gagne, who is one of my all-time favorites. Just trying to be fair.
I'm not saying he didn't take them but according to Sahde he stunk his last 3 years in Bsoton and then he was great 2 years in Toronto then stunk his 1st 2 reg seasons w/ the Yanks. So he stopped after he was traded to the Yanks until the postseason of '00? it doesn't make sense. gagne was great then gone in a flash, Clemens has been great for decades.
and Pedro has never had the amount of succesful seasons Clemens has had and Roger has 7 CY's while Pedro has only 3.
