In my personal opinion, Pedro Martinez is the most talented pitcher ever to play Major League Baseball.
I know some people may think that statement a little naive, ignorant even, because obviously I have not seen every pitcher who has ever played.
I have, however, had the chance to research some of the great pitchers from the past. An important stat to take into consideration is how good teams were offensively, and how many runs per game were scored on average while a certain pitcher played.
That is one of the main reasons I think Pedro holds an edge over some of the great pitchers in history—Pedro pitched in the highest offensive period in league history. And, he still put up numbers that would have been considered great in any pitcher's generation.
In 2000 Pedro's E.R.A was 1.74. Another stat to take into consideration is that Roger Clemens had the second best E.R.A in the league that year at 3.70. Pedro's E.R.A was less than half that of Roger Clemens. That might be the most dominating stat I have ever seen.
Let's compare that kind of domination, and put it into a different context. The best power hitter in the league over the last few years has probably been Alex Rodriguez.
For him to dominate in the same manner as Pedro did, he would have to double the amount of home runs hit by the second place hitter. Home Run leaders usually hit about 50 home runs per season. A Rod would have to hit over 100 home runs in a season to dominate like Pedro—which I don't think will ever happen.
Pedro's numbers become that much more impressive when you consider how much Major League Baseball has improved offensively over the last six to seven decades. It's like Bud Selig forgot to give Pedro the memo that this is supposed to be a hitters' league.
If Pedro would have pitched in the dead ball era, I don't think you would be able to calculate his E.R.A.—because he probably would not have allowed a run.
Another reason I consider Pedro to be the most talented pitcher of all time is his variety of pitches.
Early in his career, his fastball was clocked at 95-99 mph. Most pitchers who throw heat like that can only throw heat. Pedro was different. His fastball, change-up, curve-ball, and circle change-up were as good or better than anyone's in the league.
I couple that with his extraordinary killer instinct, and will to win. A strong indication of his tenacious desire to win came in the 1999 playoffs against the Cleveland Indians.
He was forced out of game one after four shutout innings due to a strained back. The Red Sox ended up losing the game 3-2.
The series ended up tied at two games apiece going into the fifth and final game of the series. Through three innings of game five the score was tied at eight runs apiece, as neither team's starting pitching was effective.
The Red Sox put Pedro in as an emergency relief option to stabilize the game. He pitched six innings, struck out eight batters, and didn't allow a run—
9 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
Jordan Schwartz about 1 year ago
Pedro Martinez is no doubt a Hall of Famer, but he is not the most talented pitcher of all time. His one major weakness is his lack of durability. Martinez missed significant time due to injury in 2001, 2006, 2007 and 2008. In the second half of his career, even when he wasn't injured, Pedro would rarely go deep into games. As a Yankees fan, I always looked forward to facing Martinez when he was with the Red Sox because I knew if New York could just stay close through the first six innings, the Bombers would win the game when Pedro got taken out (Martinez was just 11-10 in his career versus the Yankees, despite a 3.03 ERA).
You have to give guys like Pedro, Clemens and Maddux more credit for pitching during an offensive-friendly era, but Martinez is still 102nd all time in ERA and 93rd in wins. I'd put Pedro Martinez tenth on my list of all time greatest pitchers...
1. Christy Mathewson
2. Walter Johnson
3. Mordecai Brown
4. Roger Clemens
5. Cy Young
6. Tom Seaver
7. Eddie Plank
8. Pete Alexander
9. Ed Walsh
10. Pedro Martinez
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Lemaire about 1 year ago
There are a few things that need to be pointed out about how your logic is flawed.
By saying that Pedro was only 11-10 against the Yankees despite a 3.03 ERA just proves what a worthless stats wins are.
That record is indicative of how little run support Pedro received from his offense, something that is completely out of his control and therefore rendering the category completely useless.
Comparing ERAs of someone like Christy Matthewson and Pedro is garbage also because as you mentioned Pedro pitched in an offensive friendly era.
That is the understatement of the year. Not only did Christy Matthewson pitch in the dead ball era, but he also pitched in the Polo Grounds, where if you pulled it down the line it was only 280 ft.
But if you hit it to left center it was 455 feet!!!!! and right center was even further away.
Also Pedro played in an era when steroids ran rampant, in a hitters' ballpark against some of the best hitters in the game. Also pitchers took steroids...but I have serious doubts that little old Pedro was juicing at all.
Also what injuries could you possibly be talking about? Aside from an injury shortened season in 2001, where he still struck out 100+ batters, he was healthy and dominant until he went to the Mets where he was old and started to breakdown.
Use ERA+, it is the best way to evaluate and compare two pitchers from different eras
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Schlossberg about 1 year ago
you've got some very nice points, but Pedro really isn't the greatest pitcher of all time
Edit Comment Cancel
Randy Ratliff about 1 year ago
I wasn't talking about who the greatest pitcher of all time was. I meant the most talented. Disregarding career length, longevity, and all time wins. The fact that Pedro was hurt a lot during his career really takes away alot of wins for him. I was saying that I think he is the most talented pitcher. I know that over their careers that Roger Clemens, and some other pitchers put up better overall numbers. But pure talent, I think Pedro is the best mesh of a power/finesse pitcher there has been.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Sen about 1 year ago
I've always felt that Pedro is the best pitcher I've ever seen hands down. "Talent" is a really difficult thing to measure with stats. When you see it you can tell. Watching Pedro in his prime felt like watching greatness, perfection. If the other team scored at all it was always on some fluke, like a bloop single that could have easily been an out.
As the article points out very well, watching Pedro revealed a complete game: power, finesse, intelligence and that intangible competitive/killer instinct that a few players of each generation in each sport possess. I am talking about the MJ, Tiger, Kobe type competitiveness.
If you take out longevity to separate talent from all time greatest, then I think you've got to find guys like Sandy Koufax who also lacked longevity but in their prime were also unbelievably talented with all the factors listed above. And though I like the stats used here, it's really hard to measure "talent" with statistics.
One other side note - in regards to Pedro not lasting past 6 innings in Boston, personally I consider those years Pedro a little past his prime.
Edit Comment Cancel
Hank Kittles 7 months ago
"Pedro's numbers would dwarf Roger Clemens."- I don't understand this since in an average 162 game season, Clemens still had a greater number of wins and innings pitched with relatively similar numbers in strikeouts and ERA. This is Pedro's best case scenario. Pedro never had the longevity of Clemens so by comparing these averages we help Pedro's cause instead of just looking at the big picture and noticing that Clemens had a third more strikeouts, 7 Cy Youngs, 140 more career wins, 6 20 win season and I'm not searching for numbers that outperform Pedro these are just essentials to consider when looking at a pitcher. And there is no reason to consider what Clemens would have been like without his fastball because he never lost it during his years of greatness. And if he did like Pedro, pretty bold to call a 350+ game winner "mediocre at best". These extremely bias Red Sox view could at least pay some respect to a former Sox, Clemens.
Come on, Pedro is good, but Most Talented of ALL TIME?! Let's be honest with ourselves. Why didn't the article discuss Koufax if all we're interested in is 7 good years or so.
Edit Comment Cancel
Randy Ratliff 7 months ago
I didn't say that Roger Clemens was mediocre. I acknowledged in the article that I knew he was a great pitcher. I just think his stats are a little inflated due to his steroid use, and how long he stayed in the league. You could tell that he was starting to lose his stuff when the red sox let him go. Then all of the sudden he has a great season with the Blue Jay's. If he never would have used steroids, I don't think he would be as heralded as he was. You could tell in Clemens last season with the Yankees that he no longer had his powerful fastball. And what kind of a pitcher was he that year? Mediocre? He was 6-6 with an ERA over 4. Pedro's career winning percentage and ERA are both better than Clemens. If I could compare anyone with Pedro it would be Sandy Koufax.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Storey 7 months ago
I agree with Hank, and remember Clemens was 44 that year. But dude, I like the controversial articles so keep them coming.
Edit Comment Cancel
dan stearns 7 months ago
i agree ----->pound for pound, context relevant stat for context relevant stat, this guy was (at his best) the best i've ever seen. Check his consecutive 10 plus (or 13 plus) K games, is it still a record?
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.