Was Pedro's 97-00 run the best ever?

Yeah... Pedro doesn't have the longevity of other top pitchers of all-time, but as far as peak goes, Pedro is far and away the best ever, IMO. His 2000 season could be the best of all-time.

He doesn't have the longevity yet, but his numbers are very hard to ignore or dismiss. One of the best pitchers of all time and a first ballot Hall-Of-Famer if he retired today.

I agree that his 2000 season is the best in history. I considered writing another article on that at some point... people will argue that Gibson's 1.12 ERA season was better, but I disagree.

Pedro's 2000 season was better than Gibson when you factor in Gibson relied more on his defense. Pedro struck out 16 more batters than Gibson in 87.7 LESS innings than Gibson.

Why would you avoid Clemens in 04/05?

When you consider Clemens' age, a Cy Young and ERA title is pretty damn good for two seasons.

One thing I think that's in Pedro's favor was that Koufax was pitching in arguably the best pitcher's era ever (they lowered the mounds just a few years later), in a pitcher's park. Pretty much the opposite of Pedro. Which doesn't take away the dominance of Koufax, just puts Pedro on another level, IMO.

True, but I guess when you're talking about dominance, I have to look at what really matters - wins. As great as ERA is and strikeouts are and everything, Koufax was more dominant when it came to wins. In his four years, he won 20 more games than Pedro did, and lost just two more. There was one year that Pedro didn't lead the league in ERA, but Koufax led the league in ERA in all four of his years. That's huge.

Well the wins can be attributed to different things such as Koufax getting more starts because of a 4-man rotation... which could be a point in his favor as well, I guess. In addition to looking at leading the league in ERA is looking at the ERA in comparison to the rest of the league, where Pedro comes out ahead of Koufax. (League ERA in Koufax's time was in low 3s, league ERA in Pedro's years was mid-to-high 4s.

Thank you all for the comments... I can't look at wins as the deciding factor. Pedro's teams in 1997-00 didn't finish in first place, although the Red Sox teams did win many games. Like I said, the difference in league ERA was the deciding point for me. Koufax was phenomenal, but I still think Pedro was the best.

Wins mean absolutely nothing when talking about a pitcher's dominance. Teams win or lose a game, not one player. I could list half a dozen pitchers in the last two years to prove that, but I'm sure you can think of them yourself. Koufax was incredible during his run, but Pedro was better.

Yes he was. Especially 1999 and 2000. No one has every had better back-to-back years.

The wins weren't JUST because of the four-man rotation, though. As I pointed out, Koufax also had a higher winning percentage. And how can you say that wins have absolutely nothing to do with a pitcher's dominance? True, teams win the games and not the pitchers, but the pitchers are in there to give their teams chances to win. Which would you take - a pitcher that strikes out more batters, or a pitcher with a higher winning percentage? The answer is a no-brainer to me.

Let me put it to you another way. Let's say you have a pitcher that has a great ERA, but he averages 5 innings per start. You have another pitcher with a higher ERA, but he gets more wins because he averages 7 innings per start. Wouldn't you say the pitcher that has more wins, despite his higher ERA, is the more dominant pitcher? Of course he is. His numbers might now show it, but he's getting the wins because he's giving his team more opportunities to win than the pitcher that pitches just 5 innings per start.

Ok, apparently you do need examples. Roger Clemens, '05. Had a 1.87 ERA and was, by far, the best pitcher in baseball. Won 13 games. Kevin Millwood, '05. Lead the league in ERA with 2.86. Had a losing record at 9-11. Bartolo Colon, '05. Had a 3.48 ERA and didn't deserve any consideration for the Cy Young, but won it because his team scored a lot of runs and he won 21 games. Jake Peavy, '04. Lead the league with a 2.88 ERA and had just a 13-7 record. Randy Johnson, '04. Had a 2.60 ERA and still got tagged for 14 losses. Wins and losses are about 95% useless when looking at a pitcher's performance. They don't mean he was good or he was bad. They mean that he played for a good team or a bad team.

Peavy's ERA was actually 2.27 that year I think.

First of all, I've been respectful to you, and I'd appreciate it if you'd not talk down to me. I'm not an idiot. I know the examples you're going to bring up. Clemens was dominant in the innings he pitched. Yes, he got very little run support, but he also didn't pitch deep into games. He tended to pitch just 6 innings. And he was dominant for six innings, but if you're only going 6 innings, you don't give your team the best chance to win. True, he got no run support, but he was also relying to much on the bullpen with those short starts. In '05, Millwood had that record because of his home ERA. He led the league in ERA, but as with Clemens, he wasn't going deep into games, so he didn't give his team the best chances to win. He averaged less than 6 and a half innings per start. He also didn't win at home, going 3-7. Only so much of that is because of run support, unless you're actually going to say that Millwood was the AL's best pitcher last year. Is that really the argument you want to make? The point is, there's more to a pitcher's dominance than ERA. ERA can be very deceiving. I want a pitcher out there that's going to get me wins. Don't you? Isn't that the point to playing the game?

ASwaff -- would you rather have a guy who gives up 0 or 1 runs in 6 innings, or a guy who goes into the 8th or 9th but gives up 3 or 4 runs? To me, if my pitcher can guarantee me 6 innings and 1 run, I'd take it all day. If my offense can't score more than one run, then I won't win games. If the bullpen can't hold a lead, what good are they?

I would agree, except that it's not just about offense. We're talking about a whole season, not just one game. If I'm talking about one game, yeah, I'll take a guy that can give me 6 innings with one run. But over the span of a season, I'd rather have the guy that consistently goes 8 innings and gives up three or four runs. Because it's not just about the offense. You also have to consider the bullpen. If a pitcher goes out there and gives you 8 innings with three runs, you can hand the ball to your closer with a great chance to win. If a pitcher just goes six, you have to go deeper into a bullpen you might not have. If he does it consistently, you also have to worry about your bullpen getting worn out. It's what I call the Reds syndrome, because it's happened to Cincy each season for the last six years. Their starting pitching stinks, so their bullpen gets overused and worn out.

Hershiser had a very strong stretch from 87-89.

Actually, Hershiser pitched 59 1/3 consecutive scorless innings.

There have been better seasons than Pedro's best, but there has never been a better run than the one he had.

But that's NL, though - ERA's in that league tend to be lower then those in the AL in general (Isn the common solution something like adding .5 to an ERA when going from NL to AL?).

It has been more like .3 over the last few seasons at least.

Pedro's 2000 and Maddux's 1994 and 1995 are the best ERA's compared to average since 1914.

Randy won 4 straight Cy Youngs...that's hard to beat.

How can y'all keep saying wins are useless? You play the game to win, not to record strikeouts or post a good ERA. By that standard, Millwood was the most dominant pitcher in the AL last year. Does anyone actually believe that? Wins aren't useless in the equation, nor are they the only thing. That was never my argument. My point is just that I'd prefer a pitcher with a slightly higher ERA, but does what he needs to help my team win. There's more to it than just ERA and strikeouts. It's about fielding your position and pitching in a way that keeps your team motivated. Millwood wasn't the most dominant pitcher in the AL last year, and as good as Clemens was, he wasn't the most dominant pitcher in the NL.

I don't think they mean "winning" is useless, but they mean "pitcher's wins" are useless to look at. I prefer the pitcher who gives his team the better chance of winning. The pitcher who gives me the best chance is the one who pitches a lot of innings with the lowest ERA. Clemens went 211.3 innings with a 1.87 ERA. Millwood may have had an ERA lower than Santana, but Santana went about forty more innings, so his season was better than Millwood's.

thank you. but if others had the same question, maybe you should revise that part...

This would include 2003, when Santana only started 18 games, so not yet.

Yeah, outside of 1985, which was Tremendous, they weren't all that historic like Pedro.