I didn't say Pedro absolutely positively "played a greater role" than Gibson in "winning games for his team."  I said he was absolutely positively a better pitcher that year.  Don't see how anyone can reasonably debate that Martinez -- with a 1.74 ERA in a hitters' park in a league with a 5.07 ERA, a 0.737 WHIP and 11 K/9 -- did not pitch better than Gibson, who compiled a 1.12 ERA in a pitchers' park in a league with a 2.90 ERA, an 0.853 WHIP and 8 K/9.  There is no speculation, plausible or otherwise, involved in that at all.  That is how they performed, and less subjective stats than Win Shares show beyond any doubt that Pedro performed better.

As to who played the greater role for his team that year, that is where the reasonable people can disagree part comes in.  As I said, I think that Pedro was probably at least as valuable too.  Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not.  But I don't see how you can challenge the idea that Martinez pitched better in 2000 than Gibson pitched in 1968, which is absolutely positively what I said.

---

To: baseballmn@yahoogroups.com
From: cmead@...
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 15:44:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [baseballmn] Gibby vs Pedro

Regarding the Bill James defense, I don't think BJ or anyone else, including myself, Alan, and the Pope, is infallible, nor is the WS system infallible.  It's a thoughtfully created system that attempts to take all available statistical info into account in a reasonable way, but even BJ admits that it can be wrong in individual cases, & that differences of just 1 or 2 WS are insignificant.  In our case (Gibyy vs Pedro) we have a difference of 6, which is pretty significant, constituting a strong (though not infallible) argument that Gibby played a greater role than Pedro in winning games for his team.  To reach the opposite conclusion "absolutely positively" you almost have to try to compensate for the emergence of the cult of the pitch count, which Gibby was not subject to and Pedro was.  One can plausibly speculate that Pedro without the PC would have amassed more WS, more CG, more everything.  But plausible speculation plays a lesser role with me than does actual achievement.

But reasonable people can disagree, about wine as well as about pitchers.

Alden

On Mar 2, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Alan R. Holst wrote:

I would point out that in 1966 Sandy Koufax earned 35 win shares, same as Gibson in 1968, despite an ERA .61 higher than Gibson (while pitching in an even friendlier park to pitchers) and only throwing 19 more innings.  Do you think Koufax was as good or as valuable in 66 as Gibson was in 68?  I don't.  So I am not swayed by the Bill James defense, and still think Pedro was a better pitcher in 2000 than Gibson was in 68 (absolutely positively) and that he was probably at least as valuable too.
 
But as Alden points out, reasonable people can disagree.  (And I would add that weshould disagree sometimes, as long as we disagree reasonably.)
 
One thing is beyond dispute, however.  Whatever his father's achievements in the field, Joe Buck is a really, really horrible broadcaster.  (Sorry Alden, it's that Cardinal connection again.)  For Buck's dead call of one of the most exciting sports plays of my lifetime, click here http://youtube.com/watch?v=GBkU2vpP8PY.  And here is a link to a dead-on spoof of Mr. Fox Sports. http://www.burlysports.com/video/19564#/search/videos/relevance/buck+to+the+future    

---

To: baseballmn@yahoogroups.com
From: cmead@sprintmail.com
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:40:58 -0500
Subject: [baseballmn] Gibby vs Pedro

Dear Baseball Experts,

Back on Feb. 23, Alan Holst put out a communication here, skillfully making the case that Pedro Martinez's 2000 season was actually better than Bob Gibson in 1968.  I thought at the time that I might make some response, but unfortunately I had to be hospitalized in the wee hours of 2/25, had to stay until 2/29, and while I had plenty of time on my hands I had no ready access to baseball stats.  Now I'm out, doing fine, & would like to make a few observations.

First, Alan, there is absolutely no need to apologize to me for making the case for something that you believe to be valid.  That's what baseball discussion is about.  And I don't apologize to you for making some points in the other direction.  

I recall a national SABR meeting long ago in St. Louis, back when a national SABR attracted 25 or so participants.  Jack Buck was one of the guests [two of the others were Cool Papa Bell and his namesake Lester Bell who played 3B for the 1926 champion Cardinals].  Anyway, Buck posed the rhetorical question "How can you be better than Stan Musial?"  He didn't mean that The Man was better than everyone else, but just that, at that level, any attempt to rank the top players (or top years) is unlikely to lead to any definitive conclusion.  

In trying to make such a case on the basis of stats, one must of course choose the stats, and the spin that one gives them, as carefully as one chooses a fine wine.  Alan's selection of stats might amount to an excellent Musigny Burgundy, one of the truly great wines of the Cote d'Or.  Now let's see what I can come up with.

Well, Gibby was definitely more of a workhorse (yes, strategical fashion had something to do with this, but more about that later).  He had 304 2/3 IP in 34 GS, an incredible average of 8.96 IP/GS.  [He had two extra-inning CGs, one a shutout, and another time he went 11 innings in a no-decision].  Pedro had 217 IP in 29 GS, an average of 7.48 IP/GS.  Gibson pitched with 3 days rest 4 times [3 of them shutouts, incredibly, the other a loss]; 4 days, 21 times; 5 days, 7 times; 8 days once.  Pedro had 4 days 15 times; 5 days 11 times; 10 and 17 days once each.  

Gibby had an amazing 13 shutouts.  Pedro led MLB with 4.  In addition, he was removed 6 times from games in which he had given up no runs.  In one of these he had pitched 9 innings; in 4, 7 innings; and in 1, 5 innings.  

Gibby had 28 CG in 34 GS.  He was never knocked out of a game, but was pinch-hit for 6 times.  Pedro had 7 CG in 29 GS.

Both won the Cy Young.  Gibby also won the MVP, while Pedro was 5'th in MVP voting.  

Alan accidentally left out Pedro's actual ERA in 2000.  It was a magnificent 1.74, against 5.07 for the AL.  Gibby had 1.12 against 2.90 for the NL.  Gibby led all MLB in ERA; so did Pedro unless you count a couple of relief pitchers who had fewer IP than G.  

Gibby had 36 Win Shares to Pedro's 29.  [For the decade, only 98% of his WS were for pitching, the others for hitting.  98% of 36 rounds off to 35].  Gibby led all NL players in WS; there were 2 AL position players who had more.  Pedro's WS total was the best of pitchers in MLB, but it was exceeded by 5 AL position players and 6 from the NL.  In addition, it was tied by 2 from each league.  

It's definitely true that Gibby was pitching in the pitcher's year of 1968, and in a much more pitcher-friendly park.  But WS includes both comparison with league averages and park factors, so Gibby's advantage in WS cannot obviously be accounted for by either of these.  

But as Alan points out, there is also the factor of strategic fashion that favors Gibby and is not corrected for in WS.  In 1968, relief pitchers were more in vogue than 20-30 years earlier, but the cult of the pitch count had not yet appeared.  No question, in the 21'st century it's virtually impossible for any pitcher to get to 35 WS, because managers just don't let them finish many games or start with limited rest.  As Alan says, it's arguably unfair to credit Gibby or blame Pedro for this change in fashion.  It's entirely reasonable to spectulate that, with Red Schoendienst as a manager instead of Jimy Williams, Pedro might have had more CG, ShO, IP, and WS.  I would argue, though, that speculation, including reasonable speculation, is no substitute for actual achievement.  Gibby actually DID have 13 ShO, almost 9 IP per start, 28 CG, and 35 pitching WS.  Pedro MIGHT have achieved some of this under different conditions, but Gibby DID it.  To me, that makes a difference.  

By the way, Gibby's pitching WS total has been exceeded a number of times in history; it's not in the top 20.  Most of the top 20 are from the dead ball era, but one of them is Steve Carlton in 1972.  

Alan mentions Wilbur Wood 1971 and Greg Maddux 1995, who had 33 and 30 WS, respectively.

There have been many great seasons by great pitchers.  Gibby 1968 and Pedro 2000 are two of these.  Jack Buck was right way back then:  "How can you be better than Gibby?"  "How can you be better than Pedro?"

Returning to the wine analogy, I hope I've achieved the level of a fine Champertin Clos de Beze, which in my opinion is just a little better than Alan's excellent  Musigny.  But reasonable people can disagree.

Regards to All,

Alden

---

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger