In a message dated Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:41:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob Z wrote this > Me: > Certainly they are, and who wouldn't be if your GM was Dan Duquette? The > man has the people skills of a five year old. On the other hand, let's give > him some credit - the man who engineered the Pedro Martinez trade is clearly > doing something very right, and I think he signed a good contract with Manny > Ramirez as well. He let Roger go because he thougth he was over the hill. He let Mo Vaughn go even though he was a key to the emotional health of the team. He signed and kept Everett. His stupid moves outweigh his good ones. Me again: While I think he underestimated Roger, he was clearly right about Vaughn. Just look at the disaster that Vaughn has been for the Angels, and tell me that he was worth _$80 million_ which is what his contract was for. Bob: A team with Pedro (at his peak, the best pitcher ever), Now wait a minute young man. Best ever. How about Gibson, Kofax, Guidry (at his peak) Roger himself, Whitey. Give me a break. He is the best active pitcher not doubt about it. But the best ever? Me: Yup. I really, really mean this - it's not even close. You're just naming names here, Bob. Again, that's not analysis. His two most dominant seasons are the two most dominant seasons _ever_ by a pitcher, in terms of the number of runs he allowed versus those that an average pitcher would have allowed. Some numbers for you, from Baseball Prospectus's article "Appreciating Pedro" by Mark McKinniss: Pedro's worst OPS Against mark in his career: .688 Greg Gagne's career OPS: .686 Pedro's cumulative OPS Against for 1996-2000: .576 Rey Ordonez's career OPS: .579 Pedro's OPS Against in 2000: .472 Pete Harnisch's OPS as a batter in 2000: .488 Pedro's home runs allowed, 1997-2000: 68 Mark McGwire's home runs, 1998: 70 Pedro's strikeout-to-walk ratio, 1996-2000: 5.04 Sandy Koufax's strikeout to walk ratio, 1962-1966: 4.57 Pedro's strikeout-to-walk ratio, 2000: 8.88 I can't even compare this to anything, except... Pedro's strikeout-to-walk ratio, 1999: 8.46 OPS, for those not familiar with the term, is On Base Percentage + Slugging Average, and is the single best "quick and dirty" method of evaluating hitting prowess. It's not as good as runs created, doesn't take park effects into account, and things like that, but it's the best easy way to calculate offensive effectiveness. Thus OPS allowed is one of the best easy ways to calculate pitching effectiveness. Note that all of these numbers were assembled during the greatest hitting boom in baseball history - meaning that Pedro had a much harder task than any of the people mentioned as his competitors, _and_ he had to face the DH. Note that Pedro's strikeout-to-walk ration in 2000 and 1999 was so much better than any other in history that there isn't even any point in comparing them to those by other pitchers. Is Pedro the best pitcher in history? No, because his career hasn't been long enough. I'd probably pick Whitey Ford, but Roger Clemens just might end up with that title by the end of his career. He's well on his way. But his two peak seasons - 1999 and 2000 - were the two most dominant seasons by any pitcher ever. > Nomar (second best shortstop in the majors, and second to the best shortstop > _ever_) He isn't even the second best right now. Hands down to Jeter. It isn't just the stats it is what a player does for the team. Arod may be the best ever in terms of all around skills but if you had to choose another short stop amoung active players most would go for Jeter. He is just the most complete most professional guy around. A true leader. Me: Jeter is a very, very good player. In this year, a slump season, he is, I believe, ninth in the majors in runs above position, probably the best single measure of position player value. Nomar has been out practically all season, and so can't really be counted. But he has consistently been better over the last several years. By every measure, Jeter is horrible defensively, and there is simply no way you can argue that he is a better hitter than Nomar. Who all of this underserves is Alex Rodriguez, who is so far superior to the other two that even comparing him isn't fair. Me: > What about the Mariners, who are only putting together one of the best > seasons of all time? While I have great affection for the A's - the best > run team in MLB by a very large margin, in my opinion - I think that between > them and the Mariners it's pick 'em. Yankee pitching is good, but it's not, > statistically, as good as that of the A's or the Mariners, and the offenses > aren't even close. The ball always bounces in the Yankees favor, and the > umps always make mistakes on their behalf (I'm not claiming conspiracy, just > a one-century run of good luck :-) but even that won't be enough when they > have to beat not one, but _two_ clearly superior teams. The NL > representative in the Series is probably going to be road kill, though. A > 7-game series is always going to be nothing more than a flip of the coin, > but I just can't see any of the NL teams beating either the Mariners or the > A's, although I think Houston, the Cards, and maybe even the Diamondbacks > might be able to handle the Yanks. > Bob: You have made this arguement before. I do not pretend to know what will happen but to argue that the Yankees have been lucky is just foolish. What is their won lost in the playoffs over the past 5 years 70/30. No way luck sustains you for that long againstt that kind of competition. This is a special team. One for the ages. Like the Yankess of old, like the Celtics, Bulls and the UCLA in bball, like the Islanders on their great run. Your grandchildren will be asking you about this team. You don't want to look down at their expectant eyes and tell them "The Yankees were lucky". The Yankees are great. Winners classy winners, team winners. The ideal, the real deal. Go bombers. Me: See, Bob, the difference between our arguments is that mine are irrespective of teams, while yours always seem to end up with "The Yankees are better." This is suggestive, no? :-) Yes, I think it was partly luck combined with the fact that they were, in 1998, a team of historic caliber, in 1999 they were the best team in the majors. But in 2000 they were just lucky. Luck played a role, unless you think Jeffrey Maier was skill, for example. Or the phantom tag by Chuck Knoblauch. Or any of a dozen other things. Luck is luck. The Orioles were lucky in 1997 - good, and lucky. The Yankees were phenomenally good in 1998. In 2000 they were lucky. Oakland was a better team. Winning teams are usually lucky. Last year the Yankees weren't very good. But they were very lucky. It happens. It's not a matter of skill, it's not a moral flaw, it's not anything. It's just a matter of luck. To pick a different competition - I was on my state's academic all-star team for three consecutive national tournaments. We came in third my sophomore year, won my junior year, and came in second my senior year. The year we came in third, there's no doubt in my mind that's about where we deserved to be. The year we won - there were at least two other teams in the tournament who were better. The year we came in second I think we were probably the best team of all time. But the questions didn't bounce our way. Just luck. It happens. Gautam
