posted on May, 3 2006 @ 10:56 PM
I will say this: If he is only good for 77 pitches, and thus about 6 innings in an ordinary start, AND opponents know he can't throw too many balls,
then it will be hard to deem him worthy of any more Cy Young Awards... no matter HOW great his Adjusted ERA's and traditional ERA's are.
Take Clemens, for instance. Clemens' career Adjusted ERA is "only" better than those of his peers by 43%, which is awesome, but pales next to Pedro's
66%. But really, I think I'd rather have a 43% guy like him or a 42% guy like Big Unit for 8 innings, as opposed to a 66% guy for only SIX innings.
And Pedro hasn't been a 66% or better guy since 2003, anyway. He posted Adjusted ERA's of 125 and 148, respectively, in 2004 and 2005. The 148,
coincidentally, matches the best CAREER Adjusted ERA of any pitcher other than Pedro (Grove).
What do you other baseball fans think? Would you rather have a pitcher who is 66% better than his peers, but for only 77 pitches? Or would you
prefer to have a pitcher who is "only" 42 (R. Johnson) or 43 (Clemens) percent better than his peers, but for EIGHT innings?
Considering how notoriously horrible long relievers are, and what kind of s--- you're likely to get in the 7th and 8th innings with the great
six-inning pitcher, I think I might vote for the lower-rated, but longer-lasting, great pitchers. You won't get near as much for the first six
innings, but you'll still get a great, great pitcher, and you'll have him for 2 more innings, instead of bums.
Yeah, tonight the bums came through and the "great" closer imploded in the ninth, losing first his control in walking the tying runs aboard, and then
his dominance in giving up the tying hits with two outs. But in the long run, Billy Wagner is not going to be Pedro's undoing in games like this one.
The seventh and eighth innings, however, very well may.
What do y'all say?
[Edited on 5/3/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]