The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #16 Pedro Martinez

Mastering the list at #16 is Boston Red Sox ace Pedro Martinez. If Pedro had been just a little more durable, he would be the leading candidate in the “greatest pitcher of all-time” discussion. Even with just a shade over 2,800 career innings, Pedro dominated the game like no other pitcher in history. His 154 ERA+ is the highest ever among pitchers with at least 2,800 career innings. His 1.05 WHIP is the second-lowest in MLB history (min. 2,800 career innings). His .686 winning percentage is the 2nd highest in MLB history (min. 2,800 innings). He’s the only pitcher in MLB history with at least 215 career wins without losing more than 100 games. He’s the only pitcher in history with six seasons of at least 100 innings and less than a .95 WHIP. There have only been three seasons in history with at least 280 innings and a 240 ERA+ and Pedro has two of them. He joins Sandy Koufax as the only players in history to lead the league in ERA five consecutive seasons (min. of 18 games started). Pedro shares the record with Walter Johnson and Sandy Koufax with two seasons of at least 300 strikeouts and less than a .94 WHIP. In 1999, he became one of two players (Gerrit Cole) in history with 310 strikeouts in fewer than 215 innings. His 2000 season may have been the best season by a pitcher in baseball history, becoming the only pitcher ever to throw 200 innings with less than a .74 WHIP, and the only pitcher ever to throw 200 innings with a 290 ERA+. Pedro shares the record with three seasons of at least 180 innings and fewer than five losses, and two seasons with at least 20 wins and fewer than five losses. (Roger Clemens). He holds the record with five seasons of at least 180 innings and a 200 ERA+. Pedro won three Cy Young awards and probably should’ve won a fourth, if not a fifth. In 2004, Pedro helped lead Boston to its first World Series championship in 86 years with seven scoreless innings in Game 3 to put Boston up 3-0.

Leave a Reply

Hi (hopefully) awesome reader! I welcome your comments. However, please be aware that I make all of my arguments using facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately, the average comment on a top-100 list goes something like this:

"UR StooPid. (Insert player) is trash. I've watched (pick a sport) for (pick a number of years) and (pick a player) is better than everyone. UR DUMB. HAHA6969."

–Some Jabroni

As cognitively stimulating as this species of comment is, it ends up being a missed opportunity to share a nuanced perspective. I reply to all comments that show even the most basic levels of thought and humility. The people who make the comments like the example above are under the assumption that the three seconds of thought that popped into their brains after reading the list is more than the 1000s of hours that I put into creating and maintaining the lists. I would be happy to defend any placement, or make an adjustment if one is warranted. If you are a jabroni, like the one above, then your comment will die in the lonely void of the unpublished comments section.

For everyone else, I look forward to your comments!

P.S. The theme of this site and the top-100 lists is that athletes from previous generations have historically been grossly overrated by sports publications in a way that is statistically improbable. Click on the "About" dropdown menu to see just how badly the average top-100 list disproportionately favors athletes from older generations when leagues were smaller, race quotas existed, and globalization wasn't a thing. Also, please consider reading "The History" section of the sport you are commenting on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *