Maddux and Martinez when compared to rest of league
by DBCooper (2020-10-03 10:23:27)
Edited on 2020-10-03 10:28:25

In reply to: Maddox 1.65 ERA and Martinez 1.76 ERA  posted by OldIrishFan

Post Reply Return to Back Room

Were unreal, especially Pedro. And as a Yankee fan, that’s hard to admit. Second best era in 2000 was Clemens at 3.7. 2 runs a game worse. That’s insane. Second best era in Gibson’s 68 was 1.99 for reference,

Gibson had raised mound, bigger strike zone and 68 was arguably the worst hitting year of the live ball era.

Nothing against Gibson, it’s a top 5 year, but Maddux and Pedro were better IMO.

I fully understand your points and tend to agree with them.
by OldIrishFan  (2020-10-03 10:32:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Pitching in 1968 was phenomenal and led to rules changes the next year. I think Yaz was the only player in the American League to hit over .300 and then only at .301. Maddox and Martinez did what they did in the era of steroids and specialization. I guess my memories are affected by sentimentality and foggy ruins of time. Gibson was intimidating and scary good. I got to see him in person in 1971 at Shea where he shut out the Mets and had a no-hitter going into the 7th inning. Comparing the ages is difficult but fun. It is one of the beauties of baseball. I think Clemens had the second best ERA to Martinez that year and it was almost double his. Martinez holds the record for greatest disparity between first and second place. Clemens ERA was 3.70. How about Dazzy Vance with a discrepancy of 1.2 runs in 1930. Just edited my post