Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[CMIZ5290]

Not even close. This guy had a career that was basically only 10 years.... He won 3 Cy Youngs in just 4 years!, and he had 4 no hitters. His last 4 years he compiled a record of 97-25 with an ERA under 1.70! Plus, he was lights out in the post season.... He was a HOFer in his mid 30's!!

[G1911]

Lefty Grove, and I don't think it's very close.

Grove is a good balance of peak dominance vs. career length. Koufax is a fairly short peak, for me. Grove won 9 ERA crowns, Koufax pitched 9 full seasons (and partial, non-qualifying years his first 3).

That Grove pitched in an extreme offense era hurts his counting stats, and I think this has held him back somewhat in the general consensus. His 3.06 ERA doesn't seem that impressive in and of itself for an old timer, but 9 ERA crowns and a 148 ERA+ career shows how dominant he was.

Honorable Mentions for Koufax, Spahn, Carlton, Ford, Randy Johnson, and Carl Hubbell who would probably come next on my list in some order. Without digging too deep, Spahn and Johnson would probably rank 2 and 3.

[Jcosta19]

I agree that Koufax did not have a long enough peak or career to be considered best of all time amongst lefties.

Clayton Kershaw had a similar 5 year run of dominance and ERA which is saying something with the current offense in the league.

My gut says Randy Johnson, but that is more gut than any deep dive into the question.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[CMIZ5290]

I agree that Koufax did not have a long enough peak or career to be considered best of all time amongst lefties.

Clayton Kershaw had a similar 5 year run of dominance and ERA which is saying something with the current offense in the league.

My gut says Randy Johnson, but that is more gut than any deep dive into the question.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

If Koufax had pitched as long as Randy Johnson, he probably would have had 8 or 9 no hitters and 8 or 9 Cy Youngs....

[Jcosta19]

If Koufax had pitched as long as Randy Johnson, he probably would have had 8 or 9 no hitters and 8 or 9 Cy Youngs....But he didnt.
Durability is an ability. Availability is an ability.

Did he have a better peak..yes definitely. But not a better career.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[G1911]

If Koufax had pitched as long as Randy Johnson, he probably would have had 8 or 9 no hitters and 8 or 9 Cy Youngs....

But he didn't. I don't think we can use what-if's as a reasonable basis of comparison, because we can then make any conclusion we like. If Walter Johnson had been left-handed, he'd be the best lefty ever.

[Jcosta19]

Also if Koufax had the benefit of modern medicine he probably would have been the best lefty if all time.

I do love this debate and I'm actually a huge Koufax fan, but Don Mattingly would be a 1st ballot HOFer if we just looked at 4 or 5 years.

That's just my opinion obviously.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[CurtisFlood]

I'll go with Lefty Grove.

[packs]

Rube Waddell is my pick. He was a HOFer without them but imagine what he could have put together with all his faculties. Strike out king 6 years in a row. Out of the game at 33. Only threw two pitches.

[brewing]

I agree that Koufax did not have a long enough peak or career to be considered best of all time amongst lefties.

Clayton Kershaw had a similar 5 year run of dominance and ERA which is saying something with the current offense in the league.

My gut says Randy Johnson, but that is more gut than any deep dive into the question.


I'd agree with this. Kershaw and Koufax are similar, they are also within 50 innings pitched. I'd place Kershaw over Koufax.
Kershaw has more wins, strikeouts, lower ERA, and same number of Cy Young Awards. Plus his ERA+ is way higher. 157 to 131.

Randy Johnson longevity and performance during the steroid era

[cammb]

Koufax gets my vote. The best pitcher I ever saw. His curveball was sick

[Orioles1954]

Lefty Grove, and I don't think it's very close.

Grove is a good balance of peak dominance vs. career length. Koufax is a fairly short peak, for me. Grove won 9 ERA crowns, Koufax pitched 9 full seasons (and partial, non-qualifying years his first 3).

That Grove pitched in an extreme offense era hurts his counting stats, and I think this has held him back somewhat in the general consensus. His 3.06 ERA doesn't seem that impressive in and of itself for an old timer, but 9 ERA crowns and a 148 ERA+ career shows how dominant he was.

Honorable Mentions for Koufax, Spahn, Carlton, Ford, Randy Johnson, and Carl Hubbell who would probably come next on my list in some order. Without digging too deep, Spahn and Johnson would probably rank 2 and 3.

You’re right, it’s Grove and not very close.

[cammb]

Forgot to add that Koufax had virtually no run support

[Jim65]

Randy Johnson is the best lefty in my lifetime.

[tedzan]

Kevin

As a young dude, I saw Koufax pitch (1955 - 1966), and I agree with you in the post-WWII era.


In the era between WWI and WWII, then my guy is....…

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1933GoudeyLeftyGroveSGC60.jpg



And, in the pre-WWI era, there were no better southpaws than the guy from Gettysburg...…

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206EddiePlankSC150x30.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[Bram99]

Not even close. This guy had a career that was basically only 10 years.... He won 3 Cy Youngs in just 4 years!, and he had 4 no hitters. His last 4 years he compiled a record of 97-25 with an ERA under 1.70! Plus, he was lights out in the post season.... He was a HOFer in his mid 30's!!

Babe Ruth

[boysblue]

Depending on one's criteria, Steve Carlton could be in the conversation couldn't he?

[Seven]

Peak it would be Koufax. I think it's very difficult to argue against that. Career? Lefty Grove or Steve Carlton. I think what weighs in Carlton's favor is that he played against integrated competition as opposed to Grove who didn't. But the argument could favor Grove in the sense that because there were less teams, Grove played against a more concentrated talent pool.

[shagrotn77]

My vote is for Randy Johnson. He was an absolute beast, but often times seemed to be (many times, unfairly so) overshadowed by Greg Maddux.

[jgannon]

There are a number of greats, including Warren Spahn. But in regard to Koufax, it's absolutely ridiculous to shrug him off for not having a long enough career. He was more than a great pitcher - he was a phenomenon. His peak may have been brief, but he was around long enough.

Stats don't tell the whole story as we know. Andy Pettitte, a lefty, had 256 wins. Big deal. A decent pitcher, but you can't compare him to Koufax.

If Koufax had had only one good season, then I could see the longevity argument. But as I said before, he was around long enough. And during that time he forever made his mark on the game. Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers who ever lived.

[G1911]

There are a number of greats, including Warren Spahn. But in regard to Koufax, it's absolutely ridiculous to shrug him off for not having a long enough career. He was more than a great pitcher - he was a phenomenon. His peak may have been brief, but he was around long enough.

Stats don't tell the whole story as we know. Andy Pettitte, a lefty, had 256 wins. Big deal. A decent pitcher, but you can't compare him to Koufax.

If Koufax had had only one good season, then I could see the longevity argument. But as I said before, he was around long enough. And during that time he forever made his mark on the game. Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers who ever lived.

If no other lefty had had a great peak, then I would accept this. Kershaw is at least equal to Koufax though, and Grove's 9 ERA crowns is one hell of a peak neither of the Dodgers have hit, plus he hurled 4,000 innings. When there are other options who are not good pitchers for a long time, like Pettite, but guys like Grove, Plank, Carlton, Spahn, Randy Johnson, I have a really hard time seeing how Koufax tops them by any reasonable standard.

[Touch'EmAll]

I have heard the Dodgers would make sure of a nice high pitchers mound. After Koufax retired, MLB overall lowered their mound to a universal lower height.

[jgannon]

If no other lefty had had a great peak, then I would accept this. Kershaw is at least equal to Koufax though, and Grove's 9 ERA crowns is one hell of a peak neither of the Dodgers have hit, plus he hurled 4,000 innings. When there are other options who are not good pitchers for a long time, like Pettite, but guys like Grove, Plank, Carlton, Spahn, Randy Johnson, I have a really hard time seeing how Koufax tops them by any reasonable standard.

I'm not arguing that Koufax was "the best". I'm just saying he belongs in the debate. I've seen film of Koufax, but of course, tragically the games back then weren't preserved. But I never of course, saw Lefty Grove, so I really can't comment on somebody like him. The other pitchers you're talking about were all great pitchers. Everyone can make their case for them. But Koufax is in the conversation or there is no conversation, in my opinion.

[earlywynnfan]

Grove! Look at his best 5-year run against Koufax's, then remind yourself Grove's peak was during the biggest hitter's era ever, Koufax during 2nd deadball era.

IMHO, what Grove did in 1931 might be the greatest pitching season ever.

[tschock]

Depending on one's criteria, Steve Carlton could be in the conversation couldn't he?

Carlton should get some love. I also think he lead the league in facial contortions on the mound for a number of years too. :D

[olecow]

Warren Spahn. Hands down.

[RCMcKenzie]

Testing...1,2,3...

[Tabe]

Kershaw has the lowest ERA of any starter in the live ball era. He has a good case.

Koufax was only great with a super-high mound, expanded strike zone, and Dodger Stadium. Look at his Non-Dodger Stadium stats. He has no case.

Lefty Grove dominated for a long time AFTER B being held or of the majors longer than he should have been. He has a great case.

Steve Carlton won 4 CYAs and was generally awesome. He has a great case.

Randy Johnson put up ridiculous numbers for a long time. 5 CYAs but also tanked half a season to force a trade. He has a great case.

My pick would be Lefty Grove.

[cardsagain74]

Steve Carlton has no case. His lifetime numbers were the left-handed version of Phil Niekro. Other than his 1972 season, Carlton's Cy Young awards were based on how both guys' best years gave you a 23-10 record pitching for that era's great Phillies teams but a 20-17 record for the Braves then.

Obviously a great pitcher, but not the maybe best of all time lefty caliber of his reputation.

Plus, Randy Johnson's career is clearly superior to Carlton's. A higher lifetime WAR despite pitching more than 1000 fewer innings. Carlton's lifetime ERA is barely better, despite Johnson pitching during the steroid era and half his career in the AL. And Johnson still got to 300 wins in a five-man rotation era.

You can argue Grove, Kershaw, Johnson, maybe Spahn, maybe Plank, maybe a prime Koufax. Obviously it's so tough to compare the different generations.

Oh and as far as Koufax, it's a myth that he may have been so mediocre away from Dodger stadium. 86-46 with a 3.04 ERA and a 1.167 WHIP on the road lifetime. Not too shabby.

[brewing]

Kershaw is 49.6 innings behind Koufax.
To match Koufax he would have to do the following over his next 49.6 innings.
Lose 13 games
Give up 39 hits and walk 240 batters.
31 of those hits need to be HR's
Give up 96 Earned Runs, resulting in a nifty 17.12 ERA

And he'd still have more wins and strikeouts than Koufax. Keep in mind the difference of eras too. Koufax played in a pitching era and Kershaw in a hitter's era.
Same number of Cy Young Awards. Kershaw has 7 top 5 finishes in the award voting, Koufax has 4.

Maybe we tend to honor the baseball from the past more because we dig vintage baseball cards. But the numbers don't lie, Kershaw is better than the left arm of God.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml

[rats60]

I'd agree with this. Kershaw and Koufax are similar, they are also within 50 innings pitched. I'd place Kershaw over Koufax.
Kershaw has more wins, strikeouts, lower ERA, and same number of Cy Young Awards. Plus his ERA+ is way higher. 157 to 131.

Randy Johnson longevity and performance during the steroid era

Kershaw wasn't able to pitch under pressure. The game is played to win championships and Kershaw has cost his team. Koufax has 2 WS MVPs plus a career postseason ERA under 1. ERA+ is a flawed stat to base an argument on. It is as much a product of the quality of pitchers in your league as anything. Pitchers in weak eras like Grove and Kershaw are going to look better than they really were. Koufax is the best, even with his shorter career, the combination of being great in the regular season and even greater in the postseason can't be match by any other lefty.

[rats60]

Kershaw is 49.6 innings behind Koufax.
To match Koufax he would have to do the following over his next 49.6 innings.
Lose 13 games
Give up 39 hits and walk 240 batters.
31 of those hits need to be HR's
Give up 96 Earned Runs, resulting in a nifty 17.12 ERA

And he'd still have more wins and strikeouts than Koufax. Keep in mind the difference of eras too. Koufax played in a pitching era and Kershaw in a hitter's era.
Same number of Cy Young Awards. Kershaw has 7 top 5 finishes in the award voting, Koufax has 4.

Maybe we tend to honor the baseball from the past more because we dig vintage baseball cards. But the numbers don't lie, Kershaw is better than the left arm of God.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml

You forgot pitch 3 no hitters, win 4 WS rings, 2 WS MVPs and somhow allow negative runs to bring his postseason ERA from 4.43 to .95.

[Mikehealer]

Nice Plank, Ted

[rats60]

Grove! Look at his best 5-year run against Koufax's, then remind yourself Grove's peak was during the biggest hitter's era ever, Koufax during 2nd deadball era.

IMHO, what Grove did in 1941 might be the greatest pitching season ever.

Roberto Clemente, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Eddie Mathews, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Willie Stargell, Stan Musial, Lou Brock, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Ron Santo, Frank Robinson and Pete Rose would disagree that the 1930s were the biggest hitter's era. The 1950s & 1960s were at least equal if not greater. There was just a lot better pitching.

[glynparson]

Depending on one's criteria, Steve Carlton could be in the conversation couldn't he?

I agree.

[brewing]

You forgot pitch 3 no hitters, win 4 WS rings, 2 WS MVPs and somhow allow negative runs to bring his postseason ERA from 4.43 to .95.

No I didn't. While no hitters are impressive having them vs not having them isn't that big of a deal to me. Just like championships in a team sport.

Koufax was amazing during the World Series. I never said Koufax wasn't great. Even if Kershaw has been pedestrian like in the playoffs, the far superior regular season performance of over 2200 innings means more to me.

I did forget to leave out his ERA+ which helps highlight the different eras they pitched in.
Kershaw is 157 2nd highest All Time
Koufax is 131

Others mentioned
Grove 148
Randy Johnson 135
Plank 122

[rats60]

No I didn't. While no hitters are impressive having them vs not having them isn't that big of a deal to me. Just like championships in a team sport.

Koufax was amazing during the World Series. I never said Koufax wasn't great. Even if Kershaw has been pedestrian like in the playoffs, the far superior regular season performance of over 2200 innings means more to me.

I did forget to leave out his ERA+ which helps highlight the different eras they pitched in.
Kershaw is 157 2nd highest All Time
Koufax is 131

Others mentioned
Grove 148
Randy Johnson 135
Plank 122

When you can’t pitch well against the best teams in the postseason, you shouldn’t even be in the discussion in my opinion. The only thing that matters is winning championships, not dominating bad teams pitching 6 or 7 innings. Kershaw has only has 25 complete games in 12 seasons. Koufax pitched 27 complete games in 1965 alone. Then he pitched 27 more complete games in 1966. Kershaw’s regular season really isn’t even superior since he is letting someone else pitch the most difficult innings when a pitcher is tiring. Make Kershaw pitch 27 complete games in a season and let’s see what his ERA would be.

The pitcher controls the ball on defense. Despite being a team sport, it is the pitcher that can win a championship. Just look at 1965 when the World Series was tied at 2-2. Koufax went out and pitched shutouts in game 5 and game 7. Why can’t Kershaw do that even once to bring the Dodgers a championship? The Dodgers have been good enough to make the postseason 9 times and are 0-9 because Kershaw has pitched poorly.

ERA+ just tells me how weak the pitching was in those eras. They weren’t competing against Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Bunning, Perry and Sutton.

[egbeachley]

I always thought it was Lefty Grove who, in 1930, pitched a quadruple-crown leading MLB in Wins, ERA, Strikeputs, and Saves.

Decided to look it up in Baseball Refenence. They have pitching WAR. Grove was the best lefty at about 9% greater than Randy Johnson. Koufax didn’t make the top 20.

Grove also had a better 4-year streak than Koufax, although I don’t know why people use that as a metric

[G1911]

I find it extremely odd to see it argued that playing in a high offense era should somehow hurt a pitchers all time ranking, and that guys like Koufax who played in the easiest possible circumstances (pitching park, on a high mound, during a deadball era) must be better because there were many other great pitchers then. Dominating in tougher circumstances should be an advantage.


As for the 4 year peak arguments, I think this appears solely because it is the only way to try and argue Sandy (even though Grove and Kershaw both have equal or better peaks and better overall careers) is #1.

[71buc]

I like Spahn and Carlton

[brewing]

When you can’t pitch well against the best teams in the postseason, you shouldn’t even be in the discussion in my opinion. The only thing that matters is winning championships, not dominating bad teams pitching 6 or 7 innings. Kershaw has only has 25 complete games in 12 seasons. Koufax pitched 27 complete games in 1965 alone. Then he pitched 27 more complete games in 1966. Kershaw’s regular season really isn’t even superior since he is letting someone else pitch the most difficult innings when a pitcher is tiring. Make Kershaw pitch 27 complete games in a season and let’s see what his ERA would be.

The pitcher controls the ball on defense. Despite being a team sport, it is the pitcher that can win a championship. Just look at 1965 when the World Series was tied at 2-2. Koufax went out and pitched shutouts in game 5 and game 7. Why can’t Kershaw do that even once to bring the Dodgers a championship? The Dodgers have been good enough to make the postseason 9 times and are 0-9 because Kershaw has pitched poorly.

ERA+ just tells me how weak the pitching was in those eras. They weren’t competing against Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Bunning, Perry and Sutton.

You win! Can I count you in to join my campaign to get Mickey Lolich into the Hall of Fame. His World Series performance against the defending World Champs in 1968 was amazing.

[RCMcKenzie]

Testing...1,2,3...
I posted a 1982 Fleer Fernando Valenzuela last night to check if pics were working. For some reason it disappeared. Not a big deal, just pointing it out for the folks working on the board.

"Strike Out King". Fernando-mania was a big deal in the early eighties...Rob

[GaryPassamonte]

Warren Spahn won 363 games, most by a modern day pitcher. He also lost 3 years to military service. It's possible he would have won 400 games. He had thirteen 20 win seasons. I realize today's metrics don't value wins, but Spahn was incredible. He wasn't flashy. Maybe that's why he gets so little support.

[clydepepper]

43 posts and only three mentioned Warren Spahn!

I have always been a Koufax fan, but he is only the lefty GOAT for Peak Value.

Kershaw, at this point, would be second, IMO, for shorter careers, but Randy Johnson's peak value edges his.

Grove, Spahn and Johnson are tied, in my view, for Career Value Lefty GOAT..

...with Carlton just a tick below.


.

[JustinD]

Johnson for sure.

What if's don't count in my mind because then I give Johnson Koufax's park and higher mound and he get's more dominant..

6' 10" off a 15" 60's mound?

Ouch.

[esd10]

Rube waddell is who I'm going with as the best lefty

[Tabe]

Oh and as far as Koufax, it's a myth that he may have been so mediocre away from Dodger stadium. 86-46 with a 3.04 ERA and a 1.167 WHIP on the road lifetime. Not too shabby.
The "road" doesn't quite cover things fully. Here's the numbers:

Sandy at Dodger Stadium: 57-15, 715.1 IP, 109 ER, 1.37 ERA
Everywhere else: 108-72, 1609 IP, 604 ER, 3.38 ERA

Now, to be fair, Koufax pitched at LA Coliseum a fair bit and that was horrendous for lefties. He got lit up there - 17-23 with a 4.33 ERA. So let's exclude that.

So now we get: 91-49, 1264 IP, 438 ER, 3.12 ERA. That's good but not exactly out of this world other than the W-L. But that's basically 5 seasons of 18-10 with a 3.12 ERA. Not HOF-level. Heck, one year during Koufax's hot run from 63-66, the entire NL had an ERA of 3.29.

When you add in the fact he has the fewest IP of any starter in the HOF - even Dennis Eckersley, who got in as a reliever, has 900 more innings - the numbers just aren't kind to Koufax.

[tedzan]

Nice Plank, Ted

Hello Mike

Great to hear from you....and, thanks for the compliment.


Regarding Plank, it surprises me that I'm the only one here who regards him as the best Left-handed pitcher. And, I base this on what I read in Connie Mack's biography.
Gettysburg Eddie was one cool guy on the mound who combined his mind with his natural talent to achieve a very effective 17-year career. He had 8 seasons in which he
won 20+ games (26 - 6 in 1912 with an ERA = 2.22 was his best year).

Won-Lost 326 - 194
Career ERA = 2.35

In post #15, I named three Lefty's who were the best with respect to the eras they pitched in. But, if I had to choose only one of them, it would certainly be Eddie Plank.

And for those of you, who get carried away with this ambiguous "new-speak" term, "WAR"....Plank's number (91) is up there with the best of the Southpaw's.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Yes #32 but have Carlton second as he also had some pop in his bat.

[jgannon]

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

[G1911]

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

[jgannon]

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

[earlywynnfan]

Hello Mike

Great to hear from you....and, thanks for the compliment.


Regarding Plank, it surprises me that I'm the only one here who regards him as the best Left-handed pitcher. And, I base this on what I read in Connie Mack's biography.
Gettysburg Eddie was one cool guy on the mound who combined his mind with his natural talent to achieve a very effective 17-year career. He had 8 seasons in which he
won 20+ games (26 - 6 in 1912 with an ERA = 2.22 was his best year).

Won-Lost 326 - 194
Career ERA = 2.35

In post #15, I named three Lefty's who were the best with respect to the eras they pitched in. But, if I had to choose only one of them, it would certainly be Eddie Plank.

And for those of you, who get carried away with this ambiguous "new-speak" term, "WAR"....Plank's number (91) is up there with the best of the Southpaw's.


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

Love Plank, but about all I see where he outperforms Grove is ERA. He won 26 more games, yet lost over 50 more. Grove also had 8 20-win seasons, including his monster year of 31-4 with an ERA of 2.06. And his WAR is 20 points higher.

[Tabe]

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was.
Well, sure. But they're ignoring all the places and times he wasn't great. They're ignoring all the factors that helped make him great - the unique deadness of Chavez Ravine, the gigantic strike zone that coincided with his best run, the height of the mound, and so on. Yeah, it was basically impossible to hit against him under those conditions. But the numbers show he was good - not great, but good - everywhere else.

[jgannon]

Well, sure. But they're ignoring all the places and times he wasn't great. They're ignoring all the factors that helped make him great - the unique deadness of Chavez Ravine, the gigantic strike zone that coincided with his best run, the height of the mound, and so on. Yeah, it was basically impossible to hit against him under those conditions. But the numbers show he was good - not great, but good - everywhere else.

I wonder why all Dodgers pitchers didn't have his numbers...

[earlywynnfan]

Peak it would be Koufax. I think it's very difficult to argue against that..

Why? I consider Grove's peak to have lasted six seasons, Koufax' four. Even if you take a random string of four for Grove, Lefty's ERA+ and WAR blow Sandy's away. Koufax did had more strikeouts, I wonder what Lefty would have done in 1966. Only 3 players hit over .320 in 1966, while in 1931 Grove was pitching against a player coming off of seasons where he hit .381 and .393, and he isn't sniffing the HOF (Babe Herman.)

It's tough to compare across eras, but I think if you move Grove and Walter into the 1960's, NOBODY would touch them.

If WAR is an important stat to you, check this out: out of an 8-season stretch, Grove was the top WAR pitcher for 6 of them. One season he came in second to Carl Hubbell, and in 1934 while Dizzy Dean was tops, Grove's arm went dead. The next season he went from a fastballer to a curveballer and was tops in WAR again. In Koufax' four peak years, he was tops in WAR twice.

[earlywynnfan]

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

Not saying pitchers had it easy in any era, but that 10-year stretch that coincided with Koufax' dominance is known as the "second deadball era" pretty much universally.

[jgannon]

Not saying pitchers had it easy in any era, but that 10-year stretch that coincided with Koufax' dominance is known as the "second deadball era" pretty much universally.

Really? Well, that's news to me. Maybe I've been out of the loop. The way I've always seen it, is that that ball was of course much livelier than the dead ball of "The Dead Ball Era". Today's ball is just hopped up. Boring home runs, and the game almost looks like a video game. The only thing that might be exciting about it, to me, is there can sometimes be some excellent infield play.

[rats60]

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

[tedzan]

Love Plank, but about all I see where he outperforms Grove is ERA. He won 26 more games, yet lost over 50 more. Grove also had 8 20-win seasons, including his monster year of 31-4 with an ERA of 2.06. And his WAR is 20 points higher.

earlywynnfan

Reprising my earlier post here. Grove and Plank pitched in different eras. And, in my way of thinking, it's almost impossible to compare whose performance was better.
Yes, they both pitched for 17 years. And, both of them had 8 seasons in which they Won 20+ games. Plank pitched twice as many Shut-Out games as Grove, etc., etc.
I could on playing this silly numbers game. But, what matters most is that both these guys were "giants" on the mound in their particular era. Plank with Connie Mack,
and Grove's best years with Connie Mack.



In the era between WWI and WWII, then my guy is....…

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1933GoudeyLeftyGroveSGC60.jpg



And, in the pre-WWI era, there were no better southpaws than the guy from Gettysburg...…

http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/T206EddiePlankSC150x30.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[rats60]

Why? I consider Grove's peak to have lasted six seasons, Koufax' four. Even if you take a random string of four for Grove, Lefty's ERA+ and WAR blow Sandy's away. Koufax did had more strikeouts, I wonder what Lefty would have done in 1966. Only 3 players hit over .320 in 1966, while in 1931 Grove was pitching against a player coming off of seasons where he hit .381 and .393, and he isn't sniffing the HOF (Babe Herman.)

It's tough to compare across eras, but I think if you move Grove and Walter into the 1960's, NOBODY would touch them.

If WAR is an important stat to you, check this out: out of an 8-season stretch, Grove was the top WAR pitcher for 6 of them. One season he came in second to Carl Hubbell, and in 1934 while Dizzy Dean was tops, Grove's arm went dead. The next season he went from a fastballer to a curveballer and was tops in WAR again. In Koufax' four peak years, he was tops in WAR twice.

WAR is garbage. In 1965 Juan Marichal led the NL in bWAR. The only stats he led Koufax in were ERA+ and shutouts. That really has to be a seriously flawed metric when the guy who leads in ERA, FIP, WHIP, H/9, K/9, K/BB,WPA, IP, CG, W-L% and even wins with a pathetic offensive and sets the MLB record for strikeouts in a season and pitches a perfect game is supposed to be the third best pitcher. Marichal didn’t get a single CY Young vote, not even from the SF writers who saw him pitch every game. When your only argument is using made up stats, you have already lost.

[G1911]

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

Many other lefties were formidable. Many other lefties were champions. Many others had batters of their era in awe of them. It was a deadball era, look at the league ERA. It is frequently referred to as the "second deadball era".

It is not revisionist history to say he is not the greatest lefty of all time. He has never been the consensus pick (there isn't a consensus pick at all, really).

[G1911]

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

Ignoring context completely. All the best pitchers are in the deadball eras, or context matters. Do we really believe the top 30 or so pitchers were in just two short periods of baseball history? You have to completely ignore longevity, and completely ignore context and era in order to come out with Koufax on top. That you are citing that Grove played in an offensive era as a negative is strange. If we are ignoring context and longevity, whichever left had the single greatest season in the deadball era is the permanent best lefty ever. 5 years of Koufax or 9 of Grove? I'm taking 9 of Grove without even having to stop and think. Koufax pitched in an environment perfectly suited for pitchers and was great for 5 years. Grove was great for more than twice as long in a context NOT friendly at all to pitchers.

Kershaw > Koufax. Spahn > Koufax. Johnson > Koufax.

ERA+
Grove 148
Koufax 131

ERA crowns
Grove 9
Koufax 5

FIP crowns
Grove 8
Koufax 6

WHIP crowns
Grove 5
Koufax 4

Strikeout Crowns
Grove 7
Koufax 4

Innings Pitched
Grove 3,940
Koufax 2,324

WAR
Grove 106.7
Koufax 48.9

[jgannon]

Many other lefties were formidable. Many other lefties were champions. Many others had batters of their era in awe of them. It was a deadball era, look at the league ERA. It is frequently referred to as the "second deadball era".

It is not revisionist history to say he is not the greatest lefty of all time. He has never been the consensus pick (there isn't a consensus pick at all, really).

Low E.R.A. doesn't mean the ball was dead. If you miss the ball completely, it doesn't matter how live or dead it is! But as pointed out earlier by rats60, there were a lot of great hitters in the N.L. who hit a lot of home runs, and hit for high averages. And if the league E.R.A. was low during that time, I'd like to see how some of today's hitters would have fared against the likes of Koufax, Gibson, etc. Maybe the the E.R.A. would have been even lower!

Again, my original advocating for Koufax was not to definitively say he was the greatest lefty of all time. It's really impossible to say who was "the best". Why do we have to have a "best" anyway? At any rate, you have the different eras and so many different factors affecting how the players performed. I just think there was a bit of disparagement toward Koufax on the thread, and that Koufax wasn't getting his due.

[BlueDevil89]

You'd be hard pressed to find a pitcher lefty or righty who had as good a season as this man did in 1972...and with a team that won only 59 games no less.

408855

[G1911]

Low E.R.A. doesn't mean the ball was dead If you miss the ball completely, it doesn't matter how live or dead it is! But as pointed out earlier by rats60, there were a lot of great hitters in the N.L. who hit a lot of home runs, and hit for high averages. And if the league E.R.A. was low during that time, I'd like to see how some of today's hitters would have fared against the likes of Koufax, Gibson, etc. Maybe they the E.R.A. would have been even lower!

Again, my original advocating for Koufax was not to definitively say he was the greatest lefty of all time. It's really impossible to say who was "the best". Why do we have to have a "best" anyway? At any rate, you have the different eras and so many different factors affecting how the players performed. I just there was a bit of disparagement toward Koufax on the thread, and that Koufax wasn't getting his due.

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

[jgannon]

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

I've heard guys say, and I quote, "I think Mickey Mantle might have even been able to play today". Maybe i'm a little out of step with modern thinking. But to me, pitcher dominated doesn't mean a dead ball. I'd say it was a fair ball. And it was a better game when the runs were actually earned, instead of given out like Hostess Twinkies via the hopped up ball. Today's small parks and players wearing enough protective equipment to make a football player blush also favor the batter. Brushing back batters is not a part of the game the way it was. You do make a good point a couple posts back, that if a pitcher does well in this environment, that is to his credit. But today's pitchers only go 6 or 7 innings. Koufax went out there and pitched complete games through pain. You say there were other formidable pitchers. Not many like Koufax. He was one of baseball's greatest pitchers. That's why he was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his brief peak. His greatness was undisputed and universally recognized. There was enough of a consensus then.

[thecomebacker]

Big Unit, no question. Regular season dominance aside, He put the Diamondbacks on his back and carried them to a World Title against the early 2000’s Yankees. The freakin Diamondbacks!
.....and he basically did what he did his entire career against Juicers.

[cardsagain74]

I agree with taking the playoffs (and titles) a lot more into consideration too.

This obviously greatly favors Koufax. In addition to the other numbers and WS championships mentioned, he gave up just one earned run each in his only playoff losses. Unreal. Lefty Grove was great in the postseason too.

On the flip side, Randy Johnson had the one dominating run for two playoff series and got the one ring from it. Other than that, he struggled badly in the postseason and went 2-9. Carlton would labor in the playoffs and walk some guys that he normally wouldn't, and was 6-6 with a 3.26.

And naturally Kershaw's awful playoff troubles don't need further mention.

Then there's Spahn, who naturally was the exact same guy in the playoffs as otherwise. That guy was a robot set to win 6 of every 10 games and give you a 3.00 ERA, regardless of what planet he was on.

[G1911]

I've heard guys say, and I quote, "I think Mickey Mantle might have even been able to play today". Maybe i'm a little out of step with modern thinking. But to me, pitcher dominated doesn't mean a dead ball. I'd say it was a fair ball. And it was a better game when the runs were actually earned, instead of given out like Hostess Twinkies via the hopped up ball. Today's small parks and players wearing enough protective equipment to make a football player blush also favor the batter. Brushing back batters is not a part of the game the way it was. You do make a good point a couple posts back, that if a pitcher does well in this environment, that is to his credit. But today's pitchers only go 6 or 7 innings. Koufax went out there and pitched complete games through pain. You say there were other formidable pitchers. Not many like Koufax. He was one of baseball's greatest pitchers. That's why he was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his brief peak. His greatness was undisputed and universally recognized. There was enough of a consensus then.

There was a consensus that he was deserving of the hall of fame, and was a great pitcher. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Nobody is arguing against that position. Yes, my position is that there are other formidable pitchers. Is this a controversial statement? Koufax is not in a league of his own.

[Tabe]

I wonder why all Dodgers pitchers didn't have his numbers...

Why didn't Sandy put up a 1.37 ERA anywhere he pitched more than twice except Dodger Stadium? Of all the ballparks he pitched in 5 or more times, why did he have an ERA over 3.50 in almost half of them (6 of 13)? Did he just not try as hard at Crosley Field?

[Tabe]

WAR is garbage. In 1965 Juan Marichal led the NL in bWAR. The only stats he led Koufax in were ERA+ and shutouts. That really has to be a seriously flawed metric when the guy who leads in ERA, FIP, WHIP, H/9, K/9, K/BB,WPA, IP, CG, W-L% and even wins with a pathetic offensive and sets the MLB record for strikeouts in a season and pitches a perfect game is supposed to be the third best pitcher. Marichal didn’t get a single CY Young vote, not even from the SF writers who saw him pitch every game. When your only argument is using made up stats, you have already lost.
It's all about where you pitched. Marichal put up a nearly identical ERA (2.13 vs 2.04) in a ballpark that was WILDLY more favorable toward hitters (ballpark rating of 109 for pitchers vs 91 for Dodger Stadium). And he did without giving up twice as many runs on the road as he did at home like Koufax (Koufax ERAs: 1.38/2.72, Marichal's: 2.53/1.75 - yes, he was better on the road).

I don't like WAR but sometimes the weirdness does have an explanation.

[tjenkins]

Warren Spahn won 363 games, most by a modern day pitcher. He also lost 3 years to military service. It's possible he would have won 400 games. He had thirteen 20 win seasons. I realize today's metrics don't value wins, but Spahn was incredible. He wasn't flashy. Maybe that's why he gets so little support.

I have to agree with this. Spahn is easily my choice. Not to take anything away from Koufax but longetity had to bear some weight. You could possibly add 50 more wins in the 3 years Spahn lost to military service. I realize Koufax was dominating in his years played but I like Spahn's overall body of work.

[bigred1]

i think this thread has got me thinking more about Spahn, especially with those missed prime years.

[cammb]

Well, sure. But they're ignoring all the places and times he wasn't great. They're ignoring all the factors that helped make him great - the unique deadness of Chavez Ravine, the gigantic strike zone that coincided with his best run, the height of the mound, and so on. Yeah, it was basically impossible to hit against him under those conditions. But the numbers show he was good - not great, but good - everywhere else.gg

Hahaha. Koufax was good not great. What a joke. Evidently you never saw him pitch.

[cardsagain74]

You can't assume all those extra wins from the missed military service for Spahn though.

He still ended up logging about 5200 innings. Without the military service, his arm could've easily worn down a few years earlier.

[oldjudge]

Whitey Ford had a better career ERA than Koufax, better WAR, and better win loss differential.

[G1911]

gg

Hahaha. Koufax was good not great. What a joke. Evidently you never saw him pitch.

He's saying he was good, not great, on the road. Looking at his road statistics, if Koufax was great on the road, there are a LOT of great pitchers. His numbers outside of LA are not particularly impressive, in the context of league averages.

[cammb]

He's saying he was good, not great, on the road. Looking at his road statistics, if Koufax was great on the road, there are a LOT of great pitchers. His numbers outside of LA are not particularly impressive, in the context of league averages.


Name another pitcher who retired with 27 wins and 27 complete games in his last year. He decided not to risk any more injuries to his left arm. The guy was getting better every year. You guys get carried away with those crazy stats. By the way since he was ONLY a GOOD pitcher, name five other pitchers who you deem better. Be careful.

[Robbie]

Question: What's it like trying to hit off of Sandy Koufax?

Answer: "Ever try drinking coffee with a fork?"
--- Willie Stargell

Besides believing Koufax was the best lefty ever (with Grove an extremely close 2nd :D), if I could choose to see only one pitcher, out of all those mentioned pitch a ballgame, Koufax would be the clear and easy choice.

[Powell]

Mickey Lolich deserves honorable mention. He was the American League all time left handed strikeout king for decades until CC Sabathia took over. His 1968 World Series performance is legendary with 3 complete game wins, 2 hits including the only homer of his career and he beat Bob Gibson on the road in game 7 with a complete game on 2 days rest!!! In the bottom of the 6th with the score tied 0-0 he picked Lou Brock and Curt Flood off first base. Incredible performance!

[Vintageclout]

1. Grove
2. Kershaw
3. Johnson
4. Carlton
5. Koufax
6. Spahn

Grove - 9 ERA titles is sheer dominance over an extended period of time - no questions asked.

Kershaw - possibly on pace to be the best ever but still falls somewhat short to Grove. His WHIP; K/BB & ERA numbers are incredible.

Johnson - took him a while to figure it out, but when he did, his peak value numbers are top 5-10 of all-time for ALL pitchers

Carlton - great longevity & peak value but a few inexplicable very poor seasons (including 20 losses) place him a notch below Johnson

Koufax - best peak value lefty of all-time but 5 dominating seasons just doesn’t cut it with regard to being the best ever. You can say all you want IF he had longevity he would be the best ever.....true. But, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. “IFs” simply don’t cut it in the world of rankings.

Spahn - VERY underrated. Most southpaw wins of all-time. Issue with Spahn is he could not dominate a lineup at the level of the 5 pitchers above him.

[Mark17]

Why didn't Sandy put up a 1.37 ERA anywhere he pitched more than twice except Dodger Stadium? Of all the ballparks he pitched in 5 or more times, why did he have an ERA over 3.50 in almost half of them (6 of 13)? Did he just not try as hard at Crosley Field?

I agree. Another thing is that Koufax' best 5 years were right after expansion, when 4 new teams were frankensteined together with guys who otherwise wouldn't have been in the Big Leagues.

From 1962-1966, Sandy was 17-2 against the Mets, and 14-2 against the Colts/Astros, for example. He was aided elsewhere by the general watered-down talent level the expansions had across the leagues.

I'll go with Grove as the best all-time. But if I was a team owner and could have any lefty for his entire career, I'd take Spahn and sleep well at night.

[jgannon]

Question: What's it like trying to hit off of Sandy Koufax?

Answer: "Ever try drinking coffee with a fork?"
--- Willie Stargell

Besides believing Koufax was the best lefty ever (with Grove an extremely close 2nd :D), if I could choose to see only one pitcher, out of all those mentioned pitch a ballgame, Koufax would be the clear and easy choice.

Yogi Berra, when informed that Koufax was 25-5 during the regular season in 1963: "How the hell did he lose five?"

Gene Mauch when asked if Koufax was the best lefty he ever saw: "The best righty too".

Hank Aaron: "You talk about the Gibsons the Drysdales and the Spahns. And as good as those guys were, Koufax was just a step ahead of them.

John Roseboro: "I think God came down and tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'Boy, I'm gonna make you a pitcher.' God only made one of him."

Andy Etchebarren: "See, you need a certain amount of time for the eye to see what it sees and what it needs to tell the brain what it needs to be told, and then your hands gotta move. And that is all taking place in less than a second. With Koufax, your eyes couldn't tell your brain to react in time."

On Koufax's fastball seeming to rise and accelerate just before it got to the plate, umpire Doug Harvey: "I don't know why or how. In thirty-one years, I've never seen anybody else who could do that...Nobody's ball did what Koufax's ball did."

Stan Musial: "Rose up just before it got to the plate."

Carl Erskine: "It reaccelerated. It came again."

On Koufax's curve ball, Jim Wynn: "A mystic waterfall."

Orlando Cepeda: "It sounded like a little tornado. Bzzzzzzz. And it looked like a high fastball. Then it dropped ---BOOM---in front of you. So fast and noisy, it scared you."

These quotes are from Jane Leavy's book on Koufax.

I just don't buy the idea that his road record disqualified him from being considered great. The way some people are talking, it seems like it was a moral outrage that his E.R.A wasn't below 0.00 on the road.

In 1962, his season ended early. Yeah, his home E.R.A was significantly lower at at 1.75 compared to his road E.R.A at 3.53. But he only played half a season.

In 1963 the split was 1.38 at home and 2.31 away. 2.31 is an E.R.A most pitchers would kill for.

1964: 0.84 (astounding) to 2.93. With that 2.93 I guess they should have shipped him down to the minors.

1965: 1.38 to 2.72. Another horrible year.

1966: 1.52 to 1.96. His arthritic elbow was what probably got the away number down below 2.00. Let's face it, Koufax probably knew someone in management who let him hang on to his job.

Just to reiterate, there were other great lefties who you could make a case for as being the all-time best lefty. I'm just arguing against the idea that Koufax was just good. He was great. He was recognized as such by his peers, and his record speaks for itself.

[rats60]

Name another pitcher who retired with 27 wins and 27 complete games in his last year. He decided not to risk any more injuries to his left arm. The guy was getting better every year. You guys get carried away with those crazy stats. By the way since he was ONLY a GOOD pitcher, name five other pitchers who you deem better. Be careful.

If the Dodgers had any kind of offense, Koufax would have won ~35 games in 1966. He only gave up 4 earned runs twice in 41 starts, in a loss and a no decision. In 3 other no decisions, he gave up 1, 1 and 2 earned runs. In his 8 other losses, the Dodgers scored a total of 6 runs, less than one run per game. He was pretty good on the road, with a sub 2 ERA and sub 1 WHIP. No other lefty has had a season like that. 1963 was another season Koufax should have won 30 games. He went 25-5 and he had 5 no decision where he gave up 0 or 1 runs, but got no support. I can only name one pitcher better than Sandy Koufax, his name is Walter Johnson.

[Neal]

Both Koufax and Spahn pitched in "pitchers parks" (County and Dodger Stadium) the majority of their careers so that helps and somewhere I recall reading that the mound at LAD was unusually high in the 60s. Both fantastic however.

[G1911]

Name another pitcher who retired with 27 wins and 27 complete games in his last year. He decided not to risk any more injuries to his left arm. The guy was getting better every year. You guys get carried away with those crazy stats. By the way since he was ONLY a GOOD pitcher, name five other pitchers who you deem better. Be careful.

You obviously did not read the post you are replying too. I clarified another poster had quite explicitly said he was only good, not great, on the road. The statistics bear that judgement out. Road splits are crazy stats? We are supposed to only judge off a players last season? My list of 5 better lefties is the first reply to this thread.

Be careful? Why do I need to be careful? What’s the threat here exactly?

[Topnotchsy]

Kershaw is 49.6 innings behind Koufax.
To match Koufax he would have to do the following over his next 49.6 innings.
Lose 13 games
Give up 39 hits and walk 240 batters.
31 of those hits need to be HR's
Give up 96 Earned Runs, resulting in a nifty 17.12 ERA

And he'd still have more wins and strikeouts than Koufax. Keep in mind the difference of eras too. Koufax played in a pitching era and Kershaw in a hitter's era.
Same number of Cy Young Awards. Kershaw has 7 top 5 finishes in the award voting, Koufax has 4.

Maybe we tend to honor the baseball from the past more because we dig vintage baseball cards. But the numbers don't lie, Kershaw is better than the left arm of God.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml

That's silly, and not simply as other people have mentioned (because of the Postseason). It's silly because we all know that Koufax's career averages are not spectacular because for the first half of his career, he was mediocre. Koufax wasn't "The Left Arm of God" for his entire career. No one argues that he was. For 5 seasons he was truly spectacular.

That does nothing to take away from what Kershaw has done in his career. I think he deserves the Koufax comparisons. But comparing career totals misses the story with Koufax in my opinion.

[cammb]

You obviously did not read the post you are replying too. I clarified another poster had quite explicitly said he was only good, not great, on the road. The statistics bear that judgement out. Road splits are crazy stats? We are supposed to only judge off a players last season? My list of 5 better lefties is the first reply to this thread.

Be careful? Why do I need to be careful? What’s the threat here exactly?

Be careful who you say is better because you don't want to look like a fool. I rest my case with the players you named.

[Tabe]

These quotes are from Jane Leavy's book on Koufax.

Where are the quotes about trying to hit Koufax in 1961?


I just don't buy the idea that his road record disqualified him from being considered great. The way some people are talking, it seems like it was a moral outrage that his E.R.A wasn't below 0.00 on the road.
Nah, just trying to offset the overwrought hyperbole about Koufax. Thing is, no one is willing to explain why he was SO MUCH better at Dodger Stadium if he was truly so great?

If Koufax was so completely unhittable, why was he awful at the LA Coliseum? Careful - if you're not allowed to attribute his success to his ballpark, you don't get to blame his failures either.


In 1962, his season ended early. Yeah, his home E.R.A was significantly lower at at 1.75 compared to his road E.R.A at 3.53. But he only played half a season

False. He missed about 1/3 of the season, maybe less, making 28 starts. And he pitched in late September & October.


In 1963 the split was 1.38 at home and 2.31 away. 2.31 is an E.R.A most pitchers would kill for.

Yep, 2.31 is really good.


1964: 0.84 (astounding) to 2.93. With that 2.93 I guess they should have shipped him down to the minors.


2.93 sounds really good. Except the entire staff combined had a 2.95 all year. So he was staff-average on the road. And, while 2.93 is good, it was hardly great for the time. Wouldn't have made the top 10 in the NL, for example.

So, Koufax defenders, please explain:

1) his high ERA in 6 of 13 ballparks he pitched in?

2) why his consistent success only started when the NL expanded, the strike zone expanded, and Dodger Stadium opened? And, if it was just "well, he started throwing strikes", how do you reconcile that with the expansion of the strike zone?

Since I got asked, five pitchers better than Koufax (in no order):

1) Walter Johnson
2) Lefty Grove
3) Tom Seaver
4) Pedro Martinez
5) Roger Clemens

[G1911]

The Koufax argument is:

You must ignore context of era.

You must ignore home/road and context of ballpark.

You must ignore longevity.

You must ignore half of a players career if it doesn’t support your argument.

Fantasies of things you think could happen but did not are better evidence than things that actually did, and verifiably did, happen.

You must ignore new stats since none of them help Koufax’s case.

You must ignore the old stats that also do not help Koufax’s case.

If you don’t follow these principles, you are a fool and need to “be careful”. The passion for ones favorite ball players is admirable, but the logic of this argument has run off any rails in the ballpark of reason.

[Robbie]

[QUOTE=Tabe;1998311]Where are the quotes about trying to hit Koufax in 1961?

Where are the quotes from any player that Koufax was easy to hit off of in their ballpark?.... or that he was just a "good" or "typical" pitcher when he pitched outside of dodger stadium?

"Wooohoooo.... we get to face that "staff average" guy, Koufax... Yipeeee!!!
--- Nobody

The Anti-Koufax Arguement:
Ignores that most Hall of Famers would say Koufax was the greatest lefty they had ever seen or played against. This includes HOFers who were still alive in the early to mid 1960's who had faced great pitchers from the past. THAT is the greatest compliment there is. Statistics can be bent and used in many different ways. Sometimes you have to look at other measures. JMO

[BeanTown]

Anyone who can hit hit a flying bird, gets my vote. The Big Unit Randy Johnson would do well in any era of baseball

https://youtu.be/FCNZg2xwl54

[jgannon]

Deleted (posted twice somehow)

[jgannon]

Where are the quotes about trying to hit Koufax in 1961?


Nah, just trying to offset the overwrought hyperbole about Koufax. Thing is, no one is willing to explain why he was SO MUCH better at Dodger Stadium if he was truly so great?

If Koufax was so completely unhittable, why was he awful at the LA Coliseum? Careful - if you're not allowed to attribute his success to his ballpark, you don't get to blame his failures either.


False. He missed about 1/3 of the season, maybe less, making 28 starts. And he pitched in late September & October.


Yep, 2.31 is really good.


2.93 sounds really good. Except the entire staff combined had a 2.95 all year. So he was staff-average on the road. And, while 2.93 is good, it was hardly great for the time. Wouldn't have made the top 10 in the NL, for example.

So, Koufax defenders, please explain:

1) his high ERA in 6 of 13 ballparks he pitched in?

2) why his consistent success only started when the NL expanded, the strike zone expanded, and Dodger Stadium opened? And, if it was just "well, he started throwing strikes", how do you reconcile that with the expansion of the strike zone?




Regarding your saying that Koufax didn't play only 1/2 a season in 1962: he only appeared in 3 games in September, going 2/3 of an inning on 9/21, 2 innings on 9/23, and 5 innings on 9/27. He lost a game and his E.R.A was 8.22 for the month. Sounds like maybe he wasn't quite himself after having crushed the artery in the palm of his throwing hand. The 8.22 may have had a little to do also with raising his overall season E.R.A. Just like the E.R.A he got for the one appearance he made in October, which was 27.00 for one inning pitched in a game he got tagged for a loss.

So, after July he pitched a grand total of 8.2 innings. So, I'll stick with his pitching a 1/2 season.

You also say that the Dodgers team E.R.A. was 2.95 for the year in 1964. Without Koufax's 1.74 E.R.A added into the mix, the team's E.R.A. would have been somewhat higher, I imagine. If somebody can calculate that that would be good. I don't know just how much higher it would be.

Regarding Koufax's early career, he was of course, a bonus baby, and he didn't get a lot of playing time. He didn't get that all important time to develop in the minors. It also wasn't in Walter Alston's interest to experiment with a rookie when he had an established staff, was fighting for the pennant, and was working under one-year contracts. Jackie Robinson didn't like Alston and thought he was dumb for using Koufax so sporadically, especially after showing occasional flashes of brilliance. But Koufax obviously had some kinks to work out.

The mound had been mandated set to 15 inches in 1950, so that had been in place for some time. Did the expanded strike zone help Koufax? Yeah, I'm sure. But two things: the strike zone between 1963-1968 from the top of the shoulders to the knees, was also the strike zone from 1887-1950. The strike zone was changed from 1950-1963 to be from the armpits to the top of the knees. People here are acting as though 1963-1968 was the exception to the rule. At that time, 1950-1963 was the exception to the rule. After 1968, that strike zone was reinstated, this time with the lowered mound. But Koufax enjoyed the same strike zone as Lefty Grove and Walter Johnson, although pitching mounds during Grove and Johnson's time weren't uniform, in that back then it was stipulated that they could be "no more than" 15 inches.

And did Dodger Stadium help Koufax? I'd say yeah, it had to help. It had generous enough foul territory near the plate, and the hitting background wasn't supposed to be good (at least back then). But I think you are over-attributing his success to a ballpark. No other Dodger pitcher dominated the way Koufax did after he found his groove, although Drysdale of course was a great pitcher. Koufax DID start throwing strikes, with a legendary fastball as attested to by players like Hank Aaron in my previous post, as well as his 12 to 6 curve ball also attested to. Again, maybe the return to the larger strike zone helped Koufax. But every other major league pitcher was working with the same strike zone, and nobody put up Koufax's numbers. Give the man his due.

All the ballparks were and are different. There are short fences and long fences. Parks where the wind and the sun affect the playing field differently. It's one of the great things about baseball, in my opinion. It can lead to interesting discussions like this. But it's ridiculous to trivialize Koufax's achievements as merely being a product of location. Koufax worked under and worked with the rules, the parks, the hitters, and the style of play extant at that time, and excelled. Those are the facts.

Also, in response to the expanded league: Koufax had to face the great black and Latino players of his era, something the players of previous eras didn't have to contend with, sadly and unfortunately.

[rats60]

Where are the quotes about trying to hit Koufax in 1961?


Nah, just trying to offset the overwrought hyperbole about Koufax. Thing is, no one is willing to explain why he was SO MUCH better at Dodger Stadium if he was truly so great?

If Koufax was so completely unhittable, why was he awful at the LA Coliseum? Careful - if you're not allowed to attribute his success to his ballpark, you don't get to blame his failures either.






WHIP 4th
H/9 1st
K/9 1st
Ks 1st
K/BB 1st
FIP 1st
ERA 7th

Koufax wasn't the best lefty of all time in 1961 but he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. The left field fence at the LA Coliseum was 251 feet from home plate. Dodger Stadium a normal 330 feet and you wonder why Koufax was better in Dodger Stadium? It is common for players to do better in their home park. Sleeping in their own bed vs a hotel, no travel, familiarity with park, fan support, etc. Koufax was no different. Koufax would have been much better 1958-1961 if the Dodgers weren't playing in a football stadium with unusual dimensions, but all you want to do is criticize him for having only 5 years of a home park advantage in LA but his numbers are hurt worse for 4 in the Coliseum.

[rats60]

The Koufax argument is:

You must ignore context of era.

You must ignore home/road and context of ballpark.

You must ignore longevity.

You must ignore half of a players career if it doesn’t support your argument.

Fantasies of things you think could happen but did not are better evidence than things that actually did, and verifiably did, happen.

You must ignore new stats since none of them help Koufax’s case.

You must ignore the old stats that also do not help Koufax’s case.

If you don’t follow these principles, you are a fool and need to “be careful”. The passion for ones favorite ball players is admirable, but the logic of this argument has run off any rails in the ballpark of reason.

I haven't ignored any of these. I have addressed them all with fact and stats. However, in order to claim Grove is the best you have ignored on all the stats, ignored all the great Negro League players Grove didn't pitched to and cherry picker made up stats that are seriously flawed..

[Touch'EmAll]

Koufax pitched 12 years. And half of those years were junk. Now if you are stuck on peak value with blinders on, then yes, Koufax is your man. Building a long term team, jeez, hard to go against Grove, Randy Johnson.

[timn1]

Give me a break. This type of comparison is just plain silly if you don’t take the eras into account. ERAs in the two pitchers’ eras are so different it’s almost like a different game. And there never was a pitcher’s park like Dodger Stadium in the 1960s.

The clincher for me is the nine ERA titles Grove won. I think that’s the most amazing pitching record in baseball history.
Maybe you can explain how all the great hitters on Grove’s teams enabled him to do that.


Oh yeah, one more thought about those strikeout totals. All Grove did was lead thie league in Ks seven straight years.

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

[packs]

On a purely talent level I still think Waddell was the best lefty to ever pitch. He needed nothing but his arm to propel himself into the HOF. He lacked the mental capabilities to really pitch, but it ultimately didn't matter.

When you put it all together, I don't see how anyone could argue against Randy Johnson. He pitched at the height of the steriod era and against players who were by and large cheating, yet it didn't matter. Imagine him in a clean game. There wouldn't have even been a game.

All due respect to Koufax, but he was no Randy.

[Touch'EmAll]

If there had been the Cy Young Award when Grove pitched, how many would he have won? Somewhere between minimum 5 to as many as 7 , perhaps ?

[G1911]

I haven't ignored any of these. I have addressed them all with fact and stats. However, in order to claim Grove is the best you have ignored on all the stats, ignored all the great Negro League players Grove didn't pitched to and cherry picker made up stats that are seriously flawed..

Your entire statistical argument was predicated on ignoring context, and supposing that stats in the 1930's AL and the 1960's NL are directly comparable in the raw. You then cherrypicked only the stats that ignore that Koufax played 9 full years, and was average or below for half his career while Grove pitched nearly 2x innings. I would love to hear a coherent, logical argument as to how Foxx is responsible for Grove's 9 ERA titles and what Koufax's offense has to do with his ERA, WHIP, and anything but W/L record, a statistic I have not cited at all in support or against any candidate.

You are right, I ignored the Negro League players as there are no reliable statistics to compare with. The question posed was "All-Time" not "Since 1947". If you would like to make a thread about the best lefty since 1947 instead of all-time to disqualify Grove for being alive at the wrong time, go do that.

[Jason19th]

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

[bbcard1]

Also if Koufax had the benefit of modern medicine he probably would have been the best lefty if all time.


I don't know. Arthritis is a kind of tough draw among non-lethal diseases. A lot of advances have led to better quality of life and basic functionality, but not at a peak level of performance. I am actually really happy to see him still able to get round at his age. I have a brother in law with RA that has really had to struggle and work hard just to stay able to walk and drive.

[earlywynnfan]

Also if Koufax had the benefit of modern medicine he probably would have been the best lefty if all time.

I do love this debate and I'm actually a huge Koufax fan, but Don Mattingly would be a 1st ballot HOFer if we just looked at 4 or 5 years.

That's just my opinion obviously.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I agree with you totally on Mattingly, and I agree this is a fun debate. But if we were giving Koufax the benefit of modern medicine, we should probably give it to Grove, too, right?

[earlywynnfan]

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

I see three more seasons for Pettite and Sabathia, I wonder how close this is now? (I'm too lazy to research.)

Cool stat!!

[G1911]

I see three more seasons for Pettite and Sabathia, I wonder how close this is now? (I'm too lazy to research.)

Cool stat!!

I count 17 20 win seasons by a Yankee/Highlander, perusing Baseball Reference:

Lefty Gomez, 26 (1934)
Whitey Ford, 25 (1961)
Ron Guidry, 25 (1978)
Lefty Gomez, 24 (1932)
Whitey Ford, 24 (1963)
Herb Pennock, 23 (1926)
Tommy John, 22 (1980)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1931)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1937)
Ed Lopat, 21 (1951)
Herb Pennock, 21 (1924)
Tommy John, 21 (1979)
Ron Guidry, 21 (1983)
Andy Pettite, 21 (1996)
Andy Pettite, 21 (2003)
C.C. Sabathia, 21 (2010)
Fritz Peterson, 20 (1970)


Warren Spahn retired with 13 20 win seasons. The Yankees Lefties tied Spahn in 1980 with John's season, and passed him in 1983 with Guidry's.

Without Lefty Gomez, the Yankees would be tied with Spahn today.

[packs]

I count 17 20 win seasons by a Yankee/Highlander, perusing Baseball Reference:

Lefty Gomez, 26 (1934)
Whitey Ford, 25 (1961)
Ron Guidry, 25 (1978)
Lefty Gomez, 24 (1932)
Whitey Ford, 24 (1963)
Herb Pennock, 23 (1926)
Tommy John, 22 (1980)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1931)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1937)
Ed Lopat, 21 (1951)
Herb Pennock, 21 (1924)
Tommy John, 21 (1979)
Ron Guidry, 21 (1983)
Andy Pettite, 21 (1996)
Andy Pettite, 21 (2003)
C.C. Sabathia, 21 (2010)
Fritz Peterson, 20 (1970)


Warren Spahn retired with 13 20 win seasons. The Yankees Lefties tied Spahn in 1980 with John's season, and passed him in 1983 with Guidry's.

Without Lefty Gomez, the Yankees would be tied with Spahn today.


Listen, we would have been great with Spahn on our team but between Lefty and Guidry the Yankees won 18 championships whereas the Braves won just the one in 1957.

[G1911]

Listen, we would have been great with Spahn on our team but between Lefty and Guidry the Yankees won 18 championships whereas the Braves won just the one in 1957.

Spahn added to that 50's Yankees team would have been even more ridiculous!


Another note -
Mathewson won 20 games 13 times, Young 15, putting Spahn tied for 2nd most 20 win seasons all time, the only post-war pitcher anywhere near the top.

He led the league in wins 8 times, the 2nd most is 6, tied by Johnson, Alexander, Feller and Spaulding, who pitched on a literal all-star team that destroyed the NA. If you don't count Spaulding, Spahn has the most consecutive Win titles, at 5. Johnson and Roberts posted 4. He is one of only 3 pitchers to lead the league in 3 different decades, alongside Seaver and Feller.

Spahn really has some insane longevity and consistency records.

[cammb]

Koufax wins three Cy Young Awards, all UNANIMOUS. I rest my case.

[earlywynnfan]

Koufax wins three Cy Young Awards, all UNANIMOUS. I rest my case.

Well, you got us. Lefty Grove didn't win a single Cy Young Award, let alone unanimous.

[Touch'EmAll]

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

[G1911]

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.

[Touch'EmAll]

And we all know the story of the 1934 All-Star Game where Hubbell struck out Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons & Cronin - in a row. Legendary.

[earlywynnfan]

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.


Don't forget that Koufax pitched against some great hitters (which he did,) while Grove only pitched against white stumblebums. Pitching against Pete Rose was way tougher than pitching against wussies like "Ruth" or "Gehrig."

[G1911]

Don't forget that Koufax pitched against some great hitters (which he did,) while Grove only pitched against white stumblebums. Pitching against Pete Rose was way tougher than pitching against wussies like "Ruth" or "Gehrig."

And somehow, pitching in the most friendly park to a pitcher in the most pitcher friendly era in the last century is somehow further proof that Koufax is the GOAT.

[The Nasty Nati]

Not even close. This guy had a career that was basically only 10 years.... He won 3 Cy Youngs in just 4 years!, and he had 4 no hitters. His last 4 years he compiled a record of 97-25 with an ERA under 1.70! Plus, he was lights out in the post season.... He was a HOFer in his mid 30's!!

Only thing is, his first 7 years were nothing special. And he retired at 30, so who knows if he would have continued that 4 year dominance that he did in his late 20s.

[cammb]

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.


Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

[G1911]

Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

Thank you for clarifying. I shall amend too:



"The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"


When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, *but since they were not unanimous Koufax wins*"


A stunning logical argument.

[earlywynnfan]

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

I love Hubbell and find it sad he's pretty much forgotten except that All Star feat. He's truly great. But I don't believe his peak beats Grove's. Sure, the King won two MVP's vs. Grove's one. But the only other stat you bring up is WHIP, and I see that Hubbell led the league 6 out of 8 times, Grove 5 out of 7. Not quite sure that's dominance. If you are only looking at 'prime,' two of his best WHIP seasons are outside the prime 5!

[earlywynnfan]

Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

Forgive me, you keep resting your case but I'm not really sure what case you are trying to make. Stop dropping the mike and walking away without completing a thought. It looks like you are saying Koufax is better than Randy Johnson??

[earlywynnfan]

Only thing is, his first 7 years were nothing special. And he retired at 30, so who knows if he would have continued that 4 year dominance that he did in his late 20s.

And Grove, in 4 years of dominance in which he was older than Koufax, had a record of 108-27, then injured his arm, learned how to pitch with control instead of power, and came back and won almost 100 more games.

[G1911]

I love Hubbell and find it sad he's pretty much forgotten except that All Star feat. He's truly great. But I don't believe his peak beats Grove's. Sure, the King won two MVP's vs. Grove's one. But the only other stat you bring up is WHIP, and I see that Hubbell led the league 6 out of 8 times, Grove 5 out of 7. Not quite sure that's dominance. If you are only looking at 'prime,' two of his best WHIP seasons are outside the prime 5!

I agree with this, Hubbell is a little overshadowed by being a direct contemporary of Grove, and both are overshadowed by the context of the offensive dominance of their context. Hubbell is a top 4 lefty for me.

1. Grove
2. R. Johnson
3. Spahn
4. Hubbell

Hubbell has better peak than Spahn, but Spahn was so reliably effective for so many more innings. I think 2-4 all have valid arguments for any position in that range. 5 on down is a drop from the top 4, I think. Plank (hurt by never leading the league in much), Ford, Carlton (inconsistent) would come next I think in some order. Kershaw is climbing up and just needs solid years, not great ones, to quickly jump up the rankings. Less than 2,300 innings and the postseason is all that holds him back

[jgannon]

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

Ha! This thread is now jumping the shark. Anyway, in my last post, I said that if you're weighing the factor of expansion you could look at integration as an extra factor which made for stronger competition. This is not to say there wasn't strong competition for major league pitchers pre-integration. Of course, there was.

At any rate, again, I haven't been saying that there aren't strong cases to make for others being the greatest lefty. I am not saying that Koufax was or wasn't the greatest. But the idea that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher is ridiculous. The detractor camp is just not giving him his full due. At this point, I would say they're trying way too hard not to acknowledge him. If it comes to down to listening to what they think, and what guys like Hank Aaron think, I'll go with Aaron.

[G1911]

Ha! This thread is now jumping the shark. Anyway, in my last post, I said that if you're weighing the factor of expansion you could look at integration as an extra factor which made for stronger competition. This is not to say there wasn't strong competition for major league pitchers pre-integration. Of course, there was.

At any rate, again, I haven't been saying that there aren't strong cases to make for others being the greatest lefty. I am not saying that Koufax was or wasn't the greatest. But the idea that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher is ridiculous. The detractor camp is just not giving him his full due. At this point, I would say they're trying way too hard not to acknowledge him. If it comes to down to listening to what they think, and what guys like Hank Aaron think, I'll go with Aaron.

A) was not in reference to you, but another poster who used the integration cutoff to dismiss anyone pre-1947 pitchers.

Hanks testimony is useless, as he did not face any of the other pitchers in the discussion except Carlton. All of the guys in this thread have quotes from hitters about them being tough to bat against. That we selectively only apply this for Koufax, because statistical arguments in context cannot be found, is just one more reason he is not the greatest. The argument entirely relies on emotional appeals like this

[earlywynnfan]

I, for one, have never felt that Koufax, for 4 seasons at least and possibly even 6, wasn't great. I think he's the best pitcher of the 60's, RH or LH. I feel his lack of longevity keeps him from being best ever, and his peak, when taken in the context of eras, is not as great as Grove's.

I enjoy these topics, and I know I can come across as yelling sometimes, but that's because I love the debate, not because I think ill of someone with differing opinions.

I did learn something about Grove in this: his #1 comparable stunned me! Without looking, can anyone guess? I'll post tomorrow. Not the HOFer I was expecting!

[G1911]

I, for one, have never felt that Koufax, for 4 seasons at least and possibly even 6, wasn't great. I think he's the best pitcher of the 60's, RH or LH. I feel his lack of longevity keeps him from being best ever, and his peak, when taken in the context of eras, is not as great as Grove's.

I enjoy these topics, and I know I can come across as yelling sometimes, but that's because I love the debate, not because I think ill of someone with differing opinions.

I did learn something about Grove in this: his #1 comparable stunned me! Without looking, can anyone guess? I'll post tomorrow. Not the HOFer I was expecting!

I don’t think anyone has actually argued Koufax is merely good; one poster said Koufax was merely good, not great, on the toad and posted the math to back it up. It has turned into a talking point to argue against that nobody actually said unless I missed a post.

Since Baseball Reference similarity scores don’t adjust for era... is it Hubbell or John Clarkson? A lot of their career stats are fairly close off memory

[jgannon]

A) was not in reference to you, but another poster who used the integration cutoff to dismiss anyone pre-1947 pitchers.

Hanks testimony is useless, as he did not face any of the other pitchers in the discussion except Carlton. All of the guys in this thread have quotes from hitters about them being tough to bat against. That we selectively only apply this for Koufax, because statistical arguments in context cannot be found, is just one more reason he is not the greatest. The argument entirely relies on emotional appeals like this

Well, I believe I was the first to make a reference to integration. But maybe I missed a comment, or like you say, you were commenting in response to somebody else.

If Aaron's testimony is useless, so is that of everyone who is coming out against Koufax, because you guys didn't face him either, lol. Aaron wasn't saying Koufax was the greatest lefty ever, but was the greatest of the pitchers he had faced in his era. And yes, there are other quotes that will testify as to the greatness of the other pitchers. Who knows how players of the 30's would have felt against Koufax, and how players of the 60's would have felt against Grove or Johnson?

But I think some of the remarks I made, as well as those by a couple of the other posters haven't been reflected on enough by those deriding Koufax's pre-1963 seasons. I'm not saying that some of the things you guys have brought up didn't help Koufax. But Koufax dominated that mid-60's time frame, and it wasn't merely due to Chavez Ravine. He developed as a player. If you had put him in Chavez Ravine in the late 50's, he would not have excelled as he did when he actually arrived there. You keep saying that I am making emotional appeals. I think that you are taking too clinical an approach.

[G1911]

Well, I believe I was the first to make a reference to integration. But maybe I missed a comment, or like you say, you were commenting in response to somebody else.

If Aaron's testimony is useless, so is that of everyone who is coming out against Koufax, because you guys didn't face him either, lol. Aaron wasn't saying Koufax was the greatest lefty ever, but was the greatest of the pitchers he had faced in his era. And yes, there are other quotes that will testify as to the greatness of the other pitchers. Who knows how players of the 30's would have felt against Koufax, and how players of the 60's would have felt against Grove or Johnson?

But I think some of the remarks I made, as well as those by a couple of the other posters haven't been reflected on enough by those deriding Koufax's pre-1963 seasons. I'm not saying that some of the things you guys have brought up didn't help Koufax. But Koufax dominated that mid-60's time frame, and it wasn't merely due to Chavez Ravine. He developed as a player. If you had put him in Chavez Ravine in the late 50's, he would not have excelled as he did when he actually arrived there. You keep saying that I am making emotional appeals. I think that you are taking too clinical an approach.

Yes, it was as I said. 97. Take offense if you wish, though.

Yes, we didn't hit against him. Nobody hit against all the great lefties. Which is EXACTLY why some of us are using math and verifiable facts here; something besides completely subjective testimony of people who did not face the others discussed and so have no useful relevance.

The math suggests it WAS largely due to Chavez Ravine, as he did not have excellent numbers outside of his home park. See previous breakdowns.

Yes, I am taking a clinical approach using math and things that can be verified, instead of an emotional attachment to Koufax. The question posited was who is the best of all time, not who your favorite is.

[cammb]

Forgive me, you keep resting your case but I'm not really sure what case you are trying to make. Stop dropping the mike and walking away without completing a thought. It looks like you are saying Koufax is better than Randy Johnson??

Bingo!

[earlywynnfan]

So I dug out my Bill James Abstract to see his rankings. It's the 2001 version, so no Randy Johnson. He has Grove tops (#2 overall), then Spahn (5), and Koufax (10).
Then:
13 Hubbell
15 Carlton
22 Ford

[cammb]

I wonder how many of you mathematicians have seen Koufax pitch? I have and the players he pitched against say he was the best they had ever seen. The Yankees gave him accolades when they met in the World Series even commenting on his record of 25 and 5 stating "How did he loose 5 games?" I rest my case whether you like it or not

[earlywynnfan]

I wonder how many of you mathematicians have seen Koufax pitch? I have and the players he pitched against say he was the best they had ever seen. The Yankees gave him accolades when they met in the World Series even commenting on his record of 25 and 5 stating "How did he loose 5 games?" I rest my case whether you like it or not

How many of those yankees saw Grove pitch?

[RCMcKenzie]

I picked Valenzuela because he was the best left-hander that I witnessed. I saw Carlton and Johnson, and they were also good.

Of the players I did not see, like Koufax, Sphan, Grove etc., the most eye-popping stats belong to Ed Morris.

Over a 3 year span, from 1884-1886, Morris was 114-57. He threw 1566 innings in those 3 seasons.

[Fred]

Kind of difficult to decide on any single lefty pitcher given the different eras in which they played ball. Koufax supporters have a good case for Sandy but something that plays into this should be longevity and dominance. For Koufax, he pitched in 12 seasons but in only less than half of his career could he be considered totally dominant. So, why not pull out the best 5 years of any pitcher and see how it all shakes out. Koufax, an ace? Yes! The best lefty? Debatable.

[G1911]

How many of those yankees saw Grove pitch?

It amuses me that this kind of "evidence" is cited in support for Koufax and dismissed for everyone else (as it should be). Nobody faced all the lefties in discussion, and so "best I ever faced" is absolutely irrelevant to the question of who is best all time. Yet they keep dragging this horse out, because no mathematical arguments are really there.

Seperately,
I do not see how Valenzuela can possibly be ranked ahead of Randy Johnson.

[RCMcKenzie]

I do not see how Valenzuela can possibly be ranked ahead of Randy Johnson.

Greg, Johnson left the Astros after only half a season. He was brought in to take them to the World Series, which he did not do.

Valenzuela was always tough on the Astros. The Dodgers were in the same division, so I saw him pitch a lot. It's the same reason I think Kevin Brown is the greatest right-hander I ever saw. Rob

[Bram99]

I picked Valenzuela because he was the best left-hander that I witnessed. I saw Carlton and Johnson, and they were also good.

Of the players I did not see, like Koufax, Sphan, Grove etc., the most eye-popping stats belong to Ed Morris.

Over a 3 year span, from 1884-1886, Morris was 114-57. He threw 1566 innings in those 3 seasons.

So no one jumped on my Ruth suggestion but he had a three year span of about 2.00 average ERA, 20 wins a year and 300 innings a year. Then he went on to hit 714 home runs from the left side with over 2,200 RBI and a BA of .342 and OBP of .474 lifetime. That’s why he’s the greatest left handed ball player of all time.

Fernando? C’mon.

[RCMcKenzie]

Fernando? C’mon.

What can I say. I have a very dry sense of humor.

[G1911]

Greg, Johnson left the Astros after only half a season. He was brought in to take them to the World Series, which he did not do.

Valenzuela was always tough on the Astros. The Dodgers were in the same division, so I saw him pitch a lot. It's the same reason I think Kevin Brown is the greatest right-hander I ever saw. Rob

Now I get it ;)

[G1911]

So no one jumped on my Ruth suggestion but he had a three year span of about 2.00 average ERA, 20 wins a year and 300 innings a year. Then he went on to hit 714 home runs from the left side with over 2,200 RBI and a BA of .342 and OBP of .474 lifetime. That’s why he’s the greatest left handed ball player of all time.

Fernando? C’mon.

What is there to say? Sure, he was the most valuable left handed player who pitched, but it seems to be missing the spirit of the question if not the exact verbiage. OP obviously was referring to the best as a pitcher, which is clearly not Ruth.

[Bram99]

What is there to say? Sure, he was the most valuable left handed player who pitched, but it seems to be missing the spirit of the question if not the exact verbiage. OP obviously was referring to the best as a pitcher, which is clearly not Ruth.

Ok now I get it. My other choice was either going to be Einstein or Oprah.

[Jim65]

Koufax wins three Cy Young Awards, all UNANIMOUS. I rest my case.

Which makes him the best lefty of his era, not best of all time.

[rats60]

Your entire statistical argument was predicated on ignoring context, and supposing that stats in the 1930's AL and the 1960's NL are directly comparable in the raw. You then cherrypicked only the stats that ignore that Koufax played 9 full years, and was average or below for half his career while Grove pitched nearly 2x innings. I would love to hear a coherent, logical argument as to how Foxx is responsible for Grove's 9 ERA titles and what Koufax's offense has to do with his ERA, WHIP, and anything but W/L record, a statistic I have not cited at all in support or against any candidate.

You are right, I ignored the Negro League players as there are no reliable statistics to compare with. The question posed was "All-Time" not "Since 1947". If you would like to make a thread about the best lefty since 1947 instead of all-time to disqualify Grove for being alive at the wrong time, go do that.

No it wasn’t. I get it if you just want to ignore what is posted that you don’t agree with, but you have never addressed any of my points. I have addressed yours. We can just agree to disagree.

[rats60]

Which makes him the best lefty of his era, not best of all time.

Yet, the same argument is being made for Grove because he won more ERA titles. The difference is that Koufax did that against much tougher competition. To be unanimous over Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, Bunning, Perry and Sutton is far more impressive. He did that by winning the pitching triple crown each year as well as leading in most other stats. Grove was the best lefty of his era, but if he was truly great, why could he only pitch 35 shutouts in 17 seasons?

[Jim65]

Yet, the same argument is being made for Grove because he won more ERA titles. The difference is that Koufax did that against much tougher competition. To be unanimous over Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, Bunning, Perry and Sutton is far more impressive. He did that by winning the pitching triple crown each year as well as leading in most other stats. Grove was the best lefty of his era, but if he was truly great, why could he only pitch 35 shutouts in 17 seasons?

I never made an argument about Groves ERA titles. I was replying to a post about Koufax 3 unanimous Cy Youngs.

Cy Youngs are not fair judge of pitchers of different eras, only fair when judging contemporaries since their in direct competition.

[jgannon]

Yes, it was as I said. 97. Take offense if you wish, though.

Yes, we didn't hit against him. Nobody hit against all the great lefties. Which is EXACTLY why some of us are using math and verifiable facts here; something besides completely subjective testimony of people who did not face the others discussed and so have no useful relevance.

The math suggests it WAS largely due to Chavez Ravine, as he did not have excellent numbers outside of his home park. See previous breakdowns.

Yes, I am taking a clinical approach using math and things that can be verified, instead of an emotional attachment to Koufax. The question posited was who is the best of all time, not who your favorite is.

Oh hey, there are no bad vibes. I wasn't at all offended. It just seemed like there were a string of a couple of sarcastic remarks by a couple of the guys, and when I saw the one I responded to, I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. This is a great discussion, and I have learned a lot from it. I will acknowledge that Chavez Ravine was an asset for Koufax, but not the reason for his greatness.

After we spoke last night, I decided to look a bit more at the stats, and I came up with what I feel is statistical proof that bears out my point.

If you break down Koufax's home and away E.R.A's year by year, they go like this:

1955

Home 2.25
Away 4.08


1956

Home 7.50
Away 3.76


1957

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1958

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1959

Home 2.71
Away 5.50


1960

Home 5.27
Away 3.00


1961

Home 4.22
Away 2.77



1962

Home 1.75
Away 3.53



1963

Home 1.38
Away 2.31



1964

Home 0.85
Away 2.93



1965

Home 1.38
Away 2.72



1966

Home 1.52
Away 1.96



Okay. If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

'I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.


1.96, his last year.


To make the claim that Chavez Ravine was largely responsible for Koufax's improvement, as evidenced by the significant improvement of Koufax's record on the road, where he had to deal with everything every other visiting pitcher had to deal with in those parks, makes the claim that Chavez Ravine made Koufax the pitcher he was, preposterous. Again, look at Koufax's stats on the road from 1955-1960, and then from 1961 onward. Koufax became a better pitcher because he changed his approach toward pitching. His stats may have been helped somewhat at home by pitching at Chavez, but given his overall improvement, as evidenced by what his E.R.A. was on the road, the argument that Chavez was responsible for his improvement, collapses.

Also, one should take into account that he struck out 269 batters in 1961, which was the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine, and took place after the Norm Sherry conversation.

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

[Mark17]

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

[rats60]

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

This is a good point. Hubbell was better than Grove. 2.98 ERA to 3.06. 1.166 WHIP to 1.278. In fact of the top 8 lefties, Grove had the worst WHIP of all. Kershaw is really the only one close to Koufax, it could be argued that he was the better regular season pitcher, but his poor pitching in the postseason makes him #2.

1. Koufax
2. Kershaw
3. Ford
4. Hubbell
5. Johnson
6. Grove
7. Carlton
8. Spahn

3 and 4 are close, 5-8 are close, but there are 3 clear tiers.

[jgannon]

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

That's right, because he was great and they were not. If they hadn't been in the league he would have posted great numbers as well.

[rats60]

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

This really isn't an argument. Expansion was necessary because of the influx of minority talent. The Angels went 86-76 and finished 3rd in the AL their 2nd season. Expansion really only applies to a season or maybe two, after that it is management, like any other team, that determines if they are good or bad and there are going to be bad teams in every era. After all, why did Maris set the HR record in 1961 and then Mantle or someone else come along the next season and break it or come close? Players had huge jumps in performance in the AL in 1961 and then regressed back to the norm after that.

[wondo]

Forgot to add that Koufax had virtually no run support


Park effect - partially why his numbers are also so good.

[earlywynnfan]

Yet, the same argument is being made for Grove because he won more ERA titles. The difference is that Koufax did that against much tougher competition. To be unanimous over Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, Bunning, Perry and Sutton is far more impressive. He did that by winning the pitching triple crown each year as well as leading in most other stats. Grove was the best lefty of his era, but if he was truly great, why could he only pitch 35 shutouts in 17 seasons?

I'd like to focus on stats that are important to you, so please help me:
WHIP, SHUTOUTS, and STRIKEOUTS: most important

ERA and WINS: maybe; wins subjective to team

WAR: Made-up and useless

What about ERA+?


Also, era discrepancies like vastly different batting averages and runs scored when compared between the early 1930's and mid-1960's are because the pitching was so deep and talented in the 1960's, correct? Even though you listed the amazing hitters Koufax had to pitch to?

Does the fact that Grove was often called in as an effective reliever matter?

[999Tony]

As others gave said, Grove’s four year peak is equal or better than koufax, and his peak and career about twice the length of koufax. Koufax had some great years but Grove was just as dominant and for much longer. Les the league in strikeouts seven straight years, wins several years, complete games three years in a row, even led the league in saves one year. More than twice the war and even bigger individual seasons.

Didn’t just lead in era, also in era plus and fip so he really was that dominant.

[packs]

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

[earlywynnfan]

Googled "best left handed pitchers of all time" to see what others were writing. Sites I heard of like yardbarker and ESPN, some I've never heard of. Clicked the first 8-10, several chose Grove, several chose Koufax. Saw a Spahn and an RJ, but no love for Hubbell, Carlton, or Plank, at least not as their #1.

[earlywynnfan]

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

[packs]

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

[G1911]

Oh hey, there are no bad vibes. I wasn't at all offended. It just seemed like there were a string of a couple of sarcastic remarks by a couple of the guys, and when I saw the one I responded to, I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. This is a great discussion, and I have learned a lot from it. I will acknowledge that Chavez Ravine was an asset for Koufax, but not the reason for his greatness.

After we spoke last night, I decided to look a bit more at the stats, and I came up with what I feel is statistical proof that bears out my point.

If you break down Koufax's home and away E.R.A's year by year, they go like this:

1955

Home 2.25
Away 4.08


1956

Home 7.50
Away 3.76


1957

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1958

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1959

Home 2.71
Away 5.50


1960

Home 5.27
Away 3.00


1961

Home 4.22
Away 2.77



1962

Home 1.75
Away 3.53



1963

Home 1.38
Away 2.31



1964

Home 0.85
Away 2.93



1965

Home 1.38
Away 2.72



1966

Home 1.52
Away 1.96



Okay. If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

'I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.


1.96, his last year.


To make the claim that Chavez Ravine was largely responsible for Koufax's improvement, as evidenced by the significant improvement of Koufax's record on the road, where he had to deal with everything every other visiting pitcher had to deal with in those parks, makes the claim that Chavez Ravine made Koufax the pitcher he was, preposterous. Again, look at Koufax's stats on the road from 1955-1960, and then from 1961 onward. Koufax became a better pitcher because he changed his approach toward pitching. His stats may have been helped somewhat at home by pitching at Chavez, but given his overall improvement, as evidenced by what his E.R.A. was on the road, the argument that Chavez was responsible for his improvement, collapses.

Also, one should take into account that he struck out 269 batters in 1961, which was the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine, and took place after the Norm Sherry conversation.

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

When I brought up the road argument, it is because another poster said his road numbers were good, not great, and then the Koufax advocates tried to claim that he was being labelled as good, not great, overall. I clarified the distinction that was explicit from the first.

For the record, I think Koufax was a great pitcher from 1962-1966. He was a good pitcher in 1961 (and in the 41 innings he pitched in 1955, actually). He was mediocre 1956-1960 (actually, he was terrible in 1956). If Babe Ruth had 4 or 5 great years, he wouldn't be the greatest of all time either.

The math is compelling on the road though. His away ERA in his turning year you highlight of 1962 was actually higher than the 2 previous years. In 1964 his road ERA is 300% more than his home. It is only 1963 and 1966 that his road ERA is significantly better than it was 'before' the magic turn that just happened to coincide perfectly with adjustments to his park and context that greatly favored him. He pitched in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in one of the most pitcher-friendly periods of baseball history, and his home/road splits are drastic. It is difficult not to link the two.

When you take his road/home splits which are drastic, and factor in context (very low run league, pitchers era, high mound, ballpark extremely favorable to pitchers, expansion era, very short peak) the math does not suggest that he was the greatest ever, that his road performance was anywhere near his home performance, and highlights exactly why he put up such great numbers.

Context matters, it would be remiss to look at Bonds' stats and ignore that they happened on steroids during an offensive era that dominated baseball. It would be remiss to ignore Helton put up his numbers at Coors, even if to place into context does not mean that he was not an excellent player. It doesn't mean Sandy wasn't a great pitcher, though for a short time, or he shouldn't be someone's favorite. If the discussion is "best of all time", then it needs to be supported by the math in context or we are just praising whoever we like. No math suggests that Koufax's 4 years were more dominating than Grove's 9, or that his home ballpark was not a massive factor in his favor.

[G1911]

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of season as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher. Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

Isn't the Koufax argument that WAR is useless though because it rewards longevity? I think Drysdale was an excellent pitcher and is not an undeserving Hall of Famers, but this argument does contradict the Koufax arguments.

Vance won the ERA crown at 39 and is most famous for being a late bloomer, and 1931 is pretty deep into Grove's career. At age 40, Vance led the league in FIP still.

Vance: 1915, 1918, 1922-1935
Grove: 1925-1941

Vance's real first full year in the majors was 1922 (he pitched 30 innings in 1915, 2 in 1918), Grove's was 1925, 3 years later.

If these are not contemporaries, then Babe Ruth wasn't Lou Gehrig's contemporary either. Mike Trout is not Miguel Cabrera's.

[packs]

Contemporaries in the sense that they were in their primes at the same time. I would not say Gehrig and DiMaggio are contemporaries just because some seasons overlapped. And like I said, Drysdale and Gomez pitched the same number of seasons.

[G1911]

Contemporaries in the sense that they were in their primes at the same time. I would not say Gehrig and DiMaggio are contemporaries just because some seasons overlapped.

1922-1935
1925-1941

They overlapped for 11 seasons. Vance's peak years were 1924-1931. Only one of them was Grove not in the Majors as a full time pitcher too. Grove's peak was 1926-1939; his peak began 2 years after Vance's, overlapped for 6 seasons, and then Grove had a long, productive career that Vance did not. Most of their best seasons overlap, and pretty much all of Vance's productive career except for one season.

Gehrig: 1923-1939
Dimaggio: 1936-1951

Grove started 3 years after Vance, Dimaggio 13 years after Gehrig.

There have to be better arguments than here than denying timelines which are easily available.

[packs]

1922-1935
1925-1941

They overlapped for 11 seasons. Vance's peak years were 1924-1931. Only one of them was Grove not in the Majors as a full time pitcher too. Grove's peak was 1926-1939; his peak began 2 years after Vance's, overlapped for 6 seasons, and then Grove had a long, productive career that Vance did not. Most of their best seasons overlap, and pretty much all of Vance's productive career except for one season.

Gehrig: 1923-1939
Dimaggio: 1936-1951

Grove started 3 years after Vance, Dimaggio 13 years after Gehrig.

There have to be better arguments than here than denying timelines which are easily available.


Haha ok. Let's talk about time. Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

[Tabe]

Where are the quotes about trying to hit Koufax in 1961?

Where are the quotes from any player that Koufax was easy to hit off of in their ballpark?.... or that he was just a "good" or "typical" pitcher when he pitched outside of dodger stadium?

"Wooohoooo.... we get to face that "staff average" guy, Koufax... Yipeeee!!!
--- Nobody

Don't need quotes for that, the numbers tell us.

QUOTE=Robbie;1998316]
The Anti-Koufax Arguement:
Ignores that most Hall of Famers would say Koufax was the greatest lefty they had ever seen or played against. This includes HOFers who were still alive in the early to mid 1960's who had faced great pitchers from the past. THAT is the greatest compliment there is. Statistics can be bent and used in many different ways. Sometimes you have to look at other measures. JMO

That makes no sense. The statistics tell us what happened.

The guys you're talking about aren't discussing Koufax's entire career. They're not giving us big picture. They're remembering the four years where he dominated and ignoring the rest. Their stories are great, and add to the picture, but they don't tell us everything.

[G1911]

Haha ok. Let's talk about time. Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

Vance had a short career, like Koufax (though for very different reasons and in a very different pattern). This is what keeps him form being in the conversation of the best ever.

However, as all of his good years except for 1 overlap with Grove's career, how can we pretend he is not a contemporary?

[packs]

I just explained it to you. Unless you think Grove's prime was in the 20s and not the 30s.

[G1911]

I just explained it to you. Unless you think Grove's prime was in the 20s and not the 30s.

Grove's prime begins in 1926, when he won the ERA crown. It ended in 1939, because he had a very long prime (hence why many of us rank him higher than 5 years of Koufax. Vance is a contemporary, though Vance burned out sooner (because he didn't reach the majors for real until he was 31 years old).

Vance's career is shorter for Grove's. But for almost all of his prime years, he was an exact direct contemporary of Grove. Are we really going to argue that 1924 alone means he is not a contemporary of Grove?

[Tabe]

So, after July he pitched a grand total of 8.2 innings. So, I'll stick with his pitching a 1/2 season.
26 starts is more than half a season :)


You also say that the Dodgers team E.R.A. was 2.95 for the year in 1964. Without Koufax's 1.74 E.R.A added into the mix, the team's E.R.A. would have been somewhat higher, I imagine. If somebody can calculate that that would be good. I don't know just how much higher it would be.

Looks like it would go up to 3.17.

Give the man his due.

I have.


But it's ridiculous to trivialize Koufax's achievements as merely being a product of location.

And yet he didn't reproduce that success *anywhere* else. Of all the ballparks he pitched at more than 5 times, only Connie Mack Stadium in Philly is even close - a 2.16 ERA. *EVERYWHERE* other than Dodger Stadium*, he gave up at least 50% more runs. Nearly half, his ERA was 3.50 or higher - and increase of at least 155%. It's naive to think that location didn't have a BIG part in his success.

* - among ballparks with at least 6 starts.


Also, in response to the expanded league: Koufax had to face the great black and Latino players of his era, something the players of previous eras didn't have to contend with, sadly and unfortunately.
Yeah, those Mets and Astros teams were powerhouses :)

In all seriousness, this is definitely a big plus in Koufax's favor.

[packs]

Vance was a guy who was still pitching. He was no longer Dazzy Vance. Grove is clearly the pitcher of the 30s, because that is the decade dominated. No one refers to Grove as the pitcher of the 20s. You COULD make an argument that Vance was one of the best pitchers of the 20s. There is no argument for Vance in the 30s. Therefore, prime years are obviously different.

[Tabe]

The left field fence at the LA Coliseum was 251 feet from home plate. Dodger Stadium a normal 330 feet and you wonder why Koufax was better in Dodger Stadium?
This is an intentional misstatement/misinterpretation of what I've said:

I specifically excluded Koufax's LA Coliseum numbers earlier for the very reason you mentioned.

I don't wonder why Koufax was better in Dodger Stadium vs the Coliseum. It's obvious.

HOWEVER...

Multiple people are in this thread saying (paraphrase) that the ballpark doesn't matter, Koufax was just plain great. Well, if that's the case, why the failures at the LA Coliseum? If the ballpark doesn't matter, you gotta explain his failures at the Coliseum some other way. Obviously, you can't, because the ballpark DOES matter. This is completely accepted when it comes to hitters - remember all the "what if Williams and DiMaggio switched stadiums?" debates? or all the grief thrown at Jim Rice, Larry Walker, and Chuck Klein - but for some reason, it's not for pitchers. Even in cases where it's blatantly obvious, like Koufax.

[earlywynnfan]

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

Sorry, got you and Rats mixed up. He's arguing Koufax because WAR is garbage. If you want to argue WAR for Drysdale vs Gomez, then you must support Grove over Koufax, because Grove's WAR is higher no matter how you want to look at it: career, peak, top season.

[Tabe]

I wonder how many of you mathematicians have seen Koufax pitch? I have and the players he pitched against say he was the best they had ever seen. The Yankees gave him accolades when they met in the World Series even commenting on his record of 25 and 5 stating "How did he loose 5 games?" I rest my case whether you like it or not

How many of the games you watched Koufax pitch were in Crosley Field or the Coliseum or took place in 1960?

[G1911]

Vance was a guy who was still pitching. He was no longer Dazzy Vance. Grove is clearly the pitcher of the 30s, because that is the decade dominated. No one refers to Grove as the pitcher of the 20s. You COULD make an argument that Vance was one of the best pitchers of the 20s. There is no argument for Vance in the 30s. Therefore, prime years are obviously different.

Except Vance's prime directly overlaps, except for 1 single year. Vance has a short career, and thus Grove's prime extends longer. This does not mean Vance was not Grove's contemporary.

1924: Vance's prime begins, Baltimore won't sell Grove

1925: Grove's career begins, he wins the K crown but it's not actually a great year, Vance leads in Wins, K's, and FIP.

1926: Grove's prime begins in 1926 when he wins the ERA crown. Vance leads the NL in FIP

1927: Grove posts a 132 ERA+ and leads the league in K's. Vance leads the NL in FIP again, and K's as well

1928: Grove leads in FIP, K's and Wins. Vance wins the ERA title and K crown

1929: Grove wins ERA, K's, FIP. Vance has an off year, though well above league average.

1930: Grove wins K crown, ERA title, and Wins with 28. Vance leads the league in ERA and is the best pitcher in the NL again.

1931: Grove has his greatest year, winning 31 games and an ERA over twice as good as the league average, leading in almost everything. Vance has his last prime year, leading in FIP.

1932: Grove dominates the AL again, ERA crown. Vance has his last qualifying year, an average season.

Vance pitches 1933-1935 as partial seasons and hangs up his cleats. Grove continues to dominate as he has one of the longest peak year stretches in baseball history.


This is like saying Bob Gibson and Juan Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax, because their primes lasted longer than Sandy's who burned out early. Are we going to make this argument too, or is Sandy again treated differently?

The dates are clear, and easily verifiable.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/grovele01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vanceda01.shtml

[G1911]

How many of the games you watched Koufax pitch were in Crosley Field or the Coliseum or took place in 1960?

Hey, nobody can judge unless they saw Grove pitch too then by his standards. Any takers? :)

[packs]

You can't use my logic against me because my logic is sound. If you use your logic, you could say Robin Roberts and Sandy Koufax were contemporaries. And you'd be right about seasons overlapping but miss the point entirely when it came to their primes.

[Tabe]

I just wanna chime and say I'm loving the debate. Thanks guys.

[G1911]

You can't use my logic against me because my logic is sound. If you use your logic, you could say Robin Roberts and Sandy Koufax were contemporaries. And you'd be right about seasons overlapping but miss the point entirely when it came to their primes.

I just gave you a year by year breakdown and source. Vance's PRIME overlaps almost entirely with Grove, except for 1924 alone.

Koufax's prime began 6 years after Roberts' ended (though he was excellent in 1958 as well).

The Gibson/Marichal situation is exactly the same as the Vance/Grove situation. Guy with short career gets his prime going a year or two early (1961 for Koufax, 1961 or 1962 for Gibson, 1963 for Marichal), overlap for the entirety of the shorter career patchers rest of career, and then the longer-lasting pitcher goes for several more years after shorter one burns out.

Holding Sandy, again, to different standards is not logic, it is the absence of it.

[packs]

Not really. You cherry picked some stats that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. What we're talking about is laid out below:

Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

[G1911]

Not really. You cherry picked some stats that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. What we're talking about is laid out below:

Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

It is hardly cherry picking, it is literally every single year of Vance's productive career spelled out and sourced. Yes, Grove went longer. That is the point. If Grove doesn't count because he had a long career, then Marichal and Gibson are not contemporaries of Koufax, because he burned out early and they kept posting peak years.

EDIT: I would love to know what prime year of Vance's I did not include, since I was "cherry picking". Please be specific.

[packs]

Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.

When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.

The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles (it's the first thing listed on his plaque). He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.

[G1911]

Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.

When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.

The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles. He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.

So you can't identify a single year to support your claim. No, they didn't have FIP, but it's a quick and handy way to break out the prime years without copying in 30 different stats and taking 2 hours. I gave the source link, you can see for yourself. Vance's prime overlaps with Grove, every year except 1924. They both dominated the late 1920's to 1930, and then Vance washes out, like Koufax.

Vance is older because his career begins at age 31. His overlap with Grove is the SAME as Marichal's with Koufax (actually, Vance and Grove have more career overlap years than Koufax and Marichal or Koufax and Gibson). Grove and Vance were in different leagues, so obviously they did not draw MVP votes against each other. I am sure you are aware that that is terrible argument to make.

Again, different standards for Koufax than everyone else, because we need to show that Koufax had strong competition and Grove pitched against a bunch of nobody pitchers. These arguments are growing increasingly absurd, rather than actually making a reasoned case for the Koufax claims.

[packs]

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

[G1911]

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

[packs]

I give in.

[Touch'EmAll]

Just looking at ERA - Home vs Away, Koufax' peak years significantly (over .50) better at Home. Career totals for Grove...Home ERA 3.04, Away ERA 3.05

Then I looked at Bob Gibson, Career ERA Home 3.08, Away 2.76

And Gibson's historic year 1968 Home ERA 1.41, Away 0.81

Wonder what Gibby's numbers would look like if he pitched where Koufax did - Dodger Stadium.

Just a note - mid 1930's NL league batting average about .275 and mid 1960's NL league batting average about .251

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

[Tabe]

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.
Looking up his 1968 again, some stuff:

- Gibson had a 2.14 ERA in his losses. I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he had 9 losses in 1968.

- He had a four-game losing streak. He had a 1.87 ERA during that streak.

- His ERA after the Sept 2nd game was 0.99.

- His shortest starts were 7 IP, in each of his first two starts. After that, 8 IP minimum in every start, including 11 twice, and 12 once.

- Never once lifted in the middle of an inning. So never once knocked out of a game.

- Tied the record for fewest appearances (34) while throwing 300+ innings.

[Robbie]

That makes no sense. The statistics tell us what happened.

I guess... if you believe statistics tell the whole story, and sums up baseball.
I don't. There is much more to this beautiful game and individual's greatness than just these numbers being thrown back and forth.

But, for you stat/science heads, if you really want to use your method to "tell what happened..." you forgot to analyze the molecular structure of the infield dirt at each Pitcher's home park (I think each granule was .000000000001229 larger in Lefty Grove's home park than at Dodger Stadium, giving Grove's infielders a significant advantage over time on Koufax by increasing ground-outs), humidity and air pressure, tides and gravitational forces (including the number and average weight of fans at the stadium)... and this should be done for every game pitched for each of these top left-handed pitchers.

In other words... statistics leave things out.

Let me ask a question. Which one of the top 10 mentioned Left-Handed Pitchers specifically worked with ANOTHER PITCHER on the top 10 list to develop their pitching skills?

There is only one... and it is Sandy Koufax. He worked with Clayton Kershaw from very early in Kershaw's career to become the Pitcher he is. Does Kershaw's curve remind you of anyone else's? :)

Does this add to Koufax's greatness as a Pitcher?... that he can teach greatness to the player who was the young potential great of this era? I say HELL YES!!! But, where are the statistics for this accomplishment that none of the others can claim?

PS... We're all just having fun debate here. Please don't take anything personally.

[G1911]

I guess... if you believe statistics tell the whole story, and sums up baseball.
I don't. There is much more to this beautiful game and individual's greatness than just these numbers being thrown back and forth.

But, for you stat/science heads, if you really want to use your method to "tell what happened..." you forgot to analyze the molecular structure of the infield dirt at each Pitcher's home park (I think each granule was .000000000001229 larger in Lefty Grove's home park than at Dodger Stadium, giving Grove's infielders a significant advantage over time on Koufax by increasing ground-outs), humidity and air pressure, tides and gravitational forces (including the number and average weight of fans at the stadium)... and this should be done for every game pitched for each of these top left-handed pitchers.

In other words... statistics leave things out.

Let me ask a question. Which one of the top 10 mentioned Left-Handed Pitchers specifically worked with ANOTHER PITCHER on the top 10 list to develop their pitching skills?

There is only one... and it is Sandy Koufax. He worked with Clayton Kershaw from very early in Kershaw's career to become the Pitcher he is. Does Kershaw's curve remind you of anyone else's? :)

Does this add to Koufax's greatness as a Pitcher?... that he can teach greatness to the player who was the young potential great of this era? I say HELL YES!!! But, where are the statistics for this accomplishment that none of the others can claim?

PS... We're all just having fun debate here. Please don't take anything personally.

I don’t think coaching has much to do with who the best pitcher was. Otherwise, we must conclude that Johnny Sain is better than Walter Johnson, for Johnson failed and Sain is legendary as a coach. It’s separate. When ranking 3B, we don’t put John McGraw at the top because of his managerial career.

If we throw out statistics, what is the basis for our reasoning? How do we prove or make a reasoned case for anyone, without numbers or verifiable data? There must be some standard to replace it with

[CMIZ5290]

1. Grove
2. Kershaw
3. Johnson
4. Carlton
5. Koufax
6. Spahn

Grove - 9 ERA titles is sheer dominance over an extended period of time - no questions asked.

Kershaw - possibly on pace to be the best ever but still falls somewhat short to Grove. His WHIP; K/BB & ERA numbers are incredible.

Johnson - took him a while to figure it out, but when he did, his peak value numbers are top 5-10 of all-time for ALL pitchers

Carlton - great longevity & peak value but a few inexplicable very poor seasons (including 20 losses) place him a notch below Johnson

Koufax - best peak value lefty of all-time but 5 dominating seasons just doesn’t cut it with regard to being the best ever. You can say all you want IF he had longevity he would be the best ever.....true. But, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. “IFs” simply don’t cut it in the world of rankings.

Spahn - VERY underrated. Most southpaw wins of all-time. Issue with Spahn is he could not dominate a lineup at the level of the 5 pitchers above him.

No offense, but for you to place Sandy Koufax below Steve Carlton is laughable....

[rats60]

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

[G1911]

No offense, but for you to place Sandy Koufax below Steve Carlton is laughable....

Carlton’s best years of 1972, 1969, 1977 and 1980 are just a bit below Koufax’s 4 year run, though I think Carlton in 72 is probably the best single year either of them had. Carlton pitched over 2x as many innings, which is massive value, and was effective until age 40. Koufax’s bit better peak, or double the amount of good seasons? I can see it either way, but would take Carlton’s large number of good seasons + a peak not that far below, though oddly spaced out and no consecutive (which surely gives Koufax a bit wider gap on the peak).

[G1911]

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

I never said he was competing against Vance for league leads. Read it again, it even credits them for winning crows in the same exact year. Vance’s peak directly and absolutely overlaps Grove’s. The claim was that it did not, which is 100% false, as we can see who did what in what year. Grove was starting his run as the best in the AL as Vance had his brief peak as the best NL pitcher.

I am amazed that the year well-documented events happened is so controversial.

[Touch'EmAll]

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

[Tabe]

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

Absolutely does matter, no question. Koufax was great in every single start. Kershaw has been pretty mediocre overall - a bunch of good starts mixed with a bunch of bad starts and a handful of good/awful relief appearances. I do wonder how Sandy would have fared pitching in the current postseason format of 3 rounds.

[Jim65]

Why are we expected to look at Koufax extremely dominant years and disregard his bad years? His 4 year span might be the greatest ever but his career was 12 years not 4. Those bad years were also him pitching and have to be considered when judging him against other all-time greats

[earlywynnfan]

Why are we expected to look at Koufax extremely dominant years and disregard his bad years? His 4 year span might be the greatest ever but his career was 12 years not 4. Those bad years were also him pitching and have to be considered when judging him against other all-time greats

I think we're all debating the "peak." Otherwise, anyone who'd take Koufax's career over Grove, Spahn, Johnson, or Carlton is pretty crazy.

[Edwolf1963]

I vote for Josh Towers ��

.. she-it, he’s a righty. Um, OK, Tippy Martinez then ��

[jgannon]

When I brought up the road argument, it is because another poster said his road numbers were good, not great, and then the Koufax advocates tried to claim that he was being labelled as good, not great, overall. I clarified the distinction that was explicit from the first.

For the record, I think Koufax was a great pitcher from 1962-1966. He was a good pitcher in 1961 (and in the 41 innings he pitched in 1955, actually). He was mediocre 1956-1960 (actually, he was terrible in 1956). If Babe Ruth had 4 or 5 great years, he wouldn't be the greatest of all time either.

The math is compelling on the road though. His away ERA in his turning year you highlight of 1962 was actually higher than the 2 previous years. In 1964 his road ERA is 300% more than his home. It is only 1963 and 1966 that his road ERA is significantly better than it was 'before' the magic turn that just happened to coincide perfectly with adjustments to his park and context that greatly favored him. He pitched in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in one of the most pitcher-friendly periods of baseball history, and his home/road splits are drastic. It is difficult not to link the two.

When you take his road/home splits which are drastic, and factor in context (very low run league, pitchers era, high mound, ballpark extremely favorable to pitchers, expansion era, very short peak) the math does not suggest that he was the greatest ever, that his road performance was anywhere near his home performance, and highlights exactly why he put up such great numbers.

Context matters, it would be remiss to look at Bonds' stats and ignore that they happened on steroids during an offensive era that dominated baseball. It would be remiss to ignore Helton put up his numbers at Coors, even if to place into context does not mean that he was not an excellent player. It doesn't mean Sandy wasn't a great pitcher, though for a short time, or he shouldn't be someone's favorite. If the discussion is "best of all time", then it needs to be supported by the math in context or we are just praising whoever we like. No math suggests that Koufax's 4 years were more dominating than Grove's 9, or that his home ballpark was not a massive factor in his favor.

Longevity seems to be what's at issue for many here. The early part of Koufax's career seems to cancel out for many, any claims Koufax would have to being the greatest of all-time. I understand the argument. If everybody wants to go for Grove, that's fine. I'm not saying Grove wasn't great. He of course, was. I'm just arguing against those who seem to want to downplay just how great Koufax was by overplaying the Chavez angle, the mound, strike zone, and expansion.

I have said Chavez was an asset. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on it, rather than the conscious change on Koufax's part as to how he pitched. And 1961 was the year he changed direction.

I don't care by what percentage his road E.R.A was higher in 1964 over his home E.R.A. You want to say how easy it was to pitch at Chavez. Don Drysdale was no slouch, and his E.R.A that year was 2.02. He was a great pitcher. Why wasn't he down at 0.85? I guess one could go on and on trying to uncover the nuances of just went into all of these statistics. You seem to want to concentrate on the park. I am not saying the park wasn't a factor. But it was not the cause. If Koufax hadn't become a better pitcher, Chavez Ravine wouldn't have helped him.

Also in regard to guys like Grove and Walter Johnson: they enjoyed the same strike zone Koufax did. The height of the mounds varied in those days, as the rules only stipulated that they couldn't be more than 15". But who's to say some of them weren't 15".

The 1960's were a pitching dominant era, because there were great pitchers, who pitched with the strike zone that had existed for the better part of baseball's history up until that time. Some of the game's greatest hitters played then as well who had great offensive numbers. If it's referred to as the second dead ball era, it is not because the ball itself was dead, but because it is much too lively today and everything benefits the hitters.

If you want to use expansion to try to eclipse what Koufax did well what can I say? Knock yourself out, I guess. But you can start throwing in all sorts of intangibles like traveling and night baseball, as well the broadening of the talent pool with the inclusion of black and Latino players.

Looking at Grove's E.R.A.'s I'm surprised that he's getting a pass on winning over 20 games a couple of years with E.R.A.'s over 3.00.

Finally again, I understand the longevity argument if you're going to argue for a best of all-time. I think Koufax's case is unique for consideration with a short career. Many players take a couple of years to get off the ground. Koufax took a little longer for the reasons I explained. But once he did, what he did was phenomenal. What makes his peak so interesting, is that it stopped at it's height, unlike most players, who usually go downhill. Koufax struggled and surmounted his control issues, and dazzled more and more each year. Three times his E.R.A. was under 2.00. It's looks like we're going to disagree as to why he was as great as he was and just how great. But that's okay. I've really enjoyed discussing this with you.

Really quick, when speaking about context, I agree that one can't ignore that Bonds took steroids. But that was cheating. Koufax was a champion in every sense of the word.

[jgannon]

26 starts is more than half a season :)


Looks like it would go up to 3.17.

I have.



And yet he didn't reproduce that success *anywhere* else. Of all the ballparks he pitched at more than 5 times, only Connie Mack Stadium in Philly is even close - a 2.16 ERA. *EVERYWHERE* other than Dodger Stadium*, he gave up at least 50% more runs. Nearly half, his ERA was 3.50 or higher - and increase of at least 155%. It's naive to think that location didn't have a BIG part in his success.

* - among ballparks with at least 6 starts.


Yeah, those Mets and Astros teams were powerhouses :)

In all seriousness, this is definitely a big plus in Koufax's favor.


Regarding whether 1962 was half a season - yes he pitched more than a half a season! I was just thinking of his stopping pitching July 17th as roughly being mid-season with August and September (and October) still to go.

As to the rest of it, I've said all I have to say!!

[jgannon]

Absolutely does matter, no question. Koufax was great in every single start. Kershaw has been pretty mediocre overall - a bunch of good starts mixed with a bunch of bad starts and a handful of good/awful relief appearances. I do wonder how Sandy would have fared pitching in the current postseason format of 3 rounds.

Ok, just one more thing.

I suspect, pretty damn well.

[earlywynnfan]

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

Agree. Kershaw might end up with top-10 career stats, but his current postseason record is what we'll remember.

Sorta like AROD vs Reggie. AROD was a much better player, but nobody wanted to see him batting for the home team in the WS! (Well, I did, but I'm a life-long yankee hater.)

[Kenmarks]

Agree with the consensus that longevity counts in determining the GOAT left-hander. But for me, if it was one game my team needed to win, I chose Koufax to pitch for me (and I am a die-hard Giant fan!!)

[G1911]

Longevity seems to be what's at issue for many here. The early part of Koufax's career seems to cancel out for many, any claims Koufax would have to being the greatest of all-time. I understand the argument. If everybody wants to go for Grove, that's fine. I'm not saying Grove wasn't great. He of course, was. I'm just arguing against those who seem to want to downplay just how great Koufax was by overplaying the Chavez angle, the mound, strike zone, and expansion.

I have said Chavez was an asset. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on it, rather than the conscious change on Koufax's part as to how he pitched. And 1961 was the year he changed direction.

I don't care by what percentage his road E.R.A was higher in 1964 over his home E.R.A. You want to say how easy it was to pitch at Chavez. Don Drysdale was no slouch, and his E.R.A that year was 2.02. He was a great pitcher. Why wasn't he down at 0.85? I guess one could go on and on trying to uncover the nuances of just went into all of these statistics. You seem to want to concentrate on the park. I am not saying the park wasn't a factor. But it was not the cause. If Koufax hadn't become a better pitcher, Chavez Ravine wouldn't have helped him.

Also in regard to guys like Grove and Walter Johnson: they enjoyed the same strike zone Koufax did. The height of the mounds varied in those days, as the rules only stipulated that they couldn't be more than 15". But who's to say some of them weren't 15".

The 1960's were a pitching dominant era, because there were great pitchers, who pitched with the strike zone that had existed for the better part of baseball's history up until that time. Some of the game's greatest hitters played then as well who had great offensive numbers. If it's referred to as the second dead ball era, it is not because the ball itself was dead, but because it is much too lively today and everything benefits the hitters.

If you want to use expansion to try to eclipse what Koufax did well what can I say? Knock yourself out, I guess. But you can start throwing in all sorts of intangibles like traveling and night baseball, as well the broadening of the talent pool with the inclusion of black and Latino players.

Looking at Grove's E.R.A.'s I'm surprised that he's getting a pass on winning over 20 games a couple of years with E.R.A.'s over 3.00.

Finally again, I understand the longevity argument if you're going to argue for a best of all-time. I think Koufax's case is unique for consideration with a short career. Many players take a couple of years to get off the ground. Koufax took a little longer for the reasons I explained. But once he did, what he did was phenomenal. What makes his peak so interesting, is that it stopped at it's height, unlike most players, who usually go downhill. Koufax struggled and surmounted his control issues, and dazzled more and more each year. Three times his E.R.A. was under 2.00. It's looks like we're going to disagree as to why he was as great as he was and just how great. But that's okay. I've really enjoyed discussing this with you.

Really quick, when speaking about context, I agree that one can't ignore that Bonds took steroids. But that was cheating. Koufax was a champion in every sense of the word.


Responding with numbered points to make this a little easier:

1) The math suggests that too much emphasis is not being placed on the change in ballpark. If it was how he pitched, then his road era would not be 300% higher in 1964. It would not be essentially the same as it was in his 'before' period for most of the years after the magic change. These are things we can actually look at, with data. The data does not support the allegation. At all.


2) If you "don't care" what the math suggests and the fact that his road/home splits are extremely abnormal, well, what is the point? If we ignore verifiable data in favor of narratives we like, there is nothing to say. The decision is made before the examination. I don't care about people's narratives, I care about things that actually check out as true. One pitchers case is based on data and things that are verifiable as true. The other is based on dismissing such data.


3) Your strike zone allegation is also demonstrably false. It was redefined in the rules before the 1963 season, expanded from the armpits to the top of the shoulder. The knees were also adjusted. Again, this is not a narrative, it is actual, verifiable fact. Sandy responded by cutting almost a full run off his ERA from his excellent 1962 season, his first really good year, and posting his mind-boggling 4 year peak between 1963-1966 with this expanded strike zone in place. His peak aligns EXACTLY with a material change in the strike zone in favor of pitchers. And it also aligns with a pronounced change across MLB, as run production fell and pitching dominated the 60's.


4) As for the mound, the rule was that the mound had to be 15 inches or less. In 1950, it was changed so that it had to be 15 inches, an advantage to the pitcher.


5) If folks are going to try and use integration as a reason to dismiss pre-1947 pitchers, than it is absolutely fair to point that as the talent pool widened, more and more teams were quickly added to the league and Sandy's numbers were absolutely helped by beating up on new expansion teams that performed terribly. He was not alone in this, Gibson and Marichal's impressive numbers were also run up in this environment.


6) Grove's ERA's are higher, because he pitched in a high offensive context. Compared to the league average, Grove outpaced Koufax by a wide margin, 148 to 131 ERA+'s, which account for league and park. Context. Do we seriously not think there is a difference between offense in the AL in 1930, and the NL in 1963? Again, this is not a narrative. It is verifiable fact, we can look at what occurred over the course of the entire league during their careers (a huge sample size of batters), we can easily prove the 1930's AL is a much higher run environment. If context doesn't matter and we don't care about longevity, then Ferdie Schupp is the greatest lefty of all time. But nobody will make that argument, only for Koufax is the argument that we should ignore context and time.


7) If we are going to ignore verifiable data, ignore context, and pretend major rule changes simply did not occur that are clearly in the rule books there is no point into any actual examination. Those looking for concrete evidence do not find narratives to provide any actual evidence, and those relying on narratives that run counter to the demonstrable facts will never be convinced by any amount of data. There is a significant difference between players we like and who the best was. I have a sentimental attachment to Ferris Fain, and he was an excellent ballplayer, but he isn't better than Lou Gehrig. I have a sentimental attachment to Joe Dimaggio, but he isn't better than Willie Mays or Ty Cobb, because a preponderance of the data does not suggest that he was, but suggests the opposite. I think we should recognize these as two separate things. Data should guide to the conclusion, not make the conclusion and then try to form the argument after the fact.


Koufax was great for 4 years, in a time and place heavily advantageous to the pitcher, in which pitchers dominated, and had failed to produce until the conditions were in place and the rules re-written in his favor. Grove was great for twice as long in a context in which batters were heavily favored and dominated his entire career. I don't think it's close, when you look at the totality of the data. If data to the contrary exists, I would change my conclusion. I have no attachment to Grove, and the era he played is one of the periods of baseball history I am least interested in, but the data in context is compelling.

[jgannon]

Responding with numbered points to make this a little easier:

1) The math suggests that too much emphasis is not being placed on the change in ballpark. If it was how he pitched, then his road era would not be 300% higher in 1964. It would not be essentially the same as it was in his 'before' period for most of the years after the magic change. These are things we can actually look at, with data. The data does not support the allegation. At all.


2) If you "don't care" what the math suggests and the fact that his road/home splits are extremely abnormal, well, what is the point? If we ignore verifiable data in favor of narratives we like, there is nothing to say. The decision is made before the examination. I don't care about people's narratives, I care about things that actually check out as true. One pitchers case is based on data and things that are verifiable as true. The other is based on dismissing such data.


3) Your strike zone allegation is also demonstrably false. It was redefined in the rules before the 1963 season, expanded from the armpits to the top of the shoulder. The knees were also adjusted. Again, this is not a narrative, it is actual, verifiable fact. Sandy responded by cutting almost a full run off his ERA from his excellent 1962 season, his first really good year, and posting his mind-boggling 4 year peak between 1963-1966 with this expanded strike zone in place. His peak aligns EXACTLY with a material change in the strike zone in favor of pitchers. And it also aligns with a pronounced change across MLB, as run production fell and pitching dominated the 60's.


4) As for the mound, the rule was that the mound had to be 15 inches or less. In 1950, it was changed so that it had to be 15 inches, an advantage to the pitcher.


5) If folks are going to try and use integration as a reason to dismiss pre-1947 pitchers, than it is absolutely fair to point that as the talent pool widened, more and more teams were quickly added to the league and Sandy's numbers were absolutely helped by beating up on new expansion teams that performed terribly. He was not alone in this, Gibson and Marichal's impressive numbers were also run up in this environment.


6) Grove's ERA's are higher, because he pitched in a high offensive context. Compared to the league average, Grove outpaced Koufax by a wide margin, 148 to 131 ERA+'s, which account for league and park. Context. Do we seriously not think there is a difference between offense in the AL in 1930, and the NL in 1963? Again, this is not a narrative. It is verifiable fact, we can look at what occurred over the course of the entire league during their careers (a huge sample size of batters), we can easily prove the 1930's AL is a much higher run environment. If context doesn't matter and we don't care about longevity, then Ferdie Schupp is the greatest lefty of all time. But nobody will make that argument, only for Koufax is the argument that we should ignore context and time.


7) If we are going to ignore verifiable data, ignore context, and pretend major rule changes simply did not occur that are clearly in the rule books there is no point into any actual examination. Those looking for concrete evidence do not find narratives to provide any actual evidence, and those relying on narratives that run counter to the demonstrable facts will never be convinced by any amount of data. There is a significant difference between players we like and who the best was. I have a sentimental attachment to Ferris Fain, and he was an excellent ballplayer, but he isn't better than Lou Gehrig. I have a sentimental attachment to Joe Dimaggio, but he isn't better than Willie Mays or Ty Cobb, because a preponderance of the data does not suggest that he was, but suggests the opposite. I think we should recognize these as two separate things. Data should guide to the conclusion, not make the conclusion and then try to form the argument after the fact.


Koufax was great for 4 years, in a time and place heavily advantageous to the pitcher, in which pitchers dominated, and had failed to produce until the conditions were in place and the rules re-written in his favor. Grove was great for twice as long in a context in which batters were heavily favored and dominated his entire career. I don't think it's close, when you look at the totality of the data. If data to the contrary exists, I would change my conclusion. I have no attachment to Grove, and the era he played is one of the periods of baseball history I am least interested in, but the data in context is compelling.


Just real quick - I do care about statistics. My point about Koufax's 1964 E.R.A. spread was that his home E.R.A. was much lower than the other major ace on the staff. With an E.R.A that low, it was going to be much lower percentage-wise than his away E.R.A. which was also very good. Yes, I know you say it was the park. But Koufax's home E.R.A. improved year to year with a 1.75 in '62, a 1.38 in '63, and a 0.85 in '64. And then the last two years were below 2.00. Saying something increased 300% is misleading. If one person is in the room and another one enters, I can say the population increased by 100%.

Regarding the strike zone, I read that it was changed to the armpits to the knees in 1950 from where it had been previously since 1887, which was from the shoulders to the knees. I read that off a site called Baseball Almanac. Maybe they're wrong? If they are, I would be glad to be directed to the correct history. As to the change in the height of the mound, I cited the change in earlier posts.

I was only poking fun about Grove's E.R.A due to the seemingly selective hysteria about Koufax's.

At this point, I think you're making a bit of a fetish out of statistics and completely ignoring the fact that Koufax changed his approach to pitching in 1961 and started to get better results. You've never acknowledged that. Did bringing back the strike zone to it's pre-1950 level help? Yes, I think it was an advantage for all pitchers. Did Chavez help? Yes. But again, it was an asset, not a cause. If it were, then all the Dodger pitchers should have had years like Koufax. Koufax grew as a pitcher. He had a long apprenticeship where he didn't put up the numbers. But he learned and got better. That shouldn't be ignored in your analysis.

[jgannon]

I guess... if you believe statistics tell the whole story, and sums up baseball.
I don't. There is much more to this beautiful game and individual's greatness than just these numbers being thrown back and forth.

But, for you stat/science heads, if you really want to use your method to "tell what happened..." you forgot to analyze the molecular structure of the infield dirt at each Pitcher's home park (I think each granule was .000000000001229 larger in Lefty Grove's home park than at Dodger Stadium, giving Grove's infielders a significant advantage over time on Koufax by increasing ground-outs), humidity and air pressure, tides and gravitational forces (including the number and average weight of fans at the stadium)... and this should be done for every game pitched for each of these top left-handed pitchers.

You might be onto something!! Lol

[G1911]

Just real quick - I do care about statistics. My point about Koufax's 1964 E.R.A. spread was that his home E.R.A. was much lower than the other major ace on the staff. With an E.R.A that low, it was going to be much lower percentage-wise than his away E.R.A. which was also very good. Yes, I know you say it was the park. But Koufax's home E.R.A. improved year to year with a 1.75 in '62, a 1.38 in '63, and a 0.85 in '64. And then the last two years were below 2.00. Saying something increased 300% is misleading. If one person is in the room and another one enters, I can say the population increased by 100%.

Regarding the strike zone, I read that it was changed to the armpits to the knees in 1950 from where it had been previously since 1887, which was from the shoulders to the knees. I read that off a site called Baseball Almanac. Maybe they're wrong? If they are, I would be glad to be directed to the correct history. As to the change in the height of the mound, I cited the change in earlier posts.

I was only poking fun about Grove's E.R.A due to the seemingly selective hysteria about Koufax's.

At this point, I think you're making a bit of a fetish out of statistics and completely ignoring the fact that Koufax changed his approach to pitching in 1961 and started to get better results. You've never acknowledged that. Did bringing back the strike zone to it's pre-1950 level help? Yes, I think it was an advantage for all pitchers. Did Chavez help? Yes. But again, it was an asset, not a cause. If it were, then all the Dodger pitchers should have had years like Koufax. Koufax grew as a pitcher. He had a long apprenticeship where he didn't put up the numbers. But he learned and got better. That shouldn't be ignored in your analysis.

1) This appears to be your source on the Strike Zone. Note the section under "1963" stipulating the referenced change, expanding the strike zone. You an compare it to the 1950 adjustment and see that it enlarged the strike zone. this can be verified in literally hundreds of sources, the 1963 adjustment is not some minor footnote but defined the hitter/batter context until 1969, when some pitcher advantages were removed because pitchers were dominating the league by a wide margin with the ruleset: https://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/strike_zone_rules_history.shtml


2) I did acknowledge it. I explained at length that the math does not suggest this is actually true, as his road numbers stayed about the same and his home park performance drastically improved. If it was not the park (how then, is his ERA 300% higher elsewhere if its not the park?), then it would be a similar improvement everywhere. It is factually not.

That Koufax is a better pitcher than his teammates is, again, irrelevant narrative that has 0 to do with the question. I am and have been arguing that Koufax is not the greatest lefty ever, or even the second or third really. I have no idea why people want to argue against a position that Koufax was a bum, worse than his teammates at the time, or something else which I nor anyone else has made. I even referred to his peak in my last post as "mind boggling" and included him on my short list of the best, which is the first reply to this entire thread. You keep ignoring the verifiable facts, actual data, to argue against a point which I do not hold and have never made.


3) Yes, I'm a fetishist because I don't care about unsourced narrative claims that contradict verifiable fact. You've just put the nail in my coffin, I concede. Koufax = GOAT. You won with this stellar analysis of the data.

[howard38]

/

[the 'stache]

Kershaw wasn't able to pitch under pressure. The game is played to win championships and Kershaw has cost his team. Koufax has 2 WS MVPs plus a career postseason ERA under 1. ERA+ is a flawed stat to base an argument on. It is as much a product of the quality of pitchers in your league as anything. Pitchers in weak eras like Grove and Kershaw are going to look better than they really were. Koufax is the best, even with his shorter career, the combination of being great in the regular season and even greater in the postseason can't be match by any other lefty.

Koufax got out before the strike zone was shrunk, and the mound lowered.

ERA+ is a flawed stat? Ok. FIP isn't. Walks, hit batters, strikeouts and home runs allowed. All it looks at. It completely eliminates the strength of the defense behind you.

Sandy Koufax 1961-1966 2.16 FIP
Clayton Kershaw 2011-2016 2.26 FIP

And the other stats...

ERA
Koufax 2.19
Kershaw 2.06

WHIP
Koufax 0.970
Kershaw 0.908

K:BB ratio
Koufax 4.16:1
Kershaw 5.62:1

And again, Koufax had a bigger strike zone, and a 15", not a 10" mound.

Average NL ERA
1961-1966 3.65
2011-2016 4.19

Spread
Koufax 2.19 ERA, league ERA 3.65, spread -1.46
Kershaw 2.06 ERA, league ERA 4.19, spread -2.13

Before Koufax began his peak run in 1961, he pitched from 1955-1960, totaling 103 games started (174 appearances, in total), throwing 691 2/3 innings. He had a 4.10 ERA, a 100 ERA+ (league average), and a FIP of 3.94.

Before he started his peak of 2011-2016, Clayton Kershaw pitched from 2008 to 2010, totaling 83 starts, throwing 483 innings. He had a 3.17 ERA, a 126 ERA+, and a FIP of 3.32.

In his second season, 2009, Kershaw was 8-8 in 30 starts. He had a 2.79 ERA in 171 innings of work, striking out 185 batters, had a 143 ERA+, and a 3.08 WHIP. His 6.3 hits allowed per 9 innings pitched was the best in baseball. His 3.08 FIP was the 5th best in the National League.

By his second year in baseball, after only 21 starts as a rookie, Clayton Kershaw was an elite pitcher.

1961, the first year Sandy Koufax was an All Star, and received any MVP votes, was his seventh season in the Majors.

There's no comparison to make! Clayton Kershaw's peak was better, and it's not particularly close.

Clayton Kershaw's spread against the rest of his league was better than Koufax's spread against the rest of the league. Kershaw's ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and strikeout to walk ratio are all markedly better than Koufax's. Their FIP are virtually identical, which is mind boggling, considering that scoring was up during Kershaw's peak, and he pitched on a shorter mound, with a smaller strike zone. And he became an All Star caliber pitcher by his second season. It took Koufax until his seventh season to reach that level, and even then, his ERA 3.52 in 1961 was only about a half run better than league average (4.03).

And beyond all that, beyond each player's 6 year peaks, Clayton Kershaw has pitched at a high level. In 2017, which isn't included in Kershaw's 6 year peak, he led all of Major League Baseball with 18 wins. He led the NL with a 2.30 ERA, struck out 202 batters (against 30 walks), and he had a league best 179 ERA+. His K:BB ratio, 6.73:1, was the best in the National League.

That 179 ERA+ (which you say is flawed) is better than all but two of Koufax's best seasons, 1964 (186) and 1966 (190).

And last year? Clearly on the down side of Kershaw's career, now, he was still 8th in the Cy Young, going 16-5, with a 3.03 ERA (league ERA was 4.39, the highest in the National League since 2007), and 189 strikeouts in 178 innings.

Kershaw became a great pitcher much faster. His peak has been better, under tougher conditions for pitchers, and it has lasted far longer than Koufax's did. So, just stop this nonsense.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Billy Wagner

[the 'stache]

And before anybody starts in with the "Koufax was God in the post season", has anybody looked at the teams he beat to win those rings? I think a little context would help.

In 1959, the Dodgers beat the White Sox. A team that ranked 6th (of 8 AL teams) in runs scored, 8th with 97 home runs, and 6th in OPS. Koufax was 0-1 with a 1.00 ERA against a team that was 94-60 because of its pitching staff. The White Sox, led by 22-10 Early Wynn, had an American League best 3.29 ERA. Their lineup was "Punch and Judy".

Koufax was the Series MVP In 1963, facing the Yankees. But this wasn't the "Yankees" that had ruled the 50s and early 60s. Yes, they won 104 games, but, again, it was on the strength of their pitching. Whitey Ford was 24-7. Jim Bouton 21-7. The Yankees' 3.02 ERA was the second best in the American League. The Bronx Bombers? Yogi Berra had retired. The Roger Maris that had been the MVP In 1960 and 1961, played only 90 games in 1963, hitting a whopping 23 home runs. Mickey Mantle's body broke down. The Commerce Comet played only 65 games that season. He played 5 games in June, missed all of July, played 8 games in August (going 1 for 8, with a pinch hit home run), and hit 3 home runs in September. From June 1st to September 28th, Mantle hit 5 home runs. He totaled 72 at bats the final four months of the season. And in the series? He was 2 for 15 with 1 home run. He could barely walk. Roger Maris was 0 for 5 in the 1963 World Series.

Elston Howard, Joe Pepitone and Tom Tresh led the "Bronx Bombers" with 28, 27 and 25 home runs.

Quite the murderer's row Koufax was "owning", there. :rolleyes:

In 1965, the Dodgers beat the Minnesota Twins. Their big bomber was Harmon Killebrew. Hmm, he was hurt at the end of the 1965 season, too.

I'm sensing a pattern here!

Killebrew played two games in August, August 1st and 2nd. He played 10 games in September and October, totaling 38 at bats. Between August 1st, and October 3rd, Killebrew hit .167 across a total of 42 at bats. 3 home runs. In the 1965 World Series, 7 games, he had 6 hits. 1 home run, 2 RBI.

The rest of the "vaunted lineup" Koufax faced?

C Earl Battey
1B Don Michner
2B Jerry Kindal
SS Zolio Versalles
3B Rich Rollins
LF Bob Allison
CF Jimmy Hall
RF Tony Oliva

Oliva was the AL MVP runner up in his second season. Other than him, and the aforementioned Killebrew, who was clearly hurt, nobody else in that lineup would scare me. Versalles won the MVP in a career year, and never got another MVP vote again. He scored a lot of runs, had a lot of doubles and triples. He also led the American League with 122 strikeouts.

The '66 Series, Koufax made one start, and lost it against the Baltimore Orioles. He had a 1.50 ERA across 6 innings.

He didn't face one offense at nearly full strength in any of the first three series he pitched in. The Sox had no offense. No slugger. The Yankees had lost Berra, and Maris and Mantle were non factors, injured. The Twins? Killebrew was playing injured. He dislocated his elbow his elbow on August 2nd, and had one of the worst seasons of his career.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bow down before Koufax's mastery in the World Series.

[jgannon]

1) This appears to be your source on the Strike Zone. Note the section under "1963" stipulating the referenced change, expanding the strike zone. You an compare it to the 1950 adjustment and see that it enlarged the strike zone. this can be verified in literally hundreds of sources, the 1963 adjustment is not some minor footnote but defined the hitter/batter context until 1969, when some pitcher advantages were removed because pitchers were dominating the league by a wide margin with the ruleset: https://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/strike_zone_rules_history.shtml


2) I did acknowledge it. I explained at length that the math does not suggest this is actually true, as his road numbers stayed about the same and his home park performance drastically improved. If it was not the park (how then, is his ERA 300% higher elsewhere if its not the park?), then it would be a similar improvement everywhere. It is factually not.

That Koufax is a better pitcher than his teammates is, again, irrelevant narrative that has 0 to do with the question. I am and have been arguing that Koufax is not the greatest lefty ever, or even the second or third really. I have no idea why people want to argue against a position that Koufax was a bum, worse than his teammates at the time, or something else which I nor anyone else has made. I even referred to his peak in my last post as "mind boggling" and included him on my short list of the best, which is the first reply to this entire thread. You keep ignoring the verifiable facts, actual data, to argue against a point which I do not hold and have never made.


3) Yes, I'm a fetishist because I don't care about unsourced narrative claims that contradict verifiable fact. You've just put the nail in my coffin, I concede. Koufax = GOAT. You won with this stellar analysis of the data.


1) Duh. We all know that strike zone was changed in 1950 and then in 1963. The fact that you feel compelled to point that out shows you are missing completely what I am saying. Everybody knows that. But doesn't the site which you posted, and was the one I was referencing, also say:

"1887

The batter can no longer call for a 'high' or 'low' pitch.

A (strike) is defined as a pitch that 'passes over home plate not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulders."

And:

"1907

A fairly delivered ball is a ball pitched or thrown to the bat by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman that passes over any portion of the home base, before touching the ground, not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulder. For every such fairly delivered ball, the umpire shall call one strike."

???

There are NO adjustments until 1950 when the strike zone is change to armpits to the top of the knees.


So unless Lefty Grove was pitching for anyone between 1950 and 1963, he enjoyed the same strike as did pitchers from 1963 - 1968. The only difference was the 1950 stipulation that the mound had to be at 15".


2) No, not really. You haven't acknowledged the human element. Koufax changed his style. The bricks at Chavez had nothing to do with that. And his road numbers did NOT stay the same. His E.R.A. on the road goes down beginning in 1961. 1962's E.R.A. would have been lower if he hadn't pitched those last four starts trying to recover from the crushed artery in his left palm.


3) And I didn't call you a "fetishist". I said you were making "a bit of a fetish" out of the statistics. Not quite the same thing. It wasn't a personal attack. In my opinion, you aren't reading the away stats correctly and are ignoring or downplaying information that doesn't correspond with your pre-conceived ideas. It's too bad you've resorted to making petty remarks.

All along, I have not been arguing that Koufax was the GOAT. I have been saying that the period of time you acknowledge is "mind boggling" was not due primarily to the factors you cite. I didn't say the factors you cite didn't play a role. Koufax improved independently of those factors as well. That's the difference in our opinion. If you want to deny that aspect of the story, go right ahead.

[jgannon]

And before anybody starts in with the "Koufax was God in the post season", has anybody looked at the teams he beat to win those rings? I think a little context would help.

In 1959, the Dodgers beat the White Sox. A team that ranked 6th (of 8 AL teams) in runs scored, 8th with 97 home runs, and 6th in OPS. Koufax was 0-1 with a 1.00 ERA against a team that was 94-60 because of its pitching staff. The White Sox, led by 22-10 Early Wynn, had an American League best 3.29 ERA. Their lineup was "Punch and Judy".

Koufax was the Series MVP In 1963, facing the Yankees. But this wasn't the "Yankees" that had ruled the 50s and early 60s. Yes, they won 104 games, but, again, it was on the strength of their pitching. Whitey Ford was 24-7. Jim Bouton 21-7. The Yankees' 3.02 ERA was the second best in the American League. The Bronx Bombers? Yogi Berra had retired. The Roger Maris that had been the MVP In 1960 and 1961, played only 90 games in 1963, hitting a whopping 23 home runs. Mickey Mantle's body broke down. The Commerce Comet played only 65 games that season. He played 5 games in June, missed all of July, played 8 games in August (going 1 for 8, with a pinch hit home run), and hit 3 home runs in September. From June 1st to September 28th, Mantle hit 5 home runs. He totaled 72 at bats the final four months of the season. And in the series? He was 2 for 15 with 1 home run. He could barely walk. Roger Maris was 0 for 5 in the 1963 World Series.

Elston Howard, Joe Pepitone and Tom Tresh led the "Bronx Bombers" with 28, 27 and 25 home runs.

Quite the murderer's row Koufax was "owning", there. :rolleyes:

In 1965, the Dodgers beat the Minnesota Twins. Their big bomber was Harmon Killebrew. Hmm, he was hurt at the end of the 1965 season, too.

I'm sensing a pattern here!

Killebrew played two games in August, August 1st and 2nd. He played 10 games in September and October, totaling 38 at bats. Between August 1st, and October 3rd, Killebrew hit .167 across a total of 42 at bats. 3 home runs. In the 1965 World Series, 7 games, he had 6 hits. 1 home run, 2 RBI.

The rest of the "vaunted lineup" Koufax faced?

C Earl Battey
1B Don Michner
2B Jerry Kindal
SS Zolio Versalles
3B Rich Rollins
LF Bob Allison
CF Jimmy Hall
RF Tony Oliva

Oliva was the AL MVP runner up in his second season. Other than him, and the aforementioned Killebrew, who was clearly hurt, nobody else in that lineup would scare me. Versalles won the MVP in a career year, and never got another MVP vote again. He scored a lot of runs, had a lot of doubles and triples. He also led the American League with 122 strikeouts.

The '66 Series, Koufax made one start, and lost it against the Baltimore Orioles. He had a 1.50 ERA across 6 innings.

He didn't face one offense at nearly full strength in any of the first three series he pitched in. The Sox had no offense. No slugger. The Yankees had lost Berra, and Maris and Mantle were non factors, injured. The Twins? Killebrew was playing injured. He dislocated his elbow his elbow on August 2nd, and had one of the worst seasons of his career.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bow down before Koufax's mastery in the World Series.

Koufax and the Dodgers faced the American League pennant winners. Apparently the best stats, don't make champions.

[cammb]

I agree with you totally on Mattingly, and I agree this is a fun debate. But if we were giving Koufax the benefit of modern medicine, we should probably give it to Grove, too, right?

Mattingly don't have the stats to be hall of fame. One really great year. Never had a 40 homer season and NEVER was in world series.

[rats60]

Koufax and the Dodgers faced the American League pennant winners. Apparently the best stats, don't make champions.

Except they do. The 1963 Yankees had the #2 offense in the AL. The 1965 Twins had the #2 offense in the AL. The 1966 Orioles had the #1 offense in the AL. I guess some expect the Dodgers to play the AL All Star team in the World Series for the stats to count.

[Frank A]

Spahn!!!!!!!!

[Robbie]

I'm going to chime in one more time here...

Especially for the "Anti-Koufax", "stat-head" faction, I want to clarify that I never said stats are unimportant, or are not critical to consider ... I said that they do not give the complete picture... they are selective, leave things out, and do not tell us everything.

Unlike G1911, I believe a great pitcher's ability to teach and share their craft adds to their greatness. I think if you ask the Braves pitching staff about the value of having the knowledge of Greg Maddux, even when Maddux wasn't pitching, they would agree. This has held true even after his playing days. I believe this adds to Maddux's greatness. So again I will ask, which other top 10 lefty besides Koufax had the knowledge and ability to teach and mentor another all-time great pitcher?
And BTW, which of the top 10 lefties did Johnny Sain coach or mentor? :confused:

One thing that I put weight and merit into, that the stat heads put little to none, is what the best players to have played the game in the past 100 years have to say on the subject. They may actually know something about this that we seemingly don't. Casey Stengel and many other old-timers saw and played against Carl Hubbell and Lefty Grove, and also saw Koufax pitch 20-25 years later. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Yogi Berra, Ernie Banks, Joe Morgan, and many other great HOFers played against Koufax and have also seen Randy Johnson’s career. And the common thread is that since Koufax pitched, a majority of the living HOFers from that point forward already have and would still tell you that Koufax was the best left-handed pitcher ever.

To my knowledge, there was never, and is not that same consensus that Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Warren Spahn or Randy Johnson is the greatest lefty ever… although Spahn gets a lot of respect (and deservedly so) for having the most wins ever for a left-hander.

This following is from the SABR website, with credit to them and the writer Marc Aaron;

The great Ernie Banks described what it was like to face Koufax. “It was frightening. He had that tremendous fastball that would rise, and a great curveball that started at the eyes and broke to the ankles. In the end you knew you were going to be embarrassed. You were either going to strike out or foul out.” Banks said, “He was the greatest pitcher I ever saw. Most of the time we knew what was coming…. but it didn’t matter.”

Does this in itself mean that Koufax was the best and you can ignore statistics? Of course not. But given that the statistics are generally great for all the guys being discussed, maybe more weight should be put into what the people who know best have to say. Maybe Stengel, Mays, Aaron, Berra, Banks, Stargell, Morgan, Et al. are onto something.

"I know (Sandy) Koufax weakness. He can't hit."
--- Whitey Ford

One last thing….

There has been a lot made about the height of the mound at Dodger Stadium when Koufax pitched. Well, I don’t know if anybody has brought this up, but:

Randy Johnson was 9 or 10 inches taller than Sandy Koufax. So, even though Koufax pitched on a mound that was as much as 5 inches higher than the modern mound, Randy Johnson had the advantage of a much higher release point than Sandy Koufax. So, Johnson was taller, had longer arms, and released the ball at a point much closer to the plate.

Should Randy Johnson be considered greater because of the advantage of his height, or should Koufax be considered greater because he did not have the same advantages?

Sandy Koufax threw the ball as hard or harder than Randy Johnson did, but 35 years earlier… without the specialized training techniques, coaching, science on mechanics, health and other advances, and modern day pampering.

Koufax had no chance to develop before the big leagues. Stat-heads blame him for his early record and stats... when in truth, he deserves a lot of credit for overcoming this obstacle. Most players would have folded.

So... Yes, shorter career. Early career ending ailment. But still, Koufax became the best Left Handed Pitcher the game has ever had.

Ok…. This is fun but I’m all debated out! 😊

If you don’t like Koufax, I’m going with Eppa Rixey.

[cammb]

And before anybody starts in with the "Koufax was God in the post season", has anybody looked at the teams he beat to win those rings? I think a little context would help.

In 1959, the Dodgers beat the White Sox. A team that ranked 6th (of 8 AL teams) in runs scored, 8th with 97 home runs, and 6th in OPS. Koufax was 0-1 with a 1.00 ERA against a team that was 94-60 because of its pitching staff. The White Sox, led by 22-10 Early Wynn, had an American League best 3.29 ERA. Their lineup was "Punch and Judy".

Koufax was the Series MVP In 1963, facing the Yankees. But this wasn't the "Yankees" that had ruled the 50s and early 60s. Yes, they won 104 games, but, again, it was on the strength of their pitching. Whitey Ford was 24-7. Jim Bouton 21-7. The Yankees' 3.02 ERA was the second best in the American League. The Bronx Bombers? Yogi Berra had retired. The Roger Maris that had been the MVP In 1960 and 1961, played only 90 games in 1963, hitting a whopping 23 home runs. Mickey Mantle's body broke down. The Commerce Comet played only 65 games that season. He played 5 games in June, missed all of July, played 8 games in August (going 1 for 8, with a pinch hit home run), and hit 3 home runs in September. From June 1st to September 28th, Mantle hit 5 home runs. He totaled 72 at bats the final four months of the season. And in the series? He was 2 for 15 with 1 home run. He could barely walk. Roger Maris was 0 for 5 in the 1963 World Series.

Elston Howard, Joe Pepitone and Tom Tresh led the "Bronx Bombers" with 28, 27 and 25 home runs.

Quite the murderer's row Koufax was "owning", there. :rolleyes:

In 1965, the Dodgers beat the Minnesota Twins. Their big bomber was Harmon Killebrew. Hmm, he was hurt at the end of the 1965 season, too.

I'm sensing a pattern here!

Killebrew played two games in August, August 1st and 2nd. He played 10 games in September and October, totaling 38 at bats. Between August 1st, and October 3rd, Killebrew hit .167 across a total of 42 at bats. 3 home runs. In the 1965 World Series, 7 games, he had 6 hits. 1 home run, 2 RBI.

The rest of the "vaunted lineup" Koufax faced?

C Earl Battey
1B Don Michner
2B Jerry Kindal
SS Zolio Versalles
3B Rich Rollins
LF Bob Allison
CF Jimmy Hall
RF Tony Oliva

Oliva was the AL MVP runner up in his second season. Other than him, and the aforementioned Killebrew, who was clearly hurt, nobody else in that lineup would scare me. Versalles won the MVP in a career year, and never got another MVP vote again. He scored a lot of runs, had a lot of doubles and triples. He also led the American League with 122 strikeouts.

The '66 Series, Koufax made one start, and lost it against the Baltimore Orioles. He had a 1.50 ERA across 6 innings.

He didn't face one offense at nearly full strength in any of the first three series he pitched in. The Sox had no offense. No slugger. The Yankees had lost Berra, and Maris and Mantle were non factors, injured. The Twins? Killebrew was playing injured. He dislocated his elbow his elbow on August 2nd, and had one of the worst seasons of his career.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bow down before Koufax's mastery in the World Series.

You convinced me. Koufax was mediocre at best and very lucky.

[Tabe]

Billy Wagner

I'm not crazy about 1-inning relievers in the Hall, and don't think Eck belongs but...

If we're putting those guys in the Hall, Wagner belongs. 15 year career, exactly 1 non-good season. 1.43 ERA and 104 K in 69 innings - in his last year, as a 38-year old.

[Tabe]

The great Ernie Banks described what it was like to face Koufax. “It was frightening. He had that tremendous fastball that would rise,

Given that it's literally impossible for a fastball to rise, please forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.


Randy Johnson was 9 or 10 inches taller than Sandy Koufax. So, even though Koufax pitched on a mound that was as much as 5 inches higher than the modern mound, Randy Johnson had the advantage of a much higher release point than Sandy Koufax. So, Johnson was taller, had longer arms, and released the ball at a point much closer to the plate.

Should Randy Johnson be considered greater because of the advantage of his height, or should Koufax be considered greater because he did not have the same advantages?

Sandy Koufax threw the ball as hard or harder than Randy Johnson did, but 35 years earlier… without the specialized training techniques, coaching, science on mechanics, health and other advances, and modern day pampering.

1) This is laughable. C'mon. Surely you can see the difference between height and a different pitching mound?

2) You don't know that Koufax threw harder than Johnson.


Of course guys like Aaron, Banks, Mays, and so on are going to be biased toward Koufax. How come you're not quoting Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn or Will Clark?

[cammb]

Given that it's literally impossible for a fastball to rise, please forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.


1) This is laughable. C'mon. Surely you can see the difference between height and a different pitching mound?

2) You don't know that Koufax threw harder than Johnson.


Of course guys like Aaron, Banks, Mays, and so on are going to be biased toward Koufax. How come you're not quoting Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn or Will Clark?

Because they never faced Koufax. Duh

[Tabe]

Because they never faced Koufax. Duh
But Mays, Aaron and Banks faced Grove and Randy Johnson? News to me.

[CMIZ5290]

Koufax got out before the strike zone was shrunk, and the mound lowered.

ERA+ is a flawed stat? Ok. FIP isn't. Walks, hit batters, strikeouts and home runs allowed. All it looks at. It completely eliminates the strength of the defense behind you.

Sandy Koufax 1961-1966 2.16 FIP
Clayton Kershaw 2011-2016 2.26 FIP

And the other stats...

ERA
Koufax 2.19
Kershaw 2.06

WHIP
Koufax 0.970
Kershaw 0.908

K:BB ratio
Koufax 4.16:1
Kershaw 5.62:1

And again, Koufax had a bigger strike zone, and a 15", not a 10" mound.

Average NL ERA
1961-1966 3.65
2011-2016 4.19

Spread
Koufax 2.19 ERA, league ERA 3.65, spread -1.46
Kershaw 2.06 ERA, league ERA 4.19, spread -2.13

Before Koufax began his peak run in 1961, he pitched from 1955-1960, totaling 103 games started (174 appearances, in total), throwing 691 2/3 innings. He had a 4.10 ERA, a 100 ERA+ (league average), and a FIP of 3.94.

Before he started his peak of 2011-2016, Clayton Kershaw pitched from 2008 to 2010, totaling 83 starts, throwing 483 innings. He had a 3.17 ERA, a 126 ERA+, and a FIP of 3.32.

In his second season, 2009, Kershaw was 8-8 in 30 starts. He had a 2.79 ERA in 171 innings of work, striking out 185 batters, had a 143 ERA+, and a 3.08 WHIP. His 6.3 hits allowed per 9 innings pitched was the best in baseball. His 3.08 FIP was the 5th best in the National League.

By his second year in baseball, after only 21 starts as a rookie, Clayton Kershaw was an elite pitcher.

1961, the first year Sandy Koufax was an All Star, and received any MVP votes, was his seventh season in the Majors.

There's no comparison to make! Clayton Kershaw's peak was better, and it's not particularly close.

Clayton Kershaw's spread against the rest of his league was better than Koufax's spread against the rest of the league. Kershaw's ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and strikeout to walk ratio are all markedly better than Koufax's. Their FIP are virtually identical, which is mind boggling, considering that scoring was up during Kershaw's peak, and he pitched on a shorter mound, with a smaller strike zone. And he became an All Star caliber pitcher by his second season. It took Koufax until his seventh season to reach that level, and even then, his ERA 3.52 in 1961 was only about a half run better than league average (4.03).

And beyond all that, beyond each player's 6 year peaks, Clayton Kershaw has pitched at a high level. In 2017, which isn't included in Kershaw's 6 year peak, he led all of Major League Baseball with 18 wins. He led the NL with a 2.30 ERA, struck out 202 batters (against 30 walks), and he had a league best 179 ERA+. His K:BB ratio, 6.73:1, was the best in the National League.

That 179 ERA+ (which you say is flawed) is better than all but two of Koufax's best seasons, 1964 (186) and 1966 (190).

And last year? Clearly on the down side of Kershaw's career, now, he was still 8th in the Cy Young, going 16-5, with a 3.03 ERA (league ERA was 4.39, the highest in the National League since 2007), and 189 strikeouts in 178 innings.

Kershaw became a great pitcher much faster. His peak has been better, under tougher conditions for pitchers, and it has lasted far longer than Koufax's did. So, just stop this nonsense.

Kershaw over Koufax? Really? How about crunch time in the playoffs when it really counts? Kershaw is a joke compared to Koufax IMO Kershaw's Post season stats?? 9-11 with a whopping 4.63 ERA and that is with an always stacked Dodgers line up, any other questions? How many World Series wins??

[G1911]

But Mays, Aaron and Banks faced Grove and Randy Johnson? News to me.

Got to play by the rules, anecdotal evidence proves Koufax is the best and is superior to data; anecdotal evidence for others is irrelevant since they didn’t face Koufax.

[Tabe]

Got to play by the rules, anecdotal evidence proves Koufax is the best and is superior to data; anecdotal evidence for others is irrelevant since they didn’t face Koufax.

Whoops, my bad. Thanks.

[CMIZ5290]

I'm asking everybody out there..... Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Clayton Kershaw? Forget about the differences in the times, pitching mound, and players, but on a level playing ground, who would you take?

[Mark17]

I'm asking everybody out there..... Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Clayton Kershaw? Forget about the differences in the times, pitching mound, and players, but on a level playing ground, who would you take?

I would take Kershaw if we are talking about the 1955-1960 Koufax.

For people who want to say Koufax was the best, but then conveniently limit their definition of Koufax to his best several seasons, I'll ask this:

Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Len Barker on the day he pitched a perfect game?

[wondo]

How about we frame it in this context. If you were a general manager, who would you pick at the start of his career and he would have the same career?

I would pick pretty much Grove or Spahn over anyone.

[Mark17]

How about we frame it in this context. If you were a general manager, who would you pick at the start of his career and he would have the same career?

I would pick pretty much Grove or Spahn over anyone.

Me too. Spahn or Grove will give you twice as many career wins.

[Chris Counts]

I still say Grove was better. In fact, when considering that Grove missed several years of his prime due to having his contract owned by the independent Orioles, and had to suffer through the juiced ball era of 1929-30, I consider him a viable candidate for the greatest pitcher who ever lived.

[cammb]

Me too. Spahn or Grove will give you twice as many career wins.
D

I would go with Bo Belinski to start a career

[wondo]

D

I would go with Bo Belinski to start a career

I would go with Bo Belinsky and his female companions. Slam dunk.

His no-hitter was in his fourth start.

[Touch'EmAll]

Gotta go with Sidd Finch.

[wondo]

Gotta go with Sidd Finch.

Right handed

[cammb]

I would go with Bo Belinsky and his female companions. Slam dunk.

His no-hitter was in his fourth start.f


That's what I meant. Wasn't,t Jayne Mansfield one of his conquests?

[tedzan]

I'm asking everybody out there..... Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Clayton Kershaw? Forget about the differences in the times, pitching mound, and players, but on a level playing ground, who would you take?

Hey Kevin

That's a great question.

And, my 1st choice is Lefty Gomez [World Series W - L record is 6 - 0 (1932 - 1939)].

My 2nd choice is Whitey Ford [World Series W - L record is 9 - 4 (1950 - 1962)].


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

[cammb]

Hey Kevin

That's a great question.

And, my 1st choice is Lefty Gomez [World Series W - L record is 6 - 0 (1932 - 1939)].

My 2nd choice is Whitey Ford [World Series W - L record is 9 - 4 (1950 - 1962)].


TED Z

T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.

My vote goes to Koufax game 7 versus Twins , 2-0 shutout on 2 days rest. Second would be Jack Morris game 7 10'inning shutout of Atlanta

[Shoeless Moe]

It can't be Kershaw, at least not until he redeems himself a couple times in the Post Season.

It can't be Koufax, yes some very great years, but longevity and late start does him in. (It's almost like saying Eric Gagne was better then Mariano Rivera)

It comes down to Lefty Grove vs Randy Johnson

World Series - 2-1 Grove (but RJ got one, and 3-0 with a 1.04 era vs a very tough 2001 Yankees lineup, Kershaw needs something like that before he can even get into the discussion)
All Star - 10-6 Johnson
Cy Youngs - 5-n/a Johnson (granted not fair to Grove, but Johnson's 5 is more than any other lefty in the history of it, and won it in both the NL & AL)
Wins - 303-301 Johnson
ERA - 3.29-3.06 Grove
K's - 4,875-2,266 Johnson (all of the above was pretty close between Johnson and Grove, but here is where RJ starts to step on the gas)
Perfect Games - 1-0 Johnson (pitched his vs the Braves who would finish 1st, Koufax pitched his against a Cubs team that finished 8th out of 10 teams)
No Hitters - 1-0 Johnson (threw his NoNo 14 years b4 his perfect game, un-hitable when he was young, un-hitable when he was older)
Birds killed - 1-0 Johnson
Made Kruk turn his helmet around and nearly shit his pants in the batters box - Johnson

Stuck out 19 in a game twice, 18 once (Neither Grove or Kershaw have reached 16 once).


Johnson pitched from 1988 to 2009.........so he did all of the above in the heart of the steroid ERA.

PS - RJ pitched until he was 45, Koufax 30.

Also ask yourself these questions if you had a big league career.

Would you want to have a great 4 year run, arm shot, career over at 30? Would you want to be great/dominant each and every season, but continue to tank in the post season over and over? Or would you want to pitch for 22 seasons until you were 45, win a WS, win 5 Cy Youngs, throw a NoNo and a Perfect game, K almost 5,000 hitters? Also, would you as a batter with the game on the line step into the box and try your luck with Lefty Grove or Randy Johnson, I'm guessing you'd rather take your chances with Grove. Ask Wade Boggs who he'd pick. Johnson was feared!

BEST EVER Randy Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2RsY9x8ftg

[thecapeleague]

agreed.

[Robbie]

1) This is laughable. C'mon. Surely you can see the difference between height and a different pitching mound?

I sure can. That's the point. Koufax had more talent. Thanks! :D



Of course guys like Aaron, Banks, Mays, and so on are going to be biased toward Koufax. How come you're not quoting Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn or Will Clark?

How do you know that Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Will Clark, and even Steve Balboni would not agree with Frank Robinson, Aaron, Mays, McCovey, Banks, Stargell, and other losers like that?

Have you ever heard Tony Gwynn say there was a greater left handed pitcher than Sandy Koufax? I grew up in SoCal, and I haven't. That does not mean he did not comment otherwise, however I think he would agree with Aaron, Mays, etc...

Anyway, I would love to hear a conversation between Willie McCovey (RIP) and Will Clark... It would likely go something like this...

CLARK: Hey Willie, what was it like hitting against Koufax?

McCOVEY: Pretty impossible. Getting a piece of a pitch was a victory. I was only able to manage a lifetime .148 batting average against Koufax.

CLARK: Well guys like you, Mays, Aaron, and Banks just don't know how to hit. You should really watch some film on me, Wade Boggs and Steve Balboni to see how real players do it! I would have hit at least .200 against a scrub like Koufax, Boggs would do so well that he would be known for more than riding a horse in Yankee Stadium, and Balboni would have hit an inside-the-park single.

McCOVEY: Thanks for the advice, Will.


In other words... Are you seriously putting up the opinions of Wade Boggs, and Will Clark at the same stature and weight as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, Willie McCovey, etc, etc.? Tony Gwynn...okay. Those other guys? Pleeeeeeeeeeeze!

[Jim65]

The most unreliable way to judge a player is from someone elses opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they almost always stink.

Bob Uecker's career BA against Koufax was .429, if Uecker said Koufax was easy to hit against, would you believe him?

Ralph Kiner said Ewell Blackwell was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, does anyone believe that Blackwell was an all-time great?

No because stats are facts, not opinions.

[Huysmans]

The most unreliable way to judge a player is from someone elses opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they almost always stink.

Bob Uecker's career BA against Koufax was .429, if Uecker said Koufax was easy to hit against, would you believe him?

Ralph Kiner said Ewell Blackwell was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, does anyone believe that Blackwell was an all-time great?

No because stats are facts, not opinions.

Exactly. I'm sure Sandy's mother thought he was the best.... maybe her opinion should be used as fact.
STATS are STATS for a reason.
Otherwise, flip a coin to make your decisions. It's just as reliable and relevant as someone's opinion.

[rats60]

The most unreliable way to judge a player is from someone elses opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they almost always stink.

Bob Uecker's career BA against Koufax was .429, if Uecker said Koufax was easy to hit against, would you believe him?

Ralph Kiner said Ewell Blackwell was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, does anyone believe that Blackwell was an all-time great?

No because stats are facts, not opinions.

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

[Jim65]

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

I don't reject or accept all advanced metrics. They are a tool. Everything has flaws but opinions have more flaws than all stats put together.

I never made an argument for Grove, I voted for Randy Johnson, who I actually saw pitch many many times.

[Frank A]

This is a game of wins and losses. All the rest of these dumb stats mean nothing. So sick and tired about hearing all this other crap when the game comes down to wins and losses. All these stat guys should step back and take a break from this nonsense.

[Greg Sonk]

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

The key difference here is that in one case, someone creating a metric set out to reflect what happens on a baseball field separately from their opinions of any individual player. This is exactly why we have stats like FIP-, ERA+ or any other adjusted pitching metric you prefer. You're attempting to contextualize and consider all of baseball history with a relatively equal slant. You would expect that to be seen as a good thing on a pre-war baseball board rather than someone trying to play the "real stats" card that went out with Duran Duran.

When you ask a player the same question, you're overwhelmingly likely to get either someone they played against or idolized as a kid. More often than not, they're also basing this on what they personally experienced rather than the total package. In the days before video rooms, what percentage of Koufax's pitches do you think Player X saw?

To be clear, I'm not blaming players for any of this. That's human nature. But to be blunt, player evaluation skills don't necessarily overlap with playing skills. There's a reason baseball front offices hiring pools have undergone a seismic shift.

[earlywynnfan]

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

It probably got buried way up in the thread, but I asked you specifically which stats you trust/value and which you don't, if perhaps you could answer?

[Jim65]

This is a game of wins and losses. All the rest of these dumb stats mean nothing. So sick and tired about hearing all this other crap when the game comes down to wins and losses. All these stat guys should step back and take a break from this nonsense.

Pitcher Wins are a meaningless stat. If a pitcher gives up 8 runs and wins because his team scored 9, do you think that pitcher is better than a guy who pitches a complete game and loses 1-0?

[Tabe]

In other words... Are you seriously putting up the opinions of Wade Boggs, and Will Clark at the same stature and weight as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, Willie McCovey, etc, etc.? Tony Gwynn...okay. Those other guys? Pleeeeeeeeeeeze!

Wade Boggs? Absolutely. Yeah, I'm going to listen to a guy who hit .356 - combined - his first 7 years in the majors.

Will Clark was just a name I thought of when trying to think of a left-handed hitter who played during Randy Johnson's career.

The point was to select some top guys who played against Johnson but not Koufax. Guys are ALWAYS going to have a bias toward the players they played with/against and not guys they only saw. And they're ALWAYS going to remember just the top part of their career not the other parts. When somebody talks about how tough Greg Maddux was to hit, they are ignoring the latter part of his career where he got lit up frequently. That's what Mays/Aaron/etc are doing.

It's hypocritical to uncritically accept the opinions of Mays & Aaron because they played against Koufax and not Johnson but not accept the (potential) opinions of guys who played against Johnson but not Koufax.

[7nohitter]

Bruce Hurst. That 12-6 curve was devastating.

[rats60]

It probably got buried way up in the thread, but I asked you specifically which stats you trust/value and which you don't, if perhaps you could answer?

ERA, WHIP and FIP. I have problems with other stats as they are often misused and don't translate well across eras (or positions for WAR).