Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

No, there isn't, and I think that is your point.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims like the pitching was as good in Grove's era as Koufax's and the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only sensible way to look at ERA is to compare a pitcher to his peers. That accounts for general trends in ballparks, juiced baseballs, mound height, league expansion, etc.

Koufax led the league in ERA 5 times. Pretty impressive. Grove led the league in ERA 9 times. More impressive.

You can't win these arguments, Koufax vs Grove:
Best season - Grove's 1931 is insane. The 3 guys to win 30 games since 1920 are Grove (31 in 1931), Dean (30 in 1934), and McLain (31 in 1968.) Despite Grove and Dean doing it in a 154 game season, and players since 1961 having 8 more games, it hasn't been done in the last 50+ years.

Best run of 6 consecutive seasons: Grove, see above.

Career:
ERA titles: Koufax 5, Grove 9
Wins: Koufax 165, Grove 300
Win percentage: Koufax 65%, Grove 68% (highest among 300 game winners and eighth best overall).

Short term (one season), Grove.
Best years (6 season run), Grove.
Career, Grove.

We remember Koufax. Many of us saw him in his prime. He is a very popular player and fellow.

Grove was better, period.

This is your opinion and I disagree with it. Dominating a weak pitching era doesn't make someone better than a pitcher who dominates one of the strongest pitching eras. Wins are not a good metric to use to compare pitchers. I have presented evidence in this thread that Koufax lacked the run support that Grove received. Koufax should have won 30+ games both in 1963 and 1966. Grove's 31 wins were a matter of luck. He won 4 games where he gave up 4+ runs. That is a poor pitching performance under any circumstance, but the A's powerful offense bailed him out. He also won 4 in relief including a 3 inning relief appearance where the A's gave him the lead in the tenth and Grove blew it only to have the A's to score twice in eleventh.

Koufax had 2 or 3 seasons better than Grove's best. Koufax's 6 year run from 1961-1966 was better than Grove's, ERA, WHIP, FIP, K/9, no hitters, etc. Even Koufax's career numbers are better including counting stats like shutouts and strikeouts despite Koufax retiring at 30. Grove just pitched for stronger offensive team over a long period of time resulting in more wins. These are just opinions, but I don't judge a pitcher by wins.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

Dominating a weak pitching era doesn't make someone better than a pitcher who dominates one of the strongest pitching eras.

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66,.

That’s crazy! If it wasn’t for the expansion teams he wouldn’t even be close to 22nd best lefty pitching WAR.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

That’s crazy! If it wasn’t for the expansion teams he wouldn’t even be close to 22nd best lefty pitching WAR.

Correction: since WAR mathematics takes into consideration the results of peers within the same seasons, it is likely that expansion team domination is already included. So 22nd best lefty is probably accurate.

Really dilutes the narrative of a good 4-year run though.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by rats60

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims like the pitching was as good in Grove's era as Koufax's and the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

There doesn't have to be "arguments" for claim Koufax is the best lefty, facts trump arguments, and the facts dispute that... considerably.

Wait!! I found an old unimportant article, from a meaningless source, forgotten or not known by any stating that Koufax once signed an autograph for a small child who didn't even ask!!!

... learning this CRUCIAL information, I changed my mind, he MUST be the best lefty... right ???

[HistoricNewspapers]

Koufax's MPH was measured and he clocked in at 93 MPH. There were several players who were measured at the same time as he was and he was not the fastest among his peers.

There is a more comprehensive list of that test, but this Sports Illustrated article from when Ryan was clocked at over 100 alludes to Koufax's speed.


https://vault.si.com/vault/1974/09/1...p-for-an-angel

One poster above made a very wise distinction about what defines 'best', when he said that a career value and peak value can give two very different answers, and both be correct.

There is no way Koufax can be viewed better than Warren Spahn based on their careers. Simply no way.

However, if you are talking about who was better in their peak years, then Koufax is going to be the answer.

I do want to point out that many do cite Koufax's early retirement as a way of giving him more credit toward someone like Spahn. While that is a good 'what if' scenario to take into consideration, keep in mind that Koufax is not the only player that has strong 'what if' factors such as that. Spahn himself lost three years due to WWII.

Had Spahn not lost three years, then he is easily a 400 game winner. Wins are not the best indicator of a pitcher, but he still lost three years of production. Any way you slice it, add those three years into his career, then his lead on Koufax is impossible to overcome.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yeah, no kidding. The discussion was about ERA and how 2.81 over 5 years was so amazing.

Both you and the other poster were trying to diminish Koufax's overall performance by concentrating on road E.R.A.

"There are lots of guys who had amazing 5-year runs". Horlen's 2.34 E.R.A in and of itself was great, but it wasn't an amazing run compared to Koufax.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

No, there isn't, and I think that is your point.

Caught me

[jgannon]

Looking at this whole thread, I think there are a couple of debates going on. I can see the argument that longevity should be a factor in considering who is the greatest of all time. My arguments have been directed at the posters who claim that Koufax was only a great pitcher for the period in which he excelled, due to external circumstances. It is not anecdotal to cite Koufax's own quote about his change in his approach to pitching in 1961. He is a first-hand historical source. Hey, maybe it's possible he has some insight into what we're talking about here. To dismiss his input as irrelevant is ludicrous as it is arrogant. Koufax gained his control after he stopped trying to overpower the hitters. If he hadn't done this, it wouldn't have mattered how many expansion teams came into existence and if they raised the mound to 30". Without the change in his approach, he would not have become the great pitcher he became.

Also, the arrogance toward the quotes by the great players who played against Koufax is pretty incredible. If it comes down to listening to the informed, professional opinions of some of the greatest who have played the game, and those who dismiss what they had to say here, I know who I am listening to. Also, the players quoted don't say that Koufax was the greatest of all-time, but go out of their way to recognize that there was something special about him, with Aaron going as far to say he was a step ahead of other greats of the era.

I could see people choosing other lefty pitchers as the GOAT due to the longevity factor. But the fact that Koufax IS included in the conversation after only having the brief, brilliant run that he did have, says a lot about how great he was.

I feel, we can argue over who is the greatest of all-time. But you can't argue that Sandy Koufax wasn't one of baseball's all-time great pitchers.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Looking at this whole thread, I think there are a couple of debates going on. I can see the argument that longevity should be a factor in considering who is the greatest of all time. My arguments have been directed at the posters who claim that Koufax was only a great pitcher for the period in which he excelled, due to external circumstances. It is not anecdotal to cite Koufax's own quote about his change in his approach to pitching in 1961. He is a first-hand historical source. Hey, maybe it's possible he has some insight into what we're talking about here. To dismiss his input as irrelevant is ludicrous as it is arrogant. Koufax gained his control after he stopped trying to overpower the hitters. If he hadn't done this, it wouldn't have mattered how many expansion teams came into existence and if they raised the mound to 30". Without the change in his approach, he would not have become the great pitcher he became.

Also, the arrogance toward the quotes by the great players who played against Koufax is pretty incredible. If it comes down to listening to the informed, professional opinions of some of the greatest who have played the game, and those who dismiss what they had to say here, I know who I am listening to. Also, the players quoted don't say that Koufax was the greatest of all-time, but go out of their way to recognize that there was something special about him, with Aaron going as far to say he was a step ahead of other greats of the era.

I could see people choosing other lefty pitchers as the GOAT due to the longevity factor. But the fact that Koufax IS included in the conversation after only having the brief, brilliant run that he did have, says a lot about how great he was.

I feel, we can argue over who is the greatest of all-time. But you can't argue that Sandy Koufax wasn't one of baseball's all-time great pitchers.

Many anecdotes are first-hand. That does not make them not anecdotes.

Why do you only want to listen to the "informed, professional opinions" of the greats who faced Koufax? The ruleset for judging Koufax is different from that for everyone else. Unless you want to rank Ewell Blackwell as one of the greatest due to anecdotes mentioned earlier.
'
Again, if Koufax had discovered some pitching secret, it wouldn't be only his home numbers that greatly improved. His away stats remained pretty flat most years after his alleged discovery. This claim does not mesh with verifiable fact; just like most anecdotes.

Finally, still no one has argued that Koufax was not great during his peak. One poster said he was merely 'good' on the road, which appears to be true looking at his numbers on the road compared to the league averages. His exceptional home park performance and 5 ERA crowns is still a great peak. Nobody in this thread has alleged it was not.

I would love to hear an argument for Koufax based in verifiable fact, in the same standards everyone else is judged too. There must be one that could reasonably be made instead of attempting to replace fact with anecdote, ignore half Koufax's career, ignore anyone else with short term success, ignore highly unusual road/home splits, ignore era/ballpark/league factors etc.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Correction: since WAR mathematics takes into consideration the results of peers within the same seasons, it is likely that expansion team domination is already included. So 22nd best lefty is probably accurate.

Really dilutes the narrative of a good 4-year run though.

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

Since it is "the best lefty of all time" and not "the best 4 year consecutive peak of all time", using lifetime totals hardly seems unfair as a metric.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

Since it is "the best lefty of all time" and not "the best 4 year consecutive peak of all time", using lifetime totals hardly seems unfair as a metric.

His peak has nothing to do with that. It's just about the problem with llining up who was the "best" based only on lifetime WAR total.

Would you say that Phil Niekro's career should be considered superior to Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez (simply because he pitched so long)? Or was twice the pitcher that Ron Guidry was?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

His peak has nothing to do with that. It's just about the problem with llining up who was the "best" based only on lifetime WAR total.

Would you say that Phil Niekro should be considered a better pitcher than Bob Gibson or Pedro Martinez? Or twice as good as Ron Guidry?

Niekro being twice as valuable as Guidry, sounds about right. Guidry had a short peak, short career. Niekro was effective for an almost absurd amount of time. I wouldn't take him over Gibson, but Pedro also had a very short career (short term peak only, I would probably take Pedro as #1 all time but he's nowhere near my #1 for a career because his career was so short). Niekro hurled twice as many innings as Pedro. Was Pedro twice as good as Niekro? His dominance was such that I could see a good argument either way.

Gibson hurled 1,600 innings less than Niekro, so I don't think it's unreasonable to trade some length for less dominant effectiveness. Again, I can see it either way. Every pitching judgement here is a trade off between dominance vs. more effective seasons.

Niekro, Gibson and Pedro are close in career WAR, but none of them are close in Innings. If anything, this seems to show it does reward career dominance and not just length, as Pedro with half the career service time is just a tad below Niekro.

I'm not a fan of WAR, but when the discussion is all time, career statistics like WAR are not unfair to use.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

Niekro, Gibson and Pedro are close in career WAR, but none of them are close in Innings. If anything, this seems to show it does reward career dominance and not just length, as Pedro with half the career service time is just a tad below Niekro.

It only "rewards" Pedro's career dominance (when it comes to HOF quality pitchers like him/Koufax/Guidry who had a short career). And only to a certain extent, because Niekro's is still noticeably higher.

Pedro 2827 IP 83.9 WAR
Gibson 3884 IP 89.2 WAR
Niekro 5404 IP 95.9 WAR

Mostly just shows how unthinkably great Pedro was. rather than career WAR being always being a close enough metric of greatness when the career length/dominance dichotomy shows up. The main disagreement here is that when it comes to who was the "best", you put more weight on the career length side of that, while I do the same with the dominance side. And as you've mentioned, that balance is somewhat subjective as long as someone doesn't go too far one way or the other.

As far as Pedro goes, the above is not surprising though. Have always thought that he is the most talented and effective pitcher the game has ever seen.

[darwinbulldog]

Grove(s)

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims [...] the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

Literally no one has made such a claim in this discussion.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Both you and the other poster were trying to diminish Koufax's overall performance by concentrating on road E.R.A.

The response we got was that Koufax's five-year run of 2.81 road ERA would make him an all-time great. Point is, a lefty with a 5-year run of 2.81 ERA is not all THAT special.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

Alright, let's go with that. Warren Spahn has a 92.5 career WAR. That's an average of 4.40 over 21 years. And his WAR was actually negative his rookie year. He had a 93 WAR over his last 20 seasons - 4.65.

Sandy's WAR per is 4.42.

So...12 years of 4.42 or 21 years of 4.40 (20 of 4.65)? Easy choice.

Also, FWIW, WAR says that Steve Carlton's 1972 was the best year for any lefty in the live ball era.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Alright, let's go with that. Warren Spahn has a 92.5 career WAR. That's an average of 4.40 over 21 years. And his WAR was actually negative his rookie year. He had a 93 WAR over his last 20 seasons - 4.65.

Sandy's WAR per is 4.42.

So...12 years of 4.42 or 21 years of 4.40 (20 of 4.65)? Easy choice.

Also, FWIW, WAR says that Steve Carlton's 1972 was the best year for any lefty in the live ball era.

I never said that I would choose Koufax over someone like Spahn. There or anywhere.

The point was that simply saying "he's not even in the top 20, just because of this cumulative career number" is not that logical and knocks him down too far. Not that I consider him higher on the list than a top 5 guy. Big difference

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

If you're only comparing peak, Grove wins ERA+ and WAR by fairly significant margins. Hence, vehement Koufax supporters saying WAR is a "garbage stat." I'm sure they'll consider ERA+ to be useless, also. They only want to count specific counting stats in a vacuum, with no allowances for differences in era, defenses, parks, or anything else. Kinda like the people who say Pete Rose is a better hitter than Ty Cobb because he got more hits.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

It only "rewards" Pedro's career dominance (when it comes to HOF quality pitchers like him/Koufax/Guidry who had a short career). And only to a certain extent, because Niekro's is still noticeably higher.

Pedro 2827 IP 83.9 WAR
Gibson 3884 IP 89.2 WAR
Niekro 5404 IP 95.9 WAR

Mostly just shows how unthinkably great Pedro was. rather than career WAR being always being a close enough metric of greatness when the career length/dominance dichotomy shows up. The main disagreement here is that when it comes to who was the "best", you put more weight on the career length side of that, while I do the same with the dominance side. And as you've mentioned, that balance is somewhat subjective as long as someone doesn't go too far one way or the other.

As far as Pedro goes, the above is not surprising though. Have always thought that he is the most talented and effective pitcher the game has ever seen.

Pedro was the best peak of my lifetime, I think, but I would pick Maddux, Johnson and Clemens over him of his direct contemporaries anyways.

There are reasonable different values one can make on peak vs. career, but I don't think it matters that much to the question here. Grove's peak is the equal of Sandy's, AND he has a much, much longer peak and career. Kershaw's peak is superior, I think, as well. It's not like Sandy is unique and unbeatably the best peak lefty and we are picking a guy like Niekro over him. We are picking other dominant pitchers that also pitched twice as long as he did.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pedro was the best peak of my lifetime, I think, but I would pick Maddux, Johnson and Clemens over him of his direct contemporaries anyways.

I would definitely take Clemens. Clemens averaged more WAR per year (5.78 vs 5.05 for Pedro, ignoring Pedro's 2-game first season) while pitching 7 more seasons (24 vs 17, again ignoring 1992 for Pedro). And his best WAR year (1997 - 11.9) was better than Pedro's (2000 - 11.7). And, finally, Clemens averaged 205 IP for 24 years, while Pedro averaged 165 for 17.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

If you're only comparing peak, Grove wins ERA+ and WAR by fairly significant margins. Hence, vehement Koufax supporters saying WAR is a "garbage stat." I'm sure they'll consider ERA+ to be useless, also. They only want to count specific counting stats in a vacuum, with no allowances for differences in era, defenses, parks, or anything else. Kinda like the people who say Pete Rose is a better hitter than Ty Cobb because he got more hits.

That's why, even while saying that "he's not a top 20 all time lefty" opinions are too far-fetched, I'm not a vehement Koufax supporter either Plenty of middle ground.

And don't even get me started on how overrated Pete Rose is. No middle-ground on that stance!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would definitely take Clemens. Clemens averaged more WAR per year (5.78 vs 5.05 for Pedro, ignoring Pedro's 2-game first season) while pitching 7 more seasons (24 vs 17, again ignoring 1992 for Pedro). And his best WAR year (1997 - 11.9) was better than Pedro's (2000 - 11.7). And, finally, Clemens averaged 205 IP for 24 years, while Pedro averaged 165 for 17.

Pedro in 2000, when he led the league with a 1.74 ERA and Clemens was second at 3.70 is the most dominating single season I have ever seen from a starter.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would definitely take Clemens. Clemens averaged more WAR per year (5.78 vs 5.05 for Pedro, ignoring Pedro's 2-game first season) while pitching 7 more seasons (24 vs 17, again ignoring 1992 for Pedro). And his best WAR year (1997 - 11.9) was better than Pedro's (2000 - 11.7). And, finally, Clemens averaged 205 IP for 24 years, while Pedro averaged 165 for 17.

But if you're using WAR, looking at it per innings pitched (rather than per season) is the best indicator. And Pedro bests all those guys there.

Clemens' overall career is highly underappreciated though, and may very well be the best of all time (ignoring the steroids, obviously). But in additoin to that, I think he's also overlooked because he probably doesn't have that signature hallmark stat or moment.

No bloody sock, no all time strikeout king crown or standout lifetime ERA numbers (again, people need to look at ERA+ a lot more). He was just exceptional, but not the best, at pretty much everything. But that's not as exciting as Nolan Ryan throwing 108 mph.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many anecdotes are first-hand. That does not make them not anecdotes.

Why do you only want to listen to the "informed, professional opinions" of the greats who faced Koufax? The ruleset for judging Koufax is different from that for everyone else. Unless you want to rank Ewell Blackwell as one of the greatest due to anecdotes mentioned earlier.
'
Again, if Koufax had discovered some pitching secret, it wouldn't be only his home numbers that greatly improved. His away stats remained pretty flat most years after his alleged discovery. This claim does not mesh with verifiable fact; just like most anecdotes.

Finally, still no one has argued that Koufax was not great during his peak. One poster said he was merely 'good' on the road, which appears to be true looking at his numbers on the road compared to the league averages. His exceptional home park performance and 5 ERA crowns is still a great peak. Nobody in this thread has alleged it was not.

I would love to hear an argument for Koufax based in verifiable fact, in the same standards everyone else is judged too. There must be one that could reasonably be made instead of attempting to replace fact with anecdote, ignore half Koufax's career, ignore anyone else with short term success, ignore highly unusual road/home splits, ignore era/ballpark/league factors etc.

Here we are back at the beginning again. I put up a post on page three where I discuss that Koufax began his turn the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine. Koufax's last road E.R.A. was 1.96. You can ignore or dismiss that the man himself said he began pitching differently. You can ignore a 1.96 E.R.A.

Anyway, maybe we should all start debating that Mantle and Ruth weren't really great home run hitters because they had the short right field porch at Yankee Stadium. And Whitey Ford wasn't really that good a pitcher because of death valley there. A lot of Mays' home runs were cheap, because he began hitting them the opposite way at Candlestick so that the wind would help carry them. Can't work with the conditions in the ballpark you play in, or use it's uniqueness to your advantage. The thing is, that's how baseball is. And one of the things that makes it so interesting and fun. The point is, Koufax was a great pitcher anyway you slice it.

Edit: And yes, I know that the wind was a hindrance at Candlestick Park and was making potential home runs into fly outs. Mays of course, compensated.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Here we are back at the beginning again. I put up a post on page three where I discuss that Koufax began his turn the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine. Koufax's last road E.R.A. was 1.96. You can ignore or dismiss that the man himself said he began pitching differently. You can ignore a 1.96 E.R.A.

Anyway, maybe we should all start debating that Mantle and Ruth weren't really great home run hitters because they had the short right field porch at Yankee Stadium. And Whitey Ford wasn't really that good a pitcher because of death valley there. A lot of Mays' home runs were cheap, because he began hitting them the opposite way at Candlestick so that the wind would help carry them. Can't work with the conditions in the ballpark you play in, or use it's uniqueness to your advantage. The thing is, that's how baseball is. And one of the things that makes it so interesting and fun. The point is, Koufax was a great pitcher anyway you slice it.

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

And I've never said that Chavez didn't help Koufax. But you ignore that he became a better pitcher outside of that. And none of his teammates achieved what he did at home.

People are arguing that Koufax's greatness was due largely to external factors, saying he had a great run soley because of those factors, and that he was just so-so on the road. His road E.R.A.'s were better than in the early part of his career. And 1.96 his last year.

[Bram99]

my gosh the thread is dominated by arguments for Koufax. Lefty Grove was the greatest. Then Spahn. And to the poster who brought up park conditions relative to Mantle and Ruth, the Mick hit over 160 as a righty, and many more to center and left field. The Babe hit more on the road than at home. So never try to besmirch a Yankee to support an argument for a Dodger!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Bram99

my gosh the thread is dominated by arguments for Koufax. Lefty Grove was the greatest. Then Spahn. And to the poster who brought up park conditions relative to Mantle and Ruth, the Mick hit over 160 as a righty, and many more to center and left field. The Babe hit more on the road than at home. So never try to besmirch a Yankee to support an argument for a Dodger!

Ha ha, I'm actually a Yankee fan! I wouldn't dream of besmirching them! I was just kidding around! I didn't crunch those numbers, lol.

At any rate, I still say Koufax was a great pitcher, whose own personal growth was a major reason he was one. And all of these other pitchers are great too!!

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by jgannon

And I've never said that Chavez didn't help Koufax. But you ignore that he became a better pitcher outside of that. And none of his teammates achieved what he did at home.

People are arguing that Koufax's greatness was due largely to external factors, saying he had a great run soley because of those factors, and that he was just so-so on the road. His road E.R.A.'s were better than in the early part of his career. And 1.96 his last year.

For ANYONE trying to minimize Koufax’s fantastic dominance over a 4/5 year period due to compiling a sensational W/L record vs. weak teams such as the Mets, etc, I totally beg to differ. Virtually all great pitchers have elevated their career statistics by throttling weaker opposition. Nature of the beast and it makes perfect sense. BTW, maybe we should look at the powerful 1963 Yankees....Koufax turned their bats into complete sawdust in the 2 games he won by embarrassing their hitters including a then record setting 15 strikeout performance!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

But if you're using WAR, looking at it per innings pitched (rather than per season) is the best indicator. And Pedro bests all those guys there.

Thing is, innings pitched is a skill. Throwing 40 extra innings every year - and 7 extra seasons - is a monstrous gap to overcome. If all we care about is WAR per inning then you end up with some closer getting ranked highly.

I do agree with the guy above saying Pedro's 1.74 vs Roger's 3.70 for ERA might be the most amazing pitching accomplishment ever.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Bram99

The Babe hit more on the road than at home.

So did Mickey!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

And I've never said that Chavez didn't help Koufax. But you ignore that he became a better pitcher outside of that. And none of his teammates achieved what he did at home.

People are arguing that Koufax's greatness was due largely to external factors, saying he had a great run soley because of those factors, and that he was just so-so on the road. His road E.R.A.'s were better than in the early part of his career. And 1.96 his last year.

Again, ignoring every other year, and again, the evidence does not support the conclusion that when the strike zone was expanded, he moved into a pitcher friendly home park and his road stats stayed flat, he learned some new mechanic and that was responsible for the change instead.

Nobody is arguing his teammates were better, as discussed before, so that is irrelevant to the question of the thread.

The math shows his home road splits are extremely unusual with one of the most extreme home park heavy splits of all baseball history. There is no reason to think that so many favorable factors aligning are not the primary cause of his success only when circumstances heavily favored him. It was not until Expansion, a heavy pitcher park and an expanded strike zone he improved at home. The argument this is random chance and not the cause is disproven by the huge gap in his splits.

A logical, fact-based or statistical case for Koufax that does not pretend inconvenient facts simply do not exist would be interesting to undertake.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

To basically prove your point, here are Drysdale's splits. They also show a huge Chavez Ravine advantage:

Drysdale splits 1962-1968

1962 Home: 2.16 Away: 3.68
1963 Home: 2.45 Away: 2.81
1964 Home: 2.02 Away: 2.33
1965 Home: 2.45 Away: 3.09
1966 Home: 2.25 Away: 4.65
1967 Home: 2.17 Away: 3.44
1968 Home: 1.39 Away: 3.25

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

To basically prove your point, here are Drysdale's splits. They also show a huge Chavez Ravine advantage:

Drysdale splits 1962-1968

1962 Home: 2.16 Away: 3.68
1963 Home: 2.45 Away: 2.81
1964 Home: 2.02 Away: 2.33
1965 Home: 2.45 Away: 3.09
1966 Home: 2.25 Away: 4.65
1967 Home: 2.17 Away: 3.44
1968 Home: 1.39 Away: 3.25

And the #3 and #4 Dodgers pitchers in 1962, everyone in the rotation who pitched over 100 innings:

Johnny Podres
1962:
Home: 3.08
Away: 4.60

1963
Home: 3.49
Away: 3.60

1964:
Pitched 2.2. innings, not a relevant sample size

1965:
Home: 2.90
Away: 4.22

1966
Recorded 1.2 innings before going to Detroit



Stan Williams:
1962:
Home: 3.68
Away: 5.54

Traded to Yankees at end of 1962 season



It's the exact same story, which is of course expected. Extremely friendly pitching park + expansion + widened strike zone = some impressive numbers and better performances at first glance than is actually the case in context. However, no mountain of evidence that Sandy's home park produces highly abnormal home statistics for everyone (him most of all, because he was the best on the Dodgers) and that on the road 2 of these 3 factors were still producing a very low run environment across the entire league will be ignored in favor of nostalgia, anecdote, and gaps in logic big enough to plow a small moon through.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The response we got was that Koufax's five-year run of 2.81 road ERA would make him an all-time great. Point is, a lefty with a 5-year run of 2.81 ERA is not all THAT special.

False, Koufax's 5 year road ERA was 2.59. 2.81 was another poster wanting to excluded Koufax's best year. It just goes to show ridiculous the arguments are from the haters. That was by far the best road ERA in MLB by a starting pitcher over that period.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

Jack Morris had the most wins in the 1980s. That argument was used to get him elected to the HOF. Does that make Jack Morris one of the greatest pitchers of all time because he was considered the best of a weak era? Of course not and feel free to insert Dave Stieb or some other mediocre pitcher from that era, it doesn't change anything.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

Jack Morris had the most wins in the 1980s. That argument was used to get him elected to the HOF. Does that make Jack Morris one of the greatest pitchers of all time because he was considered the best of a weak era? Of course not and feel free to insert Dave Stieb or some other mediocre pitcher from that era, it doesn't change anything.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Alright, let's go with that. Warren Spahn has a 92.5 career WAR. That's an average of 4.40 over 21 years. And his WAR was actually negative his rookie year. He had a 93 WAR over his last 20 seasons - 4.65.

Sandy's WAR per is 4.42.

So...12 years of 4.42 or 21 years of 4.40 (20 of 4.65)? Easy choice.

Also, FWIW, WAR says that Steve Carlton's 1972 was the best year for any lefty in the live ball era.

FWAR also says that Koufax had 3 seasons better than any year Grove had. Koufax had 4 years that were better than any year Spahn had. That includes Koufax's 1961 season which several here are trying to discount as being mediocre. Koufax's 1962 and 1964 seasons are real close to Spahn's best year only because Koufax missed time due to injuries. It is an easy choice, Koufax for 6 brilliant years is better than a lesser pitcher for a longer period of time.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

If you're only comparing peak, Grove wins ERA+ and WAR by fairly significant margins. Hence, vehement Koufax supporters saying WAR is a "garbage stat." I'm sure they'll consider ERA+ to be useless, also. They only want to count specific counting stats in a vacuum, with no allowances for differences in era, defenses, parks, or anything else. Kinda like the people who say Pete Rose is a better hitter than Ty Cobb because he got more hits.

False, Koufax had 3 seasons with a higher fWAR than any season Grove had. From 1961- 1966 Koufax had more fWAR than any 6 seasons you want to cherry pick from Grove's career even with Koufax missing time due to injury.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Thing is, innings pitched is a skill. Throwing 40 extra innings every year - and 7 extra seasons - is a monstrous gap to overcome. If all we care about is WAR per inning then you end up with some closer getting ranked highly.

I do agree with the guy above saying Pedro's 1.74 vs Roger's 3.70 for ERA might be the most amazing pitching accomplishment ever.

Closers wouldn't have to be included in any comparison of starting pitchers at all. I don't know where that even came from. Naturally WAR/inning is a similar ratio concept to someone's ERA, and it's not like anyone would dismiss ERA as a factor for ranking starting pitchers (nor should they, just because it's a ratio that can be applied to any pitcher). You just dismiss relievers' participation in that discussion.

The rest is once again the dominance or talent vs longevity and durability argument that's somewhat subjective. I'm fine with people preferring Johnson, Maddux, or Clemens to Pedro because of it (or even considering them "better", though I'd disagree).

But that doesn't mean that Pedro still can't be considered the most talented or effective pitcher of them all. Especially if you value outs and winning more than innings as a "skill"

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

But if you're using WAR, looking at it per innings pitched (rather than per season) is the best indicator. And Pedro bests all those guys there.

Clemens' overall career is highly underappreciated though, and may very well be the best of all time (ignoring the steroids, obviously). But in additoin to that, I think he's also overlooked because he probably doesn't have that signature hallmark stat or moment.

No bloody sock, no all time strikeout king crown or standout lifetime ERA numbers (again, people need to look at ERA+ a lot more). He was just exceptional, but not the best, at pretty much everything. But that's not as exciting as Nolan Ryan throwing 108 mph.

Let’s hit the nail on the head here - Roger Clemens career AFTER Boston was “saved” by steroids - case closed! Anyone trying to dispute that fact is outright fooling themselves. His obvious steroid use when he went to Toronto immediately resulted in 2 consecutive pitching triple crowns & he undoubtedly continued using PEDs the remainder of his career. Like many others including Bonds, a total “cheater” w/zero integrity and tainted career numbers. I do believe his performance in Boston was good enough to earn him HOF stature, but his rank on an all-time list will forever be clouded w/ambiguity due to his post-Boston excessive steroid use. An outright lier (that congressional hearing was a joke - “I think my friend Mr. Pettitte Mis-remembered????”); a cheat; & a fraud.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

False, Koufax had 3 seasons with a higher fWAR than any season Grove had. From 1961- 1966 Koufax had more fWAR than any 6 seasons you want to cherry pick from Grove's career even with Koufax missing time due to injury.

OOOOHHH, I see. fWAR= good stat, bWAR= garbage stat. And I'm the one cherry picking...

[brewing]

Jay Jaffe's JAWS averages Career WAR and 7 year peak WAR

Grove 86.1
Randy Johnson 81.3
Spahn 75.8
Carlton 72.2
Plank 71.1
Glavine 62.4
Average HoF 61.6
Kershaw 58.8
Newhouser 57.6
Koufax 47.4


Pitching WAR for best 7 seasons (not consecutive)
Grove 65.6
Johnson 61.5
Carlton 54.3
Newhouser 52.6
Spahn 51.4
Plank 51.1
Average HoF 50.0
Kershaw 49.7
Koufax 46.0
Glavine 44.1

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

Unless the criteria is 4 consecutive years, I don't see the argument that Koufax is the discussion of the greatest all time.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, ignoring every other year, and again, the evidence does not support the conclusion that when the strike zone was expanded, he moved into a pitcher friendly home park and his road stats stayed flat, he learned some new mechanic and that was responsible for the change instead.

Nobody is arguing his teammates were better, as discussed before, so that is irrelevant to the question of the thread.

The math shows his home road splits are extremely unusual with one of the most extreme home park heavy splits of all baseball history. There is no reason to think that so many favorable factors aligning are not the primary cause of his success only when circumstances heavily favored him. It was not until Expansion, a heavy pitcher park and an expanded strike zone he improved at home. The argument this is random chance and not the cause is disproven by the huge gap in his splits.

A logical, fact-based or statistical case for Koufax that does not pretend inconvenient facts simply do not exist would be interesting to undertake.

Below, is something I wrote in a post on page 3 after posting Koufax's stats. I think it's important to consider. Again, I am not saying that Chavez wasn't a factor. My argument is that Koufax began to improve prior to the move to Chavez, and if he hadn't, we wouldn't be discussing him right now.

What I said on page 3:

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.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koufax's E.R.A. improved on the road, as compared to the early part of his career. The downward trend began before the expansion of the strike zone and before the move to Chavez.

We're not disagreeing on there being outside factors that coincided with Koufax's great run. We're just disagreeing on your saying that those factors were the only thing that made the pitcher. I say, without the change Koufax made in his approach to pitching, he would not have made his push to greatness.

And I think there are other factors beyond the numbers that factor into greatness. Koufax pitched through pain much of the time during the height of his career, pitching complete games. Add to this, his rising to the moment in the 1963 and 1965 World Series.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Koufax still has a better ERA, WHIP, FIP, K/9 than Grove. So you still want to kick out of the HOF Grove, Spahn, Carlton, Randy Johnson, Feller, Ryan, Maddox, etc. Your new standard has gone from 1 to 8 live ball pitchers, Ford, Palmer, Seaver, Marichal, Gibson, Martinez, Drysdale and Hubbell. Or are you not letting other pitchers who had worse road ERAs in too because Drysdale also benefits from Dodger Stadium? Then he has to go along with Palmer, Martinez and Hubbell. That leaves you with only 4 modern pitchers in your HOF, Ford, Seaver, Gibson and Marichal. What a coincidence that they are all from the same time period as Koufax. Should we kick them out too because the hitters were too weak? Any standard you apply to Koufax, he is still a first ballot Hofer, he was that good, even on the road.

Koufax video game numbers were a product of his home park.

Period.

If he was "the best in baseball" over a five year period, he doesn't get into the Hall. He just doesn't and I don't see how that is debatable. Take away his home numbers from 1962-1966 and just double his road numbers and there is no way that career gets him into the Hall. I don't even see how that can be questioned. He would have been Gary Peters but with a lot more strikeouts from 1962-1966.

If Peters isn't a Hall of Famer...