Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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/p...ershcl01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...oufasa01.shtml

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 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/p...ershcl01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...oufasa01.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

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

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]

Originally Posted by brewing

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.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by 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/p...ershcl01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...oufasa01.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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by G1911

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]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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).

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

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

[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.

Steve Carlton 1972 Topps #751 BVG 7 NM.jpg

[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.

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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]

Originally Posted by cammb

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]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[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.

[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.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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).

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

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.

[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.

[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!!)

[1952boyntoncollector]

Billy Wagner

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

[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.

[btcarfagno]

Koufax was a creature of his home park. Home road splits are insane. It's Waddell for me.

[Snapolit1]

10 years is a plenty ling career to say someone is greatest pitcher of all time.

Not 3 or 4 years. 10 Plenty long enough.

[bmcnutt]

Sandy Koufax, then Randy Johnson.

[cjedmonton]

Don’t mean to exhume such an old debate, but I sure wish I saw this in its heyday.

Huge southpaw buff here, and in the pre-blog days (early aughts) I spent far more time than I’d care to admit analyzing/ranking any and all lefties.

While I didn’t read all 636 posts, I thoroughly enjoyed the outstanding analysis and comments supporting and critiquing each candidate.

No point adding my own list, but I did want to echo the sentiment that peak value carries tremendous weight when determining “greatness”. It almost cannot be argued that without it, Koufax’s legacy would not have existed at all.

By this I mean even if he compiled the same exact single season totals, but only staggered across his career rather than being super-concentrated as they were, we would not be talking about him in nearly the same light.

Lest we forget that it was actually his non-statistical narrative that has fuelled his mystique to this day in a way no other pitcher has. The no-no’s, the hardware, the championships, the conviction not to pitch in the World Series on his Sabbath, the early retirement after the greatest final season ever, his post-retirement reclusiveness, etc…

Sandy’s peak cannot be overestimated because it has endured for 55 years now. 55 years and he is still being discussed among the young and less-than-young. Among casual fans and the most ardent students of the game. Among the vast majority of us who are relegated to YouTube highlights and the privileged surviving few who witnessed his magic in person (who when you think about it, would have to be at least about 70 right now to have a vivid and full appreciation of what they saw then).

How many retired players period are still revered the way Koufax has been…let alone for half a century+?

Say what you will about how fans tend to carry selective memories when it comes to their teams/heroes, but can millions upon millions be wrong?

Among hitters, the list is much longer of course (Ruth, Mantle (see my previous question), Mays, Clemente, Aaron, etc…), but among pitchers? I contend an honest list would be limited to Cy Young, who despite the eponymous annual award, doesn’t even qualify for this debate because he threw with the wrong hand Curiously, Young’s mystique is nearly the polar opposite of Koufax’s as it leans almost exclusively on his otherworldly career output.

Don’t scoff when I say just Young…name one other pitcher who stopped playing before Sandy did, and who not only lives but flourishes in our modern collective consciousness the way Koufax does?

Does Big Train (who is certainly #1 ever) honestly evoke that emotion? If not Walter, how can any other until Koufax came along? That is the essence of peak value.

Okay, let’s move the chains to post-Sandy. Nolan Ryan? Fair, but not exactly a “peak” guy the way Sandy was. Plus, that was a mere 28 years ago since he finally hung up his cleats. Double that and see if we are still gushing (spoiler alert, we are).

Pedro? C’mon, that was just 12 years ago…practically yesterday. Will we still be romanticizing his exploits in 2064 (43 years from now to match the 55 year retirement Sandy has today)?

Koufax meanwhile, while still with us, has been largely absent from the public eye for several decades, so it is not like we are being spoon fed regular reminders of him through appearances, autograph signings, commercials, etc…. His “greatness”, however you wish to define it, speaks for itself and stands on its own…sabermetrics be damned The essence of peak value, and why he’s in the conversation in the first place.

Now career value is another matter…Spahn is my guy.