Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by 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 ), 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.

[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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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

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

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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

[jgannon]

Deleted (posted twice somehow)

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Give the man his due.

I have.

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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!!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.