Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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

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

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

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

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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

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

[cardsagain74]

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

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

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

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

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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

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

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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

Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were one and two in the NL (2 and 3 in the majors behind Killebrew) for HR's in the 1960's with 375 and 350 respectively. Those totals would have led the majors in the 1940's, 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. They would have been second in the majors in the 1920's, and 1930's.

The 1960's were the first decade to produce 5 300 home run hitters adding Frank Robinson and Willie McCovey. So you get 3 exclusive NL players hitting over 300 in the decade and one who played half the decade in the NL.

If you look for 250 Home run hitters you add Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard, and Ron Santo (Billy Williams hit 249) to the ranks of NL players (Howard about half his total as a teammate of Koufax's but making the argument that the league wasn't weak) All of the aforementioned players would have finished top 6 in the 1950's and top 5 in the 1970's in all of MLB.

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

The average home runs hit by a player in the Majors (approximations since I had to read them off a graph that didn't label it's data points)

1920's 6.8, 1930's 9, 1940's 8.5, 1950's 15.5, 1960's 16.1, 1970's 14.2, 1980's 14.5

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

All of this isn't true. I'm looking at the data on baseball reference right now, and the highest major league BA for any year in the 1960s was .258. The stretch from 1963-1972 had the lowest runs scored in the league for any time period in the entire live ball era.

It's not a myth that offense was at a low point in the '60s.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

All of this isn't true. I'm looking at the data on baseball reference right now, and the highest major league BA for any year in the 1960s was .258. The stretch from 1963-1972 had the lowest runs scored in the league for any time period in the entire live ball era.

It's not a myth that offense was at a low point in the '60s.

don't know where that graph I looked at was pulling it's info but you are closer to correct than I am. Still not exactly a dearth of great hitters, just your league average was lower.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

All of this isn't true. I'm looking at the data on baseball reference right now, and the highest major league BA for any year in the 1960s was .258. The stretch from 1963-1972 had the lowest runs scored in the league for any time period in the entire live ball era.

It's not a myth that offense was at a low point in the '60s.

Could it be that the pitching was superior? I can’t believe all the naysayers out there. Koufax was the most dominant pitcher of his time. His election to hall At such an early age proves that.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by cammb

Could it be that the pitching was superior? I can’t believe all the naysayers out there. Koufax was the most dominant pitcher of his time. His election to hall At such an early age proves that.

He was elected at an early age is because he retired young and was elected in his first year of eligibility.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by cammb

Could it be that the pitching was superior? I can’t believe all the naysayers out there. Koufax was the most dominant pitcher of his time. His election to hall At such an early age proves that.

Yeah, the way I look at it, if the offense was "down" it wasn't because of any shortcomings on the part of the hitters, it was just that the pitching was THAT good. And if any players from other eras had had the chance to hit against the pitching of the 60's they wouldn't necessarily have done any better.

Ultimately, you can't really compare eras, although it's a lot of fun. Would batting averages have been as high as they were during the early days if the fielders back then used modern gloves? Would the pitching of the 1960's have been even more effective if they were using the dead ball of the early days? Would night baseball and traveling had any effect on the earlier generation's numbers? How would the dimensions of the ballparks had an effect on play?

I don't think you can say that Koufax getting the Cy Young awards and his early election to the hall, proves that he was "the greatest". But those honors attest to the universal acclaim and high esteem in which he was held by those who saw him play day to day at that time.

I understand the longevity argument in naming a GOAT. But I think what is missing from some of the analysis on this thread, is a respect for what Koufax actually DID. First of all, it wasn't just his record and his numbers, but it was HOW he attained those numbers. He wasn't a junk ball pitcher who was extremely effective. The guy was a force of nature on the mound. Maybe he could have stuck around longer if he learned the knuckleball, or concentrated on throwing off-speed stuff, thus easing up on his arm. But he continued to pitch the way he pitched. Also, to go out ON TOP as he did, was unheard of. Most athletes have their great years and then begin a slide. What Koufax did reminds me of the home run that Mantle hit which almost went out of the stadium in 1963. It was still rising when it hit the facade. (And yes, I do know that it's possible that Josh Gibson may have actually hit one out of the original Yankee Stadium, and that Frank Howard might have as well one foggy evening.)

I have argued that Koufax's success is largely attributable to his own natural talent and the change he made in his approach to his pitching he made in 1961.

The arguments that I think are most pathetic on this thread are the ones pointing to the first several years of Koufax's career. as some kind of detriment. Koufax left that pitcher behind. Yeah, he had a longer apprenticeship than many of the players we think of as greats. But it shouldn't be used against him. The fact that it was longer, and that after it, he found himself and did achieve greatness, is something that should be in his favor.

Yes, the larger strike zone was beneficial to all the pitchers of the time, and Chavez Ravine was a good park to pitch in. But no other contemporary Dodger pitcher achieved what Koufax achieved. The quotes I've seen by the greatest hitters of that era, don't say that he was the greatest of all time, but the greatest of THAT time. Or if they don't say he was the greatest of that time, they say things that let us know that he was not just another great pitcher. There WAS something special about Koufax.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were one and two in the NL (2 and 3 in the majors behind Killebrew) for HR's in the 1960's with 375 and 350 respectively. Those totals would have led the majors in the 1940's, 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. They would have been second in the majors in the 1920's, and 1930's.

The 1960's were the first decade to produce 5 300 home run hitters adding Frank Robinson and Willie McCovey. So you get 3 exclusive NL players hitting over 300 in the decade and one who played half the decade in the NL.

If you look for 250 Home run hitters you add Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard, and Ron Santo (Billy Williams hit 249) to the ranks of NL players (Howard about half his total as a teammate of Koufax's but making the argument that the league wasn't weak) All of the aforementioned players would have finished top 6 in the 1950's and top 5 in the 1970's in all of MLB.

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

The average home runs hit by a player in the Majors (approximations since I had to read them off a graph that didn't label it's data points)

1920's 6.8, 1930's 9, 1940's 8.5, 1950's 15.5, 1960's 16.1, 1970's 14.2, 1980's 14.5

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

Look at the runs scored per game. Home Runs remained; total offense declined significantly. I am not the first, or even the 10,000th to refer to it as a second deadball era as a result. Is it LITERALLY a deadball era? No, but neither was the original. We can call it whatever word you want to denote a low run environment. During Koufax's peak years, NL offense was in a decline. This is a fact. Ty Cobb hit almost .400 every year, but that doesn't mean the deadball era wasn't a low run environment.

Runs per game per team in the NL during the postwar era, using 1963 as Koufax's breakout mega season (though he had an excellent 1962 as well, it breaks down very similarly each year you use as he had a very short peak and all of it was in a pitching dominated era):
1953: 4.8
1963: 3.8
1973: 4.15
1983: 4.1
1993: 4.49
2003: 4.61
2013: 4.00

Can we stop debating things that are easily proven by even a cursory look at the numbers in this thread?

[Shoeless Moe]

Another way to think about this.

You are a manager and you are getting 1 lefty pitcher for 15-20 Years.

Who do you want? Remember your job is on the line.

No chance you are picking Koufax.


(and don't say well if I was managing for 4 years I'd take Koufax.....because then you can say well if I'm managing for 1 year I'd take so and so.....if you were a manager would you want to manage for 1 year, 4 years or 20 years?.....uh huh)

[packs]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Another way to think about this.

You are a manager and you are getting 1 lefty pitcher for 15-20 Years.

Who do you want? Remember your job is on the line.

No chance you are picking Koufax.


(and don't say well if I was managing for 4 years I'd take Koufax.....because then you can say well if I'm managing for 1 year I'd take so and so.....if you were a manager would you want to manage for 1 year, 4 years or 20 years?.....uh huh)

Theoretical questions are theoretical. If you're considering Koufax at all, he must be Koufax already, no?