Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162172)

Yes. Something like that.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162173)

The difference is I first answer, "here's my opinion and why". THEN you guys respond with, "you're an idiot and your opinion isn't worth shit". THEN I say, "uh, whose the one arguing about statistics with the statistician"? Big difference. But again, nice try.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162171)

Now that we've established the rules, awesome.

I'm a data analyst. Looking at the data tells me that Koufax had nowhere near the career of Grove or Spahn, and thus he can not be the greatest lefty ever because other lefties have been better for longer.

Since I am the only data analyst in the room, which I will just assume because that suits my interest in declaring myself infallible, I will now declare that everyone else is thoroughly incompetent and incapable of using numbers correctly, and thus everyone else is completely wrong. I am automatically right, because of my series of assumptions and unstated ground rules I have completely made up precludes any other opinion than my own. I will simply ignore that this is a completely nonsensical appeal to authority and just double down on that fallacy.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162104)

Yes, he was very good in that era (though I wouldn't say he was dominant). You can't have a 1.28 WHIP and a 5 K/9 rate and ask people to refer to you as a dominant pitcher. But he was very good relative to his peers. The problem I have is when I'm asked to compare him to modern pitchers. He would be above average at best today. Or rather, the pitches he threw back then would be above average at best today. Perhaps he would be a totally different pitcher today, but when you look at the rate stats that matter, and compare those to the arms on mounds today, he's not even good. Those rate stats probably wouldn't even make the all-star game today let alone be in discussions for a CYA or MVP, and they are stratospheres away from GOAT discussions.




Walter Johnson was legitimately dominant. There are a lot more advanced metrics that matter, but there are at least two stats that everyone can understand that translate well across eras: WHIP and K/9. Obviously, there's more to pitching than just that, but those two stats alone are FAR more important than Wins, complete games, and ERA. And when comparing across different eras, especially dead ball vs live, they're more important than even normalized values such as ERA+, xFIP, and WAR, each of which depends on the talent level of one's peers. A lot of these stats are fancy z-scoring style statistics that aim to simplify performance in a way that casual fans can understand. Obviously, WHIP can be influenced by multiple external factors as well, like the defensive skill of your teammates, the ballparks you pitch in, etc. xFIP does a pretty good job of separating out much of what a pitcher cannot control, but it only works well at comparing pitchers within similar eras. The problem with comparing someone like Walter Johnson to Randy Johnson is that the game itself was just played so differently, particularly with respect to HRs. You're limited with many of the advanced metrics if you want truly unbiased comparisons.

Much of my argument has to do with the fact that I think many people here misunderstand WAR and when/where it applies. A pitcher like Warren Spahn gets a lot of "credit" (via stats like WAR) for having a 1.28 WHIP not because he pitched in an era where hitters were just THAT much better back then than they are today, but rather because pitchers were just THAT much worse. Here's an example between Warren Spahn and Clayton Kershaw that highlight what I'm talking about.

Here is what's wrong with using WAR for answering the question of "who was better"?

Warren Spahn's 1947 stats (his best WAR season):
289.2 IP, 2.33 ERA, 170 ERA+, 3.35 FIP, 1.14 WHIP, 3.8 K/9, 9.4 WAR

Clayton Kershaw's
198.1 IP, 1.77 ERA, 197 ERA+, 1.81 FIP, 0.86 WHIP, 10.8 K/9, 7.7 WAR

Those are arguably each of their best seasons. Kershaw's performance though isn't just marginally better, it is MILES better than Spahn's. The delta between a 1.14 WHIP and a 0.86 WHIP and a 3.8 K/9 vs a 10.8 K/9 is the difference between Michael Jordan and the best pickup player at your local YMCA. These guys are not even in the same league, metaphorically speaking. And while you may like to point out that their ERAs are fairly close, or that they both won 21 games those years, I promise you, those stats don't matter nearly as much as you think they do. When I build my predictive models for betting on baseball, ERA and Wins don't even make it into the model at all. Not because I haven't tried, but because they have no statistical significance whatsoever, in the presence of the other variables when it comes to predicting future performance. They are rejected by mathematics, not bias.




This is a whole new can of worms to open up, but I believe one can make a pretty strong case for Jim Brown still being the greatest RB of all time despite the difference in eras. He's certainly in the conversation. But basically, it comes down to the fact that the delta between performance in football between eras isn't as great as the delta between MLB pitching performance between eras, though it certainly still exists. The Jim Brown problem is much more difficult to sort out mathematically than Warren Spahn vs pick your favorite modern lefty. I don't even think Spahn is a top 20 lefty, let alone top 3. Whereas I think Jim Brown is almost certainly top 5, and quite possibly the GOAT.




See my point above. WAR and ERA+ just aren't relevant statistics to the question of "who was better" across different eras, despite their inventors attempting to create them for precisely that purpose. Look at Spahn vs Kershaw lines above. You tell me who was more valuable between those two seasons. It's not the one with the higher WAR.




Jesse Owens was fast as hell. The fastest of his time. But his personal best was 10.2 seconds in the 100m. Usain Bolt would have beaten him by almost 15 feet! Owens' time wouldn't even QUALIFY for the Olympics today, let alone compete for a medal.

Bill Russell? lol. Ya. Possibly the most overrated athlete of any sport ever. He's not even a top 25 NBA player. Sorry. I could go off on this one. I won't.




He was very good for his time. Perhaps even great for his time. I'm saying he is above average at best when comparing him to modern talent.




Koufax's peak was absolutely incredible. I care more about a player's peak than I do about their longevity if we're talking about who was "better", though both matter to some extent. It's the same reason why I think Michael Jordan is better than Kareem and Lebron.

Koufax was a special player though. His highest single-season strikeout total was 382, which just so happens to be exactly DOUBLE Spahn's best single-season total of 191. His 6 year stretch from 61 to 66 is one of the greatest stretches by anyone in history, let alone lefties. And while he did benefit from throwing in a pitcher's park, a pitcher's park can't give you 10 K/9. The guy was absolutely dominant, and he was also particularly dominant when it mattered most with 2 World Series MVPs, 3 rings, a 0.95 career postseason ERA, and a career 0.825 postseason WHIP.




Call it however you want to call it. But to my knowledge, I'm the only person in this thread who is actually qualified to speak about statistics. Everyone praising Spahn keeps pointing to statistics that either don't matter (wins) or that are grossly misunderstood and taken out of context (WAR). I challenge you to find any other statistician who disagrees with me on this. Spahn wasn't just not quite as good as Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw. He wasn't even remotely in the same league as them.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162183)

Well shit, why didn't you say so earlier?! We have a data analyst in here folks! Sounds like you guys are in great hands! I'm sure you guys will have no problems sorting this one out now.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2162314)

One pitcher pitched off a higher mound.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2162354)

Minor point but Spahn hit 35 dingers. Joe Torre fondly recalled the manager pinch hitting Spahn for him on a few occasions.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2162055)

The superiority of the modern athlete is easily proven in track and field and weightlifting events, where there are actual, unbiased metrics to do so. The 4 minute mile seemed impossible during the deadball era, and wasn't accomplished until 1954. From Wikipedia:

A four-minute mile is the completion of a mile run (1.6 km) in four minutes or less. It was first achieved in 1954 by Roger Bannister, at age 25, in 3:59.4. The "four-minute barrier" has since been broken by over 1,400 athletes, and is now the standard of professional middle distance runners in several cultures.

In the 65 years since, the mile record has been lowered by almost 17 seconds, and currently stands at 3:43.13, by Hicham El Guerrouj of Morocco, at age 24, in 1999.

There, I've proved athletes of today are superior to those of 100 years ago. Lucky me.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2162363)

But Koufax hit a HR off Spahn in a 1962 game.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162266)

Using WHIP (of course without any adjustment for context, because that math would hurt Sandy), Kershaw is number 1. But he’s active and his number is changing every year. The lowest WHIP for a retired player is Reb Russell. Perhaps he’s the GOAT.

I’ll be disappointed if this advanced statistical basis for Koufax that only certified professionals are capable of understanding turns out to be WHIP.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2161670)

I would rank them like this
Grove
Johnson
Spahn
Carlton
Koufax/Kershaw even at this point anyhow gun to my head I would take Kershaw.
Hubbell

Could see flipping Johnson and Spahn.
Koufax just too short a career, however great his peak, and I think it's been show that peak benefited a lot from pitching in Dodger Stadium. Take away the good looks, the heroic pitching in pain, the not pitching on Yom Kippur, etc., I think the mystique of Koufax goes away to an extent.

Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2162364)

No you haven’t “proven” anything. Modern training methods combined with superior footwear contributed to this. You can’t say for certain that bannister et al wouldn’t have been capable of shaving seconds off their times. Now I think globalization and just a higher pop count suggests on a level playing field El Guerrouj would have beaten those guys but the clock alone is not proof of anything.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2162367)

My top few:

Grove
Spahn
Koufax
Kershaw
Johnson
Carlton

Don't really care what order as long as Grove is first.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2162392)

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2162391)

How does your analysis factor in Koufax' first 6 seasons (half his career, total WAR 6.8) or do you just disregard it? Since you haven't I don't think actually given us your analysis, but just talked down to us about how stupid we are, it seems a reasonable question.

One other aside, Koufax first pitched 66 years ago and last pitched 55 years ago. He's a lot closer in time to Grove (who pitched until 1941, just 14 years before Koufax started) than to today's pitchers. Why do you completely discount Grove because he pitched in prehistoric times, but apparently treat Koufax' numbers as legit?

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2162376)

I would point out that Kershaw is the live ball era career leader in both WHIP and ERA in an era of high scoring.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162421)

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162427)

You're an idiot.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162421)

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162388)

I never said WHIP was some advanced metric that was sufficient for settling the debate. I used it as an example of a basic statistic that isn't normalized by how strong or weak the rest of the pitchers in the league are. I chose it because I figured you guys could at least understand it and used it as a contrast to normalized statistics. Stop taking my words out of context.

My top 3 are Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw, and not necessarily in that order. Grove was great, but I discount his era. Spahn was very good for his time, but would be above average at best today. Those are my opinions. Take them or leave them. I don't care.

Modern pitching is far superior to pre-war pitching. It's not even remotely close. As I stated above, wins is one of the worst predictors of a pitcher's future success. ERA is highly subject to variance (aspects that a pitcher cannot control). WAR is great for comparing pitchers in a similar era, so long as you understand that it is a counting statistic (and what that implies). However, if you understand how WAR is calculated, then you'd know that in an effort to control for variations in league wide hitting talent from year to year, it's creators adjust for how well someone pitches relative to their peers. The problem with this adjustment from a statistical theory standpoint is that it simply trades one form of variance for another by trading the variance in league-wide hitting talent for the variance in league-wide pitching talent. They have solved one problem by creating another. The clue for this is even in the name (wins above "replacement"). This means their WAR calculations depend on how good or bad replacement level pitching was in that era (or for a rolling 3 year window). If you instead used a 2021 replacement level pitcher as the baseline for Warren Spahn's stats, his WAR value would drop significantly. These are not my opinions. These are all facts that can be easily proven. Again, as stated above, this is also why I said WAR and wins should not be used to determine who was "best". If you want to have a real discussion around who was best, then we'd need to dive into some of the more advanced sabermetrics (and no, I'm not talking about WHIP). But I have zero interest in discussing that with you guys because you don't even understand basic statistics, let alone the statistical theory needed to have this discussion, as evidenced by Peter's cute little ridiculing formula above. Just because you can't wrap your heads around some of the more advanced sabermetrics doesn't mean they don't matter.

Anyhow, I'm done here. I'll let the net54 intelligentsia committee settle this debate. It sounds like you guys are in great hands. After all, there are data analysts, CPAs, and financial planners in here! And they are "good with statistics". Lol

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy (Post 2162457)

I once had a guy that worked for me. After writing a conference paper but before turning it in for publication, he said "There is no one in the organization that is qualified to review my work." Strange thing is, no one in the organization would work with him. He had burned all the bridges and left scorched earth in his path. I'm getting that same feeling here.

Boys, this was a simple question from the OP. If there was a single definitive answer, then there would be no debate. But we each define 'best' by our own standards; some may regard longevity and consistency as key factors, others may regard a five or eight or ten year peak as the key metric. Or still others may revere strikeouts as king, or wins, or WAR or ERA+ or whatever you want. But I will wager this - If you asked 25 major league managers and GMs who they would choose for their top left handed pitcher for their expansion team, there will definitely be more than one answer. That, is what is great about baseball - the thread that goes from Kershaw through Johnson through Koufax through Spahn and to Grove. We can have these discussions, debates even, and everyone gets their say.

Now, who is the 'best' looking actress in Hollywood? Remember, there is only one right answer. ;)

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2162470)

Elizabeth Hurley!
See, that one was easy!!

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2162470)

Elizabeth Hurley!
See, that one was easy!!

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162422)

I think there is a fine, good-faith argument for Kershaw. I think he falls well short, because the greatest of all time is a combination of 1) how good he was and 2) how long he was good. Kershaw has not had a long career at this point in time, even by the standards of pitchers today he's missed a lot of time.

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2162488)

To be fair, Kershaw had already had more great seasons than Koufax did by five years ago.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162461)

Love the 62 Highlights of Ford.

He's not my pick for number 1, but he has to be high up there. I picked up this "card" for a whopping $5 shipped a couple days ago on eBay. Hard to beat the eye appeal of the image and 363 career wins for the cost of a fast food burger.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy (Post 2162457)

Now, who is the 'best' looking actress in Hollywood? Remember, there is only one right answer. ;)

Originally Posted by Snowman (Post 2162427)

You're an idiot.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2162405)

Agreed, your mother in law doesn't sound too bright.

Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2162511)

Yeah and you don’t sound too bright either. The other factor here is PEDs. And did you notice the 400 meter hurdle record in the Olympics? Track surfaces have changed over time with technology. Stick to arguing about baseball. You obviously know nothing about track and field. And using the term “proof” in subjective arguments is proof of your own lack of intelligence.

Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2162520)

You’re missing the point. There’s a difference between fastest and best. The best argument for El Guerrouj, who was indisputably great btw, is that globalization has made it possible for guys from Africa and elsewhere to compete on an international stage and there might have been an El Guerrouj from Bannister’s era who never had the opportunity to compete. Guys in D1 colleges can run a sub 4 minute mile now. Even the occasionally high schooler goes sub 4. It doesn’t make them greater than Roger Bannister in the annals of track and field history. And there’s little doubt Bannister would have run significantly faster on modern tracks with modern equipment and modern training techniques.

Take the whole Nicklaus vs Tiger argument. Jack won more majors but Tiger played in a more competitive era. He won the Masters by 12 and the US Open by 15. I think Tiger was greater but there’s no definitive proof of this.

Bannister revolutionized middle distance training and was the best man during his time.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2162523)

You make some good points and the same can be said of baseball, when you look at the color barrier holding truly great players out of the Majors during a guy like Grove's career. Now we have players participating from all races and many countries. I'm not saying there weren't great players in the past; in this discussion about left handed pitchers, my vote goes to Grove first, Spahn second. Both were done over 55 years ago.

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

My point was that athletes today are generally stronger and faster than in the past, with better training and diet. If track shoes make a big difference, how about weight lifting? I'm not familiar with it so I'm asking, what were the top lifters hoisting in 1910 vs. 1950 vs. now? I wouldn't think equipment would be much of an issue there.

Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2162531)

Yes I agree athletes are stronger and faster than they used to be. It is true in golf as well, due to tech improvements in golf equipment and golf balls. So you can’t compare scores although it’s hard to dispute Tiger’s 97 Masters was the greatest performance of all time on that golf course. Because he won by 12 shots.

I think the most objective way is to compare relative dominance in one’s era but as you noted it doesn’t account for greater inclusion of races and nationalities, not to mention population growth. Based on that I suppose you can argue the best athletes today are more elite than the best athletes of yesteryear. Which is why best ever debates are pointless nonetheless reasonably entertaining ways of killing time.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2162534)

Or what effect Lou Gehrig waiting in the on deck circle had on the pitches hurlers were compelled to serve Ruth (when they would've preferred to just pitch around him.)

Originally Posted by cardsagain74 (Post 2162571)

This is such a big part of the game, and yet you so rarely see it mentioned.

Mays and McCovey too. I'd guess that if they'd been reversed in the lineup for all those years with the Giants, it would've been McCovey who hit around 660 HR and Mays in the career 500s instead

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2162573)

Mays averaged 37 HR a year before McCovey showed up. Not saying it didn't have an effect but maybe not quite as big as you think. better case might be with Eddie Matthews and Hank Aaron who overlapped for almost all of the early and prime part of their careers.

Originally Posted by Kutcher55 (Post 2162520)

You’re missing the point. There’s a difference between fastest and best. The best argument for El Guerrouj, who was indisputably great btw, is that globalization has made it possible for guys from Africa and elsewhere to compete on an international stage and there might have been an El Guerrouj from Bannister’s era who never had the opportunity to compete. Guys in D1 colleges can run a sub 4 minute mile now. Even the occasionally high schooler goes sub 4. It doesn’t make them greater than Roger Bannister in the annals of track and field history. And there’s little doubt Bannister would have run significantly faster on modern tracks with modern equipment and modern training techniques.

Take the whole Nicklaus vs Tiger argument. Jack won more majors but Tiger played in a more competitive era. He won the Masters by 12 and the US Open by 15. I think Tiger was greater but there’s no definitive proof of this.

Bannister revolutionized middle distance training and was the best man during his time.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2162602)

Re globalization: Abebe Bikila. 1960, I think? Kip Keino by the mid 60s. It's not new.

Originally Posted by cardsagain74 (Post 2162579)

Yes but Mays had slowed down hitting them for five years straight (before McCovey got there and started to become established). Had 163 homers from 1956 to 1960. Then he hit 226 from '61 to '65.

So while my numbers before may have been exaggerated a little, I doubt it's by much!

Originally Posted by brian1961 (Post 2162620)

However, he wasn't a complete enough player to get the perennial Giant bridesmaids into the fall classic, save for '62, when the Giants played a humdinger of a Series against the Yanks, but fell short. Willie? No homers, one measly RBI, and a meager .250 batting average. He had his chance to prove something major to himself, his reputation, and his team----but failed miserably. --- Brian Powell

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2162498)

I think he falls short of being the greatest ever, at this point in time. I don't think that Koufax is what is keeping him back from that title at all.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2162704)

Willie Mays not a complete player? Uh, where was he deficient?

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2162523)

When you compare golfers, can't you just compare their scores from tournaments played on the same courses?

Originally Posted by brian1961 (Post 2162620)

You're neglecting the historical cause and effect with Mr. Mays. When the Giants moved to Frisco, everyone thought Willie would hit 50 homers a year. But the ballpark was situated in such a windy area, as in the wind daily blew in with gale force. Say Hey's power crumbled against the "anvil wind". His meager dinger totals upset the Frisco boo-birds, and they directed their fury on Willie with a vengeance. Say Hey was in a bad way; he couldn't take it.

Finally, he whined to the owner, Horace Stoneham, to move the fences in substantially to try to blunt the wind, and allow him to hit more home runs at home. Stonehom acquiesced the slugger's demands, and Willie finally reached 40 dingers in 1961, and did so essentially thereafter.

However, he wasn't a complete enough player to get the perennial Giant bridesmaids into the fall classic, save for '62, when the Giants played a humdinger of a Series against the Yanks, but fell short. Willie? No homers, one measly RBI, and a meager .250 batting average. He had his chance to prove something major to himself, his reputation, and his team----but failed miserably. --- Brian Powell

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 2162488)

To be fair, Kershaw had already had more great seasons than Koufax did by five years ago.

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2162965)

I would say Kershaw is indeed a great pitcher, but he is no Koufax.

Originally Posted by cardsagain74 (Post 2162810)

Mays hit just 10 more total HRs at home vs on the road (during that '61 to '65 period I quoted). So while the fences being moved in helped him some, he was hitting a lot more of them everywhere during that time period w/ McCovey than he had the prior five years (which include his final two years in New York)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2162975)

Look at his three Cy Young seasons where his numbers are just phenomenal, as well as his next two best seasons, and I'd be curious why you think they don't measure up to Koufax. PS If the issue with Kershaw is post season, yeah I agree with that.

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2163097)

I am from the old school where innings pitched, strikeouts, complete games and shutouts mean something. Yeah, he is no akoufax

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2163209)

I have no problem agreeing that wins might be an overrated stat and peak years can outweigh longevity. That said, when Spahn has 198 more wins than Koufax and 178 more wins than Koufax those numbers are just too astronomical for me to overcome. I mean those are would be really high win counts on their own but they are just the delta between Spahn and two greats.*

*Just purchased a PSA Type 1 autographed photo of Spahn from 1942 and am accordingly very biased.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2163203)

Kershaw has pitched more innings (2,454) in his career than Koufax (2,324) did.

Kershaw (2,670) has more strikeouts than Koufax (2,396) did.

Kershaw has a better K/9 than Koufax, 9.8 to 9.3.

Koufax had 40 Shutouts, Kershaw has 15. Kershaw is the active leader, as complete games are dead (unfortunately, personally).

This old-school argument (which I don't think is generally invalid or necessarily bad, innings matter a lot I think, CG's not so much) doesn't seem to support Koufax over Kershaw.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2162392)

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

Originally Posted by brian1961 (Post 2163021)

Wow, John, just TEN more homers for that five-year period, after owner Horace Stoneham obliged Say Hey by moving in the outfield fences!?*! Makes me want to become an honorary Frisco boo-bird hearing that. I shan't do an impersonation of one, for I do not wish to upset Willie's many feverish fans. Moreover, I'm just teasing. Willie was awesome. And, I must add, it was Dodger Lou Johnson himself that said of Willie Mays's role at quelling the riot on the afternoon of August 22, 1965: "You can thank Mays that there wasn't a real riot out there. If it wasn't for Willie Mays, it could have been a lot worse. Willie did a hell of a job in stopping the battle." -- Brian Powell

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2163214)

The old school argument, it seems to me, automatically discounts anyone from the past two decades or even longer. I get the romantic notion that men were men in the good old days and today's pitchers are wimps, but the game is what it is, today's pitchers don't choose to be rested more or to be on pitch counts.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2163224)

I think the argument of innings per game and complete games is not a very good one; the game is just different. I don’t think it should be dismissed because it’s not a pitchers choice; we hold things against pitchers for many reasons out of their control. It wasn’t Smoky Joe Wood’s decision to blow his arm out either. Any metric intended to exclude entire eras is, I think, unreasonable in the context of an “all time” argument. Yet this is the most frequent type of argument made; most all time arguments end up where people are attempting to structure an argument to simply effectively, if not explicitly, exclude eras they don’t like as much. Kershaw is a wimp, Grove sucked and the 19th century just doesn’t count for all time at all.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2163224)

What I think is a better argument than the one posited, if one wants to go down this road and to attempt to exclude modernity, is total innings. If a pitcher pitches less innings in a game or season because teams want to avoid injury and extend careers (at least, that’s how I remember the arguments a couple decades ago) those innings should be effectively made up by that extended career. But we don’t see this. The last 20 years or so has seen plummeting innings (there is of course a general downward trend through all of baseball history) but pitchers don’t seem to ever make those innings up later in their careers, by extended careers with healthy carefully nursed arms. It seems pitchers are blowing out as fast as ever, though I’m too lazy to track down a dataset tonight.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2163224)

I’m not saying I agree with this, but this seems the better way to dismiss modernity if one is so inclined: it’s not their fault, but they are used poorly and have less value because their careers are so needlessly short as a result.

Personally, I think “all time” is obviously a context centric argument, and all eras must be included and should generally balance out. An all time won’t balance perfectly because greatness is so very rare that samples of it will naturally fluctuate without bias or without era preference. One season may have 5 players have truly great seasons in context, and another only 1 because of random chance.

I would exclude modernity in the sense of active players, because we cannot reasonably evaluate the totality of something that is not complete. But all time should include 1876 to the most recently retired player, and generally see a fairly even number of players from each era in the conversation. People tend to gravitate to dead ball, the mid 20’s to early 30’s, the 50’s and 60’s, or the ultra modern and gloss over the other eras.

Personally, I think the modern way of using pitchers makes strategic sense but is boring and wimpy as hell and one reason I’ve lost most interest in the current game. The players as great as any other era, but it’s boring and baseball has lost the feel of a pastoral romance that made it the national pastime.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2162975)

Look at his three Cy Young seasons where his numbers are just phenomenal, as well as his next two best seasons, and I'd be curious why you think they don't measure up to Koufax. PS If the issue with Kershaw is post season, yeah I agree with that.

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2163312)

It is not if Kershaw measures up to Koufax or not. I have seen Koufax pitch plenty of times as well as Kershaw. Koufax made me grin every time he struck some one out. That curve ball was sick. I am not a dodger fan but loved a great pitcher when I saw him and ,TO ME, he will always be the best. I can say the same for Mickey Mantle. I hated the yankees but loved to see Mantle at bat.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2163346)

This is “my personal favorite” not “the best of all time”.

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2163358)

This is "my personal favorite AND "the best of all time!"

Originally Posted by cammb (Post 2163312)

It is not if Kershaw measures up to Koufax or not. I have seen Koufax pitch plenty of times as well as Kershaw. Koufax made me grin every time he struck some one out. That curve ball was sick. I am not a dodger fan but loved a great pitcher when I saw him and ,TO ME, he will always be the best. I can say the same for Mickey Mantle. I hated the yankees but loved to see Mantle at bat.