b i n g o !!!!!

Play against Sandy anywhere other than Dodger Stadium ;)

First Game I ever saw on TV influenced me a lot:

Attachment 487395

Attachment 487398Attachment 487399

LOL but Game 1 was in Yankee Stadium.

That's the game I was referring to. If I recall Koufax struck out the side in the first, then (allegedly) stared over at the Yankee dugout although Whitey Ford denied it and it does seem out of character.

He struck out the first five, but, as the added photo shows, Mickey got him late.

Ooops! Tresh got him in the bottom of the eighth in that game, Mickey got him in top of seventh in Game 4.

As important as I say this game was to me, I'm getting older...so there...at least I caught it before everyone else did.

.

Koufax apparently really did not like throwing at people or even brushing them back, which played a role in the Roseboro Marichal incident. But, and I think this is from the Leavy book, once he got so angered by Lou Brock's baserunning antics that he drilled him hard in the back. Brock picks himself up, walks slowly to first, and promptly steals second.

This. A fond memory and sentimental attachment has nothing to do with any objective question of best, it is purely “my favorite”. These are completely different things.

Nostalgia bias.

Didn't say you could always hit it but, if you're going to, outside of Dodger Stadium is the way :)

Now that it has been definitively established that Grove was the best LHP of all time and Koufax should not even be in the discussion, is there a statistician who can create a formula to determine whether any given poster is either:
A) A common troll
B) An insufferable egotist
or
C) Just generally a complete AH?

Bonus points if the algorithm can determine historical Net54 ranking.

How about everyone self-report which of those three they think they are guilty of being.

I'm definitely a B) but I work hard at taming it. Anyone else wanna be honest?

I'm a common troll. By the way, the Hunt live auction is going on right now. Lots of great stuff.

Yourself included?

I'm definitely part of the data set. :D

And Scott, I thought you would select C) A complete Auction House. ;)

I'll nominate myself for C - a complete asshole, as I'm still awaiting a math-based logically consistent argument for Koufax like has been presented for the others.

I still don't think Warren Spahn gets enough credit when ranking all-time greatest lefties.

I'll be honest and state that I am a nice guy, though, because I detest arrogance, I don't admit it very often.

Koufax is my FAVORITE.

IMHO, the GOAT for lefties is either Grove or RJ.


I'm also a HUGE Billy Wagner fan, but that's another discussion.

I loved the fact that 'my' Braves clinched using three left-handers.


US LEFTIES RULE!

.


.

Plus 1 on Spahn, plus one on lefties from a lefty.

The best reliever not in the Hall - and better than nearly all that are.

See, there's a sign my ego is overinflated. If I was so damn smart I'd have thought of that!

A "math-based logically consistent argument" has been provided for exactly zero pitchers thus far in this thread. You guys may as well be picking your favorite Power Ranger. No shame in that though. Some people like pink, others prefer green.

Numerous people have been able to make a statistical argument for the candidate they think best that is not contradictory. Welcome back.

Pondering the imponderable is what we do best on this forum.;)

I really don’t quite get this. Pull up stats, many sites provide them. Spahn, for example, didn’t just pitch for a long time - he also led the league in a ton of categories that seem important. I don’t need to be a statistician to think that combined with his all time leading careen wins, leading the league all those times means the guy was better than “above average” or whatever phrase you used. I’m just a cave man lawyer but even I can figure some of this out. Please provide your algorithm that puts Spahn at just “above average” or admit you’re trolling just a little.

I've been waiting for you to give me a "math-based, logically consistent argument" to my comparison of Grove and Koufax's World Series performances. Perhaps you missed it??

If one makes an appeal to their own authority, self-granted and thus unquestionable, one need not support anything they say with statistics as we do, even though the root of the fallacious appeal to authority is that no one else can discuss statistics.

I'm starting to think this statistical basis that objectively and conclusively proves Spahn is "above average at best" because he played in the old days and his exact contemporary Koufax is the GOAT, is a complete fiction. Maybe I'm a bit of a cynic, but not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support this stunning claim to total authority. I'd love for it to check out so we can immediately resolve all baseball discussions with this new oracle.

I don't have the time to write the algorithm necessary to calculate it right now. But I've done A LOT (well in excess of 1,000 hours worth of coding) on similar baseball problems to estimate the value of pitchers and hitters for the purposes of "gambling" on baseball over the past 10 years. We'd have to agree on a definition of "better" first. Then I'd need to control for the parks they pitched in, the changes in mound heights, the expansion and contraction of the strike zones they were subject to, the defensive capabilities of their teammates, the speed of the hitters they faced, and the hitting talent they faced. I don't have the time for that, so I say I don't know who was better between Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw.

But I'll leave you with this. I'd take Hyun Jin Ryu over Warren Spahn any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

You're a data analyst. I'm sure you could at least figure out the differences between Koufax and Spahn. Surely, you don't need my help with that one like you probably did with your math homework in high school.

The differences are one provided more than double the value over his career, with a less great peak. You have nothing but appeals to authority and ad hominems. You've done nothing to support any real argument, only insisted you are the arbiter of truth and don't have to provide any evidence or even a coherent argument to support your claim. I might be an idiot, but you're the one offering nothing but elementary fallacies. My stupidity, which we will take for granted, does not make you right, it does not make your absurd fallacies any less absurd.

Do you have time to respond to my discussion on the WS statistics for Koufax and Grove? You keep mentioning Spahn, but the majority on this thread find Grove superior.

I think Koufax has received more accolades from his contemporaries and sportswriters of this time than any pitcher I have read about. His last four years are incredible. The guy was inducted to the Hall at the age of 37!!! If that doesn't sway you, nothing will.

I guess I'd appreciate my all-time pitcher to still be pitching at a high level at age 37 instead of having 5 summers of sitting on a shelf, but maybe I'm off base??

LOL he actually retired at 30. And he wasn't very good until he was 25. He had a phenomenal 6 year run (probably better characterized as 5, the first year was only very good) and that was it.

At his zenith, was he as good as anyone? I guess that depends how much weight you put on the disparity between his home and road stats.

But I think there are a lot of externalities that have enhanced his reputation.

I was coming on to point out that people act like Koufax took forever to develop when he was actually incredibly young when he started and stuck on a major league roster because of his bonus baby status, same as his 1954 classmate Harmon Killebrew. Both likely would've benefited by a couple of years in the minors instead of languishing on a major league bench, but both were still a "normal" age when they put it all together.

The White Power Ranger was my favorite.:eek:

We are way overdue for a card picture. Anyone know what this Grove card is. It is large and blank back.

1930 W554, I believe

Indeed. FWIW, Koufax has the best smile.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oquNgUQZA.../Lefties_2.jpg

Thank you, I was digging through some piles and found it. I believe I got it a few(maybe several) years ago from the Secret Santa we used to do here on Net54.

Really? You're going to die on that hill? You're taking Ryu over a 13 time 20 game winner, whose JAWS rank him as the 13th greatest pitcher of all time? The Same guy who led the league in complete games seven seasons in a row? Is this a joke?

I think they all look swell! Thanks for sharing. -- Brian

I have always loved that picture of "Old Man Moses" Grove. During his lengthy peak, HE WAS SOMETHING SPECIAL. Then after he blew out his arm and couldn't throw his patented heaters anymore, he marvelously reinvented himself with the Red Sox, and manager Joe Cronin gave him plenty of rest. The result were seasons like 1938 & 1939. When he no longer had enough to go with his brilliant smarts, he hung on for dear life 'til he got that 300th victory he wanted so bad. Still, with all he went through and the belated start to his major league career, 300 wins against only 140 losses!!!!!

There will be no end to this hot stove league argument. For certain, Lefty Grove shown like a beacon in the hitter's most dominating era. He had the benefit of Connie Mack's best teams behind him, which were made only that more unbeatable because of the presence of Lefty Grove.

Sandy Koufax pitched in a pitcher's era, that seemed to become more and more a pitcher's era the better and more dominating Sandy became. Even with the usually anemic-hitting Dodgers of those years, their "smallball" offense was enough to back Sandy. Then again, the '62 Dodgers had career years from Tommy Davis and Maury Wills going for them. Frank Howard couldn't seem to get going in the very spacious Dodger Stadium environs. But I loved Hondo, and he became so good and so adored, during his years with the Senators.

All to say, if I was a manager with the likes of Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, and Warren Spahn on my staff, my smile would be as big as the 3 of theirs put together!!!:D

I know, I'm supposed to continue the arguments and isolate the baseball statistic isotope; I'm getting tired of the whole thing. They were all superb; let's go back to collecting their cards and coins! ---Brian Powell

Koufax is in the majors but not producing much at age 19, which I really wouldn't hold him against as he was developing like most players this age. The bonus baby rule kept him on the roster, as someone else noted.

Koufax became an above average player at 25.

Koufax broke out into a star at age 26 the next year.

Koufax was truly great, from ages 26-30.

He was done at age 30.


Meanwhile:

Grove entered the majors at 25, held hostage in Baltimore. He was not very good that season.

He became a star at age 26, when he led the league in ERA for the first time. The same exact time Koufax did.

Grove was great from ages 26-30.

At this point there careers are very similar, Sandy's years probably slightly greater. Koufax has a 167 ERA+ from 26-30, Grove has a 157. Both are absolutely dominating their leagues. This is the point of comparison in their careers most favorable to Koufax, and he is barely winning.

After age 30, Grove won 6 more ERA crowns, career years in which Koufax was producing absolutely nothing. He went 185-84 with a 150 ERA+ after age 30. He was a truly great pitcher at age 39, above average at 40, done at 41.

I guess if Grove had been sitting at home retired instating of leading the league in ERA 6 times and dominating the AL, he could be the GOAT.

By what rational standard can this, that Sandy's early retirement and his career ending at 30, possibly be a point in favor for Koufax? I don't see a winning argument for Koufax, but there are much, much better arguments than this kind of absurd trolling. Can we not ask ourselves "does this make any sense whatsoever?" before making a claim?


If press headlines and sportswriters are our determining factor, lets see this applied to every player and position. Jeter is the GOAT shortstop, Dimaggio the greatest CF, Jackie the best 2B of all time by a country mile. The most famous is the best.

If it's based on accolades and awards, it's still not Koufax, it's Randy Johnson, 5 time Cy Young winner, 10 time all star, 97.3% Hall of Fame vote receiver (Koufax only got 86.9%), the most decorated lefty in baseball history. This is simply not a point for Koufax if you want to go by the hardware.

If it is based on their peers, players from the 30's thought Grove was the toughest lefty they faced, players in the 60's Koufax, and players in the 00's Johnson. Nobody wins this.

These arguments are silly and even if they weren't, still don't show Koufax as #1.

Spahn won …. wait for it.... 250+ games after age 30 lol. Of course, everyone here knows wins don't matter. And he didn't refuse to pitch on Yom Kippur or (as far as I know) make the cover of LIFE.

This brings to mind another question. Okay, lets say wins don't matter, they are heavily overrated but let's just completely dismiss them entirely. How many pitchers have 363 or more total decisions but are only "above average, at best"? Maybe a handful at most.

To be sure, in a short stretch, pitchers can win games without being very good and lose games while being outstanding. But over a long period of time, it being baseball, these things I think tend to average out. So wins at least in the complete game era end up being at least a decent proxy for a combination of longevity and quality even if other metrics are even better.

Personally, I agree. I think wins are a pretty decent stat in the complete game era, not as good as many others or ERA, but hardly without value. In today's game, I think the win is a nearly meaningless statistic.

nobody won 300 games without being an excellent pitcher. No one won 200 games without being pretty darn good. There's some edge cases of good pitchers on bad teams having a bad record (Bob Friend stands out off the top of my mind), but a pitcher with a lot of wins correlates well to the other value stats.

Well since you declared these arguments to be silly, I guess we will not hear from you again.

…I don’t think you read that right…

Best Lefty
 

Warren Spann

I think Grove was probably better than Spahn. But I can't say that with confidence without spending a significant amount of time making adjustments to control for the level of skill of the league in general during their respective eras.

But even leaving league adjustments aside, pretending that the league was every bit as strong when Grove was pitching (which it most certainly was not), Koufax still outperformed Grove's numbers across the board in the postseason, and it's not close. The only statistic that Grove was better at was BB/9, but Grove also had a larger strike zone to work with than Koufax did (top of the shoulders to bottom of the knees vs armit to top of the knees). Regardless, Koufax put significantly fewer batters on base, was scored on half as much, and struck out batters almost twice as often. What's there to compare? Koufax was significantly better than Grove in the postseason (and Grove was great).

Serious question. I don't know the answer, but was there any pitcher ever, right or left-handed, who was better in the postseason than Koufax with at least 50+ IP?

Either way, postseason performance isn't all that interesting to me. The sample sizes are just too small for it to be as meaningful as most people want it to be.

Koufax was 4-3 with an ERA of 0.95. There was another left hander, named Ruth, who was 3-0 with an ERA of 0.87. And a guy named Gibson who was 7-2 with an ERA of 1.89.

Hey now, no giving out hints. G1911 has to solve this riddle on his own. He's a data analyst!


Yes, I'm taking Ryu over Spahn. No, I'm not joking. The number of games someone won is absolutely meaningless to me. You might as well be talking about his hair color.

OK, so you're saying Koufax was the best of the 3 then. Got it. As Ruth does not qualify with his 31 IP (and a mere 8 Ks) during the dead-ball era, and Bob Gibson gave up about twice as many runs and was slightly easier to hit off of.

Not sure what their W-L record has anything to do with anything though. Perhaps you could fill me in on that?

In each of Koufax's 3 postseason losses, he gave up 1 earned run. That bears repeating. He only gave up ONE earned run in each of his postseason losses. ONE.

Career WAR of 48. For the all time great, that’s too low for me.

Mariano Rivera. 8-1 record with 42 saves in 141 innings pitched. 0.70 ERA with a 0.759 WHIP.

Wait, aren't you the one who said that this should boil down to who you'd want to start game 7 of the WS? Is this conversation about peak, career, or just one start for you?
Why do you have to "pretend" Grove's era was as strong as Koufax's, when Koufax pitched against the 1964 Twins?
Why do you bring up Grove's strike zone but not Grove's lower mound?

Statistics aside. Being selected to the hall as the youngest player ever mean anything to the naysayers? That is a great tribute when the writers basically went by five seasons of greatness.

I don’t think even the “naysayers” have Koufax out of the top 3 or so. It’s the 5 seasons of greatness and not more that have him out of the top 2.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Or, to allow for differences of opinion, nobody leaves him out of top 5? Maybe Spahn or Carlton has a case?? But Koufax was one friggin' awesome pitcher.

Duh --- If you pitch extremely effectively until you are 40 or more (Spahn, Johnson & Grove), you will not be elected to the Hall of Fame at the age of 37. Sorry Tony, but your argument has a big hole in it.

Jeez, if there could only be one left-handed pitcher in Cooperstown, it would be a war zone. Jousting Net54 proponents of each pitcher could settle this definitively in less time than it takes to read this thread, but I bet none of you would volunteer to participate in a joust.

C'mon men.

Again, that makes absolutely no sense. Retiring early is not a benefit. Most great pitchers are still producing at 37, not giving their Cooperstown speech. You don’t think his team would rather have had Koufax pitching from 31-37 than sitting at home?

I’m glad you now recognize how ridiculous fallacious egotist appeals to self professed total authority are!

Sorry, but I'm not giving out hints for this one.

So forgetting whether someone is left or right handed for a minute, does what you're saying mean anything in determining who was a better overall pitcher when comparing say Koufax, who took several years to really develop as a pitcher, to Bob Feller, who literally seemed to walk off an Iowa farm and directly into into ball parks and blow away major league hitters from day one, while still a teenager?

I don't know how you would get that out of my post. In which I made no comparisons nor ranked Koufax. I was pointing out an interesting fact that may have kept him from becoming even greater (or greater for a longer period) Of course the minors could have also backfired, maybe he has to retire even earlier if he pitches more as a youngster, who knows?

Frank,

You're 100% right! (Good lord, did I actually just say that? :D)

This is a debate that cannot be won or lost as it is a totally subjective question that no statistics or other objective information can ever truly answer. Everyone has their own opinions and biases, and we're dealing with different people across different eras and times, playing under different rules and circumstances, along with a myriad of other different mitigating and contributing factors. People debating on here are taking many things out of context in their arguments, or forgetting that context even matters to begin with. Or they start reciting statistics, but pick and choose, or narrow and/or expand, the scope and/or time period of those chosen statistics to tailor them to produce the result they want it it to be. There has been no exact, specific definition of precisely what the word "best" or "greatest" means in the context of this hotly debated question. And until such an accord as to the precise definition is reached by all the partipants, there will never be the remotest possibility of arriving at a consensus answer to the question.

I personally don't know who the greatest left handed pitcher of all time (to date) is, but can certainly concur and agree with all the candidates that have been nominated in this thread as to at least being in the discussion. What I don't agree with is when people forget, ignore, or purposely disregard the context of situations, circumstances, and/or the who, what, and why of their topic of debate and use their narrow minded and focused thinking to insult and disparage those from other times, periods, and circumstances as just being useless, worthless, or just plain out of hand, not good enough or deserving of any consideration. To me, the treatment by some of Grove, and especially Spahn, rises to this disgusting level of what I was just referring to. And it may also bespeak to the type of person those that are guilty of doing such truly are. For if such people, without any real forethought or remorse, can be so dismissing of the likes of Grove and Spahn, how can they react to or think about the likes of you, me, or anyone else out there in the real world?

Agree!

Wow. Well written post, Bob. That was quite a broadside salvo of words, I must say. Thank you. -- Brian Powell

Hey Scott,

My apologies, wasn't meant to disparage you or as any type of a put down. Also wasn't a comment for or against Koufax, just that was who you referenced in your post, and I just continued using the same reference. Your comment just got me thinking how players can more quickly or slowly develop at different ages and times, and merely wondered if that could have some impact on how good a player may be perceived as being by others. Was hoping to hear what you and others think, that was all.

Ah, my bad.

Obviously the longer you are good, the better your career looks so of course someone who is a success at 19 has an advantage over a guy who struggles until he's 24 and then puts it together.

Of course in the specific case you mentioned, Feller played the vast majority of his career against little to no African American competition. Would that absence alone have made Sandy more successful right from the start? Probably not enough to make a massive difference in people's opinions of him, but I think it would have to have an impact.

Interesting topics for thought/discussion

Not appealing to this because his stats speak volumes but I would just like to add that I think it’s pretty amazing Sphanie served in World War II. And not just served but defended a key bridge and dealt with the Battle of the Bulge, earning a Purple Star for a significant shrapnel wound and a Bronze Star for bravery. Easy to dismiss him as an innings eater until you look at his stats and realize the guy flat out dominated. Multiple no hitters etc. And one of the coolest deliveries ever known!

Well, I would rank him 5th or 6th I think, behind Grove, Johnson, Spahn, Carlton and Kershaw, although Kershaw's post-season makes me not that enthusiastic. I would certainly rank Carlton ahead based on the overall body of work.

Ordinarily I would apologize for risking taking a thread off the rails, but after 871 posts on the main, unsolvable question, not in this case.

I have another element to ponder, and it is related. How much impact did it have on pitchers, in particular, to have been playing in their prime before integration?

It's easy to say the bats of Aaron, Mays, Frank and Jackie Robinson, etc. would've made a pitchers' job tougher, and their ERAs higher, but consider a guy like Gaylord Perry. Sure, he had to pitch against Aaron, Clemente, and Frank, but on the other hand, he was getting run support from Mays and McCovey, not to mention serious defensive assistance from Say Hey and Stretch.

Koufax benefited greatly from Maury Wills, Roseboro, and Tommy Davis, although he had to pitch to Frank, Henry, etc. Junior Gilliam saved his World Series Game 7 shutout in 1965 and Lou Johnson's homer was the run that won it.

My point is, when the color barrier came down, it strengthened the quality of MLB pretty much across the board. This hurt pitchers in the sense they had to face some good and great, previously barred, players. But they also got more offensive and defensive support. So, from the standpoint of a pitcher, does this make it a push?

To partially answer my own question, I think the color barrier helped the pitchers on the teams that took full advantage of integration (Dodgers, Giants, Indians, Braves) and hurt those that didn't (Red Sox, most notably.) It would really be frustrating to be a Red Sox pitcher in the 1950s and early 1960s, watching all these terrific Black players coming into MLB, but virtually none ending up on your team.

Carlton in 1972 is one of the top peak pitching years. WAR has it better than anything Koufax or Grove did.

I’d throw Ford into consideration on your list, but I agree. Ranking 6th or 7th all time is not disparaging. It’s better than most statistical rankings would put him too. Koufax is 89th in pitching WAR.

Personally and certainly unpopularly, I think the overall effect was probably negligible, because as integration became “full” in the 60’s (when teams stopped having only 1 or 2 blacks and fully allowed the most meritous players on the team), expansion simultaneously occurred to offset the influx of new major league talent by adding more starting jobs and lowering the bottom barriers of the leagues. If expansion had occurred in a fully white league, or expansion had not occurred but integration had, things would be very different, but these two probably balance out.

Clearly it greatly benefited the teams that first truly integrated like the Giants and Dodgers.

4 Cy Youngs overall. Including one at 37.

Carlton was ending right as I was getting into baseball so I didn’t think much of him, especially since I was a Mets fan and he was a longtime Philly. Looking at his stats he was just absurdly good.

My favorite Carlton stat is that when he went 27-10 with a 1.92 ERA in 1972, his team won only 59 games.

27-10, .730 with a Carlton decision.

32-87, .367 when anyone else was the deciding pitcher.

What a fantastic season.

Leaving aside different eras, integration and all the rest, the best ability is availability, and the guy who threw his last pitch at 30 didn't have it.