The Rocket had a massive year at 23.

Compare their numbers from 31 and up. If you do that, then it's like comparing a quality pitcher to a tree toad.

He may be pre-historic but him and another player from the same time Mr Ted Williams could be dropped into todays game. They would still be super stars with the talent they had back then. Really doubt you can say that about many others.

The GOAT had many massive years.:D

Koufax also benefitted from a 15 inch mound, which may have been even a tad higher at Dodger stadium. Great LHP, just not Randy Johnson.

He might be, but we wouldn't have enough data to say that with confidence. We'd probably want something like 600-800 innings worth of work for variance to even out. And even then, someone could still have gotten lucky over that sample size, it's just significantly less likely.

So if in my hypothetical the guy puts together two more similar seasons, then quits or dies, you would say he's the greatest ever?

Yes, some pitchers figure it out early, but most don't. Either way though, if I'm evaluating Gooden to determine how good he was, I'm also going to zoom in on his best 4 or 5 years (consecutive years that is, as you can't just cherry pick 4 random years).

So you admit you just want to focus on the best years, and you're dropping your "learning curve" excuse now for Koufax. That's fine, I understand the theory although I don't agree with it, just don't justify it with a bogus justification. By the way I bet you have not put any analysis into your "most don't" assertion. Just like you asserted Maddux's BABIP against was precisely in line with the average before you even looked it up to see it wasn't. It seems almost every great pitcher I look up was very good very young.

LOL

Yeah, tell that to the fans that watch.

This idea seems to come, at least partially, from starting pitchers almost never throwing complete games anymore. And as these bigger, taller, harder throwing modern pitchers become more the norm, they all seem to be throwing fewer and fewer innings. Their reduced impact on the outcome of a game does make sense though the earlier they leave the game. But that's another modern bias. You go back to older pitchers like Grove and Spahn who mostly pitched complete or near complete games throughout their careers, and not only did they win lots of games, but they were way more responsible for those wins than modern starting pitchers who only seem to go 5 or 6 innings in their starts all the time anymore. So for modern pitchers the wins are less meaningful. But why disparage Grove or Spahn who completed games, if anything, they should be getting some extra credit for seeing games through till the end to better ensure their teams win. Doesn't fit with statistician's narratives of what they think counts and shows their lean towards modern pitchers.

These specimens also seem to be injured a lot more, although that's an anecdotal observation on my part. There are times it seems the great DeGrom can't go three starts without hurting himself?

So Peter, don't you agree that theory unfairly ignores other pitchers that were great right from the start and didn't need years to figure out how to pitch well? I also thought my analogy comparing pitchers to wash machines was kind of spot on in trying to pick which pitcher may best. Hey, if statisticians can reduce everything and everyone to just numbers, I say take it all the way then and treat pitchers as nothing more than a machine. That way you've removed pretty much the entire human element from the equation, which is whats stats and statisticians do to start with.

Ignoring until after age 25, Spahn was far, far, far more valuable to his team than Koufax was. Every prominent baseball statistician recognizes this in their rankings. Koufax didn’t even pitch 1,500 innings after his age 25 season. Showing up is a key part. While Koufax was sitting on his ass, Spahn was producing effective innings.

I understand the rationale of focusing only on 5 or so peak years, whenever they occur, just think it's not all that meaningful and that something like JAWS which averages peak 7 and career better navigates the balance. But the excuse that it's OK to disregard Koufax' first five years because he was still learning to pitch, and that most pitchers are like that, is crap. If you're going to disregard them, at least be honest about why, namely that you care only about peak.

WHAT???????????? Are you telling us that something Travis has posted is not factually accurate? I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. He is an expert in every field except growing coconuts and knitting however if given enough time I bet he could teach us all a thing or two on those topics too!

See, you get what I'm trying to say in thinking of pitchers as more like machines, and how even though the taller pitcher has a physical advantage, when he starts to get over a certain height that pitching ability actually drops quickly it seems. And along with pitching velocity, there may be a breakdown and more wear on a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine/body the longer and harder they continue to throw. That was what I was referring to when talking about a sweet spot/range in size and height for a pitcher to maybe still throw at a fairly high velocity, but also be able to pitch for a longer, extended period without suffering injuries or the inability to continue pitching at such a high level for very long. I get it that the height of the average MLB pitcher has slowly been going up a few inches the last few decades, but is that because the bigger, faster, stronger = better argument is really true, or is it maybe more from the fewer and fewer innings starters seem to be pitching anymore, so they don't injure/wear out their arms. These modernists talk about what an old time picther couldn't do if they transported him to the game today. Maybe they also should start asking what a modern pitcher couldn't do if they transported him back to a time when pitchers were supposed to complete their games. I can already picture these old time players fouling off pitches and running up pitch counts on them once they figure out some fireballer from the future seems to tire out a lot faster than pitchers they're used to facing.

Shoot, now there I go thinking about that human element again, instead of just trusting everything my friends the statisticians have told me because they are so smart and know so much more about everything. Oh foolish me, how could I ever doubt them? :rolleyes:

+ 1,000

As I've quoted the old axiom multiple times now - The greatest ability is availability!

I hear you Peter, preaching to the choir!

LOL LOL LOL

Nothing I could ever add, you just dropped the mic after that one...............

If someone strings together the 4 greatest years in history then dies in a plane crash, then I think they're at least worth considering. It depends on how much better they were than everyone else though too. If some kid shows up next year and throws 225 innings with a 0.71 ERA, a 0.51 WHIP with 16 K/9, all while maintaining a league average BABIP, and then repeats it for 2 more years before hanging up the cleats to join the Navy Seals, then I'd have no problem saying he is the best pitcher of all time, despite only giving us 675 innings of greatness.

I very much admire the Socratic, and generally adopt the view that I might think a lot but don't really know a whole lot. One thing I know is that Sandy Koufax absolutely did not string together the best 4 pitching years in history.

No prominent baseball statistician has reached this conclusion, and the cumulative advanced metrics do not support it either. By the appeal to authority, prominent baseball statisticians outrank anyone else for baseball stats. Via the appeal to authority, this argument for Koufax thus fails.

See why these kinds of arguments are not good ones to make?

Bob he is my go to man now. Prior to his coming here I was mislead by groupthink over 3 point shooters, absolutely everything about pitching in the bigs, Joe Jackson autographs and the internal operations of PSA, PWCC and eBay to just name a handful of topics.

He has over 600 posts. I must reread all of them to see if I have missed anything.

It's funny, someone posted how this is like the fastest thread ever on the forum to 1,000 posts. I wonder if he has the fastest ever to 600 posts on here now. And here's a thought, hundreds of posts ago in this very thread, he actually said he was done and wasn't going to post in this thread anymore. Thank goodness he kept his word and quit posting in this thread, otherwise he could be over 1,000 posts by now!!!! WOW!!! 😂

I sometimes wonder.... the OP started this thread and was subsequently banned. Is this thread his legacy to the Net54 community, or his curse on us?

Great point, I forgot about the OP getting banned. Makes you wonder what's next. LOL

I was working on a longer post regarding player height, but wow this thread got weird. Love everything about this thread and the debate, but come on. Koufax is a great pitcher. But in an all time great debate, you don’t get to just cut out Koufax’s terrible first 6 years of his professional career and pretend it didn’t happen. That’s just now how it works.

And on top of that, 600 innings is all that’s needed to be the GOAT? Even in modern baseball, say 150 innings per year, that’s only 4 years. So the HOF requires 10 years to even make the HOF as a low tier HOFer. But somehow you can be the greatest pitcher ever pitching 4 years? And not even qualify for the HOF? That is jumping the shark.

True Dat!

Really? You sure about that? As young as Koufax was? How many teenagers have you seen pitching in the MLB? I'll wait...

Koufax threw 41 innings as a teen. It is not his teen years limiting his good years, it’s his arm going at 30 and that he only got productive at 25, a couple years after most all time greats but not really late.

What does that have to do with what we're arguing about? I made the claim that most pitchers don't come into the league as teenagers and just start kicking ass right out of the gate and that it usually takes them a few years to figure things out in the minors first. Peter seems to think that statement is false. He asserts that I must not have done my homework, because surely if I had, I would have come to a different conclusion.

Care to place a wager on this one Peter? Or Mr. Data Analyst perhaps? Mr Snow PaTroll perhaps? Anyone?

... No? Didn't think so.

He cited examples of pitchers putting it together at 22, 23, 24. Not in their teens. Nobody is holding Koufax’s 1955 season at 19 against him. The problem is he put it together a couple years later than most great pitchers and was done at 30. He loses a couple years of effectiveness to his somewhat but not overly late bloom. He loses a decade to the fact he was done at 30. It’s fairly obvious which is the bigger problem for his careers value. One can discern it from a cursory look at his career. There’s nothing to wager on here.

I’m sure Kevin would be pleased to know that his thread has dragged on indefinitely with no end or resolution in sight. Out of all the threads he started, I think this one sets the record for combined inanity and duration. It has the vitriol of the thread that got him banned, and has carried on longer than most of his BST posts. Why, with both peak and longevity, this thread is surely one of the contenders for greatest Net54 thread of all time. All it’s missing is an off-center card with a PSA 9 asking price. Almost a pity he isn’t here to see it (almost).

You keep hammering this point about Koufax benefitting from pitching in Dodger Stadium for his final 5 years (but you ignore the fact that he was in two of the worst pitcher's parks in MLB history for his first 7 years). I've granted you that point and have mentioned multiple times that it should be accounted for and would definitely adjust his peak year numbers down. However, you continue to overlook or ignore the fact that Warren Spahn played in an even MORE favorable park than Koufax did. Are you aware that County Stadium was the friendliest pitcher's park in MLB history prior to Petco Park opening up in 2004? Per Baseball Reference's Park Factor stats, Warren Spahn threw in the #1 friendliest pitchers' park, not just of his era, but of any era prior to the 2000s, and in what still to this day remains as the 2nd friendliest pitcher's park of all time, just a fraction of a hair behind Petco Park in the mid to late 2000s.

So if you want to start making adjustments for Koufax's park, then you have to make them for Spahn and Randy as well. And given his tenure in County Stadium and other extremely friendly pitchers' parks, there is literally no other pitcher in history whose numbers would take a bigger park factor hit than Warren Spahn. His overall numbers would literally take the largest hit of every single major league pitcher who ever threw from the mound by adjusting for park factors. Don't believe me? Go look it up yourself.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/t...L/attend.shtml

Meanwhile, Randy Johnson pitched in one of the worst pitchers' parks in MLB history when he won his 4 consecutive CYAs in Arizona. I can't even imagine wanting or needing to IMPROVE his numbers from those 4 years, but the data tells us that we should. Pretty insane, if you ask me.

No one is denying Spahn benefited from his park. Like most pitchers, his home numbers are better, and it’s one of the factors holding down his adjusted rate stats, which are still excellent.

Unlike Koufax, his ERA doesn’t double or triple each year outside of Dodger Stadium vs. being at Dodger stadium, as was broken down several times already. Unlike Koufax, he was a star pitcher before he got to County Stadium at age 32, when Koufax had been retired for 2 years.

Your comeback will be to ignore this or to compare their home/road splits on a career level to cover up Sandy’s dodger stadium difference as opposed to his other home parks that don’t have extreme problems and didn’t align perfectly with his only good years.

You’ll get no argument from me that Spahn was better than Johnson, for numerous reasons. The problem is you chose to make the absurd proclamation, supported by 0 prominent and known expert baseball statisticians, that Spahn was “above average, at best”. Not being as good as Randy Johnson after you adjust for park is not a winning argument when this is your hypothesis. It’s shifting the goalpost, very obviously and poorly. A 119 ERA+, adjusted for park, in over 5,000 IP is not “above average at best” according to any prominent baseball statistician or by common sense.

Also, isn’t your argument you just made a few hours ago that Sandy’s first 7 years should be ignored? No home park effect creates Sandy’s terrible first half of his career. Interesting how his first half matters when it helps Sandy and does not matter when it hurts Sandy. Like all the Koufax arguments, it’s an argument from conclusion in which the argument is formulated after the conclusion without any regard for consistency to previous statements.

Straw man. Other than Doc, I pointed to examples of pitchers achieving greatness in their early 20s, when Koufax was mediocre. And I am sure I could cite many more. You have zero support for your assertion that "most" pitchers take 5 years to figure it out. Randy Johnson, to be sure, was a slow starter, and there may be others, but "most" you just made up.

LOL!! I had already forgotten about that. Sensational!!! Well just yesterday he referred to this as an argument so maybe what he meant is that he was done discussing and was just going to argue?

If you need some ammunition to help quiet someone down (this one's for you also G1911), here's a quick list of some MLB pitchers who started in the majors while still teens. Don't want to make people wait for accurate and verifiable answers to their questions, now do we? And of course, we can always expect someone asking such questions of us to be just as courteous and responsive in similar type questions we may pose to them, and can count on them answering us back with accurate and verifiable responses as well, right? And some of the pitchers on this list aren't too shabby to boot........

Felix Hernandez
Dwight Gooden
Bert Blyleven
Mike Morgan
David Clyde
Vida Blue
Denny McLain
Dave McNally
Early Wynn
Bob Feller (Who may be the youngest ever, in the modern era at least, at only 17)
Babe Ruth

People really should learn to do a little research before shooting off their mouths when demanding proof of something they think off the top of their head doesn't exist. Gee, I hope if this was something being asked for by a researcher or statistician that it isn't indicative of the usual quality of their work. Would certainly make me a tad bit concerned about believing anything such a person would ever say or suggest, right? Just another one of those - Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

Tomato - Tomahto

I'm sure there's a statistical formula or algorithm somewhere to prove he may have a better chance of winning if he calls what he's doing one thing as opposed to the other.

But on second thought, maybe not! LOL

Early Wynn was a late bloomer!
 

Hold on a sec. WRT Early Wynn: he may have pitched as a teenager, but he was a very ordinary pitcher through his age-28 season. It was only after Washington traded him to Cleveland that he started to pitch above league average -- he made the HoF in his 30's.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1638028681

Bob...come now. He is not just a researcher or statistician. He is a data scientist...with 4 post grad degrees. I dunno if this is indicative of his work but it has been 100% indicative of his posts here. So much nonsense from the snowman. I admit I am a huge fan.

George,

Don't disagree, but I believe the question asked of others was to name pitchers who pitched in the majors as teenagers, not how they fared when they pitched.

And thank you for bringing that up by the way, and I sincerely mean that. It cuts off whoever may have asked the original question from trying to throw it back in someone's face, because now if they still try to do that, they'll really look kind of dumb. Thanks!

Gary Nolan, Wally Bunker, Chief Bender, Rube Bressler and Smoky Joe Wood also all had excellent seasons as teens in the 20th century.


Most pitchers are not major league ready or good in their teens. Most aren’t at 20 or 21. Most excellent pitchers ‘put it together’ at 23-25. Koufax bloomed a little late, but not very late like Randy Johnson or Early Wynn. The much bigger issue for his value to his team is that he was completely done by 30. His early years can’t be ignored, nor should they for any pitcher, but his real problem is the age he was useless by. Johnson I have as #2 and he was a true late bloomer.

I don't want to ever sully a scientist like that. They are all very intelligent and dedicated intellectuals who make it a point that when they develop theories, they always test and recheck their data and results to strive for accuracy and verifiability in all that they do. And they never go about publishing or declaring their ideas and theories as factual until they have produced, and are able to share, their data and research supporting and proving those theories. Can't imagine a TRUE scientist ever willingly violating that well known tenet of the scientific community, can you? :rolleyes:

Agreed!

The list of names you and I have of those who pitched in their teens is pretty impressive in terms of the ability of others to spot their raw, MLB level talent at such an early age. Of the 15 listed teen pitchers, 5 are in the HOF (including Ruth), and 5 are Cy Young winners (with Wynn being the only CYA winner and HOFer in the group). So 9 of these 15 MLB pitchers turned out to be at least somewhat great. That is an outstanding 60% success rate in predicting who would go on to do well. And that doesn't even include Wood or McNally, who both had excellent careers also.

Technically, I think that title goes to Joe Nuxhall, though Feller did manage to stick it out longer than 2/3 of an inning.

Another pitcher who started in their teens (a lefty even). went on to a respectable career, and retired young was Johnny Antonelli.

Since we are nothing more than groupthink or a small gaggle of internet trolls maybe we are not entitled to his true greatness.

And a great pitcher in 1954. He played a key role in getting the Giants their last title for decades, but was quickly forgotten by Giants fans. He’s one of those common cards I always target to get, coming from Giants country.

Strawman? LMFAO. You're so ridiculous. That was literally my exact statement that you argued against. And who said anything about 5 years? Who's the one making straw man arguments now? All I said was it takes most pitchers a few years in the minors to figure things out before getting called up. Pretty simple statement Peter. And not one that's really debatable. But you'll argue against anything.

I dont even know what to do with this. You just get more and more clueless as this thread goes along. You're not even trying to put forth honest arguments anymore. You're just trolling now. I'm done with you. Welcome to my ignore list along with Snow PaTroll. But hey, at least you got one thing right. I'm going to ignore you now.

When a troll gets backed into an corner by his contradictions, shout trolling!

Holy $#!+. How clueless can you actually be? That's your list? 11 players? This is your argument against the very simple statement that most pitchers don't pitch in the MLB as teenagers and that it takes them a few years in the minors to figure things out before they get called up? Really? It wouldn't matter if you could come up with hundreds of pitchers who were called up as teens. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of players, hell, the vast majority of top prospects even, all spend multiple years in the minor league system before being called up. Welcome to my ignore list as well. I don't have time for people like you.

Snowman is having a meltdown...again. You are the one who started arguing about teenage pitchers in MLB. Another red herring to go along with many others. Once you get stopped in your tracks you find another angle and twist what others have posted so you can shift your position.

So what's the over/under on the number of posts that Snowman makes in a given thread before pissing off (multiple) people?

I now have an ignore list of one.

This started with you making excuses for why you ignored half of Koufax' career. When I pointed to Gooden, you switched gears and said you assessed pitchers based on their 4 or 5 peak years. And you admitted a guy who was off the charts for 4 years or so could be your greatest pitcher of all time. My point is that your excuse for Koufax is therefore a pretext, and your real reason for ignoring half his career is that you choose to assess based on 4 or 5 peak years. Which is fine as long as you are consistent about it and why.

He likes to antagonize and argue. He apparently had two ids on Blowout and he conducted himself the same way there from the posts I read. He just does not play well with others.

I couldn't have possibly been more clear and consistent throughout this entire thread that I've only ever been interested in someone's peak 4 or 5 years when trying to figure out who I think was best. Your bad faith arguments are getting tiresome.

Then why did you justify ignoring Koufax' first 5 years on a different basis?
I think it's more than fair to give him a pass while he tried to figure things out. Your words.
Yes. I ignore Koufax's early years. He was a teenager when he entered the league. Your words.

You would have the same exact assessment if his career had gone in reverse. Again, that's fine, but your excuses for him are pretextual.

Bad faith indeed.

I see the Snow PaTroll is back...

You guys should go look through this clown's post history over the past few months. Just go through them one by one. He never contributes even a shred of value to any conversation. All he does is post about me. From one thread to the next. His entire existence here is stalking me.

That's demonstrably not true. The first page of his posts shows a wide variety of subjects having nothing to do with you. Prices, PSA fees, Jackie Robinson cards, BST issues, REA, etc. You're a liar. Or did you just make yet another assertion without checking the facts?

It's funny, someone dares you to name or give them examples of something, with the sarcastic implication that you're not going to find anything, so you give them a number of examples to shut them up. And of course their comeback upon seeing the list is typical, feigned shock and disgust that that is all there is.

Just tell the trolls know they can't count as there were other posts with more names than on the one list anyway. And if they want any more names than that, they should get off their lazy butts and go look them up themselves.

LOL

You and me both.

One might question the value you bring to any conversation. When you are not lecturing or insulting us you are twisting your position once you get called out.

Bullshit. 16 of his last 25 posts are either directly about me or mocking something I've said. And that's just page one.

You said:
All he does is post about me. From one thread to the next. His entire existence here is stalking me.

What YOU said is BS. I thought you were a statistician, since when is 16 of 25 100 percent? By lawyer math it's 64 percent.

Or maybe it's the same logic that lets you ignore half of Koufax' career lol. Only the 16 count.

OK captain literal. As if you didn't know what I meant by what I said. :rolleyes:

A man so precise with numbers who speaks figuratively. Got it.

This is the perfect example of why everyone hates lawyers. There isn't a single person here, including yourself, who is confused about what someone actually means when they say something like "all he/she does is X". Then the forum captain lawyer comes along to point out the obvious, "well actually, he did make a post about Jackie Robinson last week". Or if someone says, "all he does is sleep", you're the genius that's going to point out, "well actually, I saw him eating lunch yesterday".

I'm done playing games with you Peter. Have fun talking to the wall like you always do.

My point is clear. Lorewalker stalks me from thread to thread. He has a serious problem. The majority of his content over the past 3 or 4 months is either directly about me or mocking me. It's extremely childish.

Hey Peter,

When someone accuses someone else of stalking them on here, and then points to the accused's prior posts that apparently they went searching for to then go through, am I missing something or does it not sound like the accuser is maybe the one actually doing the stalking? :eek:

Of the two of us, who do you think is liked less on this forum? Let's see just how perceptive you are, Mr. statistician turned figurative.

I’m really sad I’m not going to get to see this groundbreaking statistic that shows Koufax is top 3, crapping all over the inferior work of respected baseball statisticians that have not been able to achieve this.

Anyways, Grove Vs. Johnson Vs. Spahn with the shared acknowledgement that all 3 were truly great pitchers is a much more reasonable polite debate for us all to have than the screeching from Koufax stans that is most of this.

Not accurate. I have been on threads before you got there. That I addressed you in them is only because your posts warranted it. I have refrained more times than I have posted.

I am sure I have many problems but they pale in contrast to your serious problems.

Oh stop it. You love the attention.


Ok. Ya got me there but I do have a passion for collecting cards which inhibits my ability to act like an adult, at times. For a guy who insults and attacks so many people you really should be thicker skinned. You constantly put a target on yourself.

Being a statistician, perhaps you can go back and compute the number of your posts with an ad hominem comment ridiculing someone, or the forum collectively?

It turns out that insulting absolutely everyone active in a thread will make everyone in a thread unite against you. I for one am shocked at this revelation.

Waddell, Plank and Hubbell aren’t the best but they probably deserve more mentions than they have gotten. Waddell seems to me one of the great ‘could have been’s’, he had a fine career but if he’d been more mature/sane/dedicated he might be the one the serious people are debating.

He did complement one guy who agreed with him about something. See that's the sole criterion, someone who agrees with him gets it, everybody else is stupid.

Unfortunately, his point is so obviously wrong, that almost no one can agree. Though as he changes his position every time he’s cornered by the ridiculousness of his earlier contradictory positions, the individual who once agreed with him and broke the mold may no longer agree with his new hot take.

He admitted to it yesterday when he used the word argue to describe what he sees as taking place here. Sure arguments can happen but I think most of us are here to discuss or debate, civilly. Not this dude. He comes to fight and is here just to argue. He takes a position and then he pivots when he is made to look silly, thereby changing the emphasis of the discussion, or as he refers to it, the argument. Some of the theories he has put forth as facts are hilarious.

We are way beyond due for some card pictures. I have a Koufax someplace but will have to settle for these three lefties for now.

I saved my dollar weekly allowance to pay $3 at my local card shop for a 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson Rookie in 2000 when I was 9. It felt like a huge deal! Still have it somewhere in my junk wax closet.

I just paid silly money for an e93 waddell. Inspiring me to learn more about him. Interesting character so far.

Picked this up from a board member a while back:

[IMG]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...81ffd23b83.jpg [/IMG]

Sick!