Mickey Lolich deserves honorable mention. He was the American League all time left handed strikeout king for decades until CC Sabathia took over. His 1968 World Series performance is legendary with 3 complete game wins, 2 hits including the only homer of his career and he beat Bob Gibson on the road in game 7 with a complete game on 2 days rest!!! In the bottom of the 6th with the score tied 0-0 he picked Lou Brock and Curt Flood off first base. Incredible performance!

Best Southpaws of all-time
 

1. Grove
2. Kershaw
3. Johnson
4. Carlton
5. Koufax
6. Spahn

Grove - 9 ERA titles is sheer dominance over an extended period of time - no questions asked.

Kershaw - possibly on pace to be the best ever but still falls somewhat short to Grove. His WHIP; K/BB & ERA numbers are incredible.

Johnson - took him a while to figure it out, but when he did, his peak value numbers are top 5-10 of all-time for ALL pitchers

Carlton - great longevity & peak value but a few inexplicable very poor seasons (including 20 losses) place him a notch below Johnson

Koufax - best peak value lefty of all-time but 5 dominating seasons just doesn’t cut it with regard to being the best ever. You can say all you want IF he had longevity he would be the best ever.....true. But, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. “IFs” simply don’t cut it in the world of rankings.

Spahn - VERY underrated. Most southpaw wins of all-time. Issue with Spahn is he could not dominate a lineup at the level of the 5 pitchers above him.

I agree. Another thing is that Koufax' best 5 years were right after expansion, when 4 new teams were frankensteined together with guys who otherwise wouldn't have been in the Big Leagues.

From 1962-1966, Sandy was 17-2 against the Mets, and 14-2 against the Colts/Astros, for example. He was aided elsewhere by the general watered-down talent level the expansions had across the leagues.

I'll go with Grove as the best all-time. But if I was a team owner and could have any lefty for his entire career, I'd take Spahn and sleep well at night.

Yogi Berra, when informed that Koufax was 25-5 during the regular season in 1963: "How the hell did he lose five?"

Gene Mauch when asked if Koufax was the best lefty he ever saw: "The best righty too".

Hank Aaron: "You talk about the Gibsons the Drysdales and the Spahns. And as good as those guys were, Koufax was just a step ahead of them.

John Roseboro: "I think God came down and tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'Boy, I'm gonna make you a pitcher.' God only made one of him."

Andy Etchebarren: "See, you need a certain amount of time for the eye to see what it sees and what it needs to tell the brain what it needs to be told, and then your hands gotta move. And that is all taking place in less than a second. With Koufax, your eyes couldn't tell your brain to react in time."

On Koufax's fastball seeming to rise and accelerate just before it got to the plate, umpire Doug Harvey: "I don't know why or how. In thirty-one years, I've never seen anybody else who could do that...Nobody's ball did what Koufax's ball did."

Stan Musial: "Rose up just before it got to the plate."

Carl Erskine: "It reaccelerated. It came again."

On Koufax's curve ball, Jim Wynn: "A mystic waterfall."

Orlando Cepeda: "It sounded like a little tornado. Bzzzzzzz. And it looked like a high fastball. Then it dropped ---BOOM---in front of you. So fast and noisy, it scared you."

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

I just don't buy the idea that his road record disqualified him from being considered great. The way some people are talking, it seems like it was a moral outrage that his E.R.A wasn't below 0.00 on the road.

In 1962, his season ended early. Yeah, his home E.R.A was significantly lower at at 1.75 compared to his road E.R.A at 3.53. But he only played half a season.

In 1963 the split was 1.38 at home and 2.31 away. 2.31 is an E.R.A most pitchers would kill for.

1964: 0.84 (astounding) to 2.93. With that 2.93 I guess they should have shipped him down to the minors.

1965: 1.38 to 2.72. Another horrible year.

1966: 1.52 to 1.96. His arthritic elbow was what probably got the away number down below 2.00. Let's face it, Koufax probably knew someone in management who let him hang on to his job.

Just to reiterate, there were other great lefties who you could make a case for as being the all-time best lefty. I'm just arguing against the idea that Koufax was just good. He was great. He was recognized as such by his peers, and his record speaks for itself.

If the Dodgers had any kind of offense, Koufax would have won ~35 games in 1966. He only gave up 4 earned runs twice in 41 starts, in a loss and a no decision. In 3 other no decisions, he gave up 1, 1 and 2 earned runs. In his 8 other losses, the Dodgers scored a total of 6 runs, less than one run per game. He was pretty good on the road, with a sub 2 ERA and sub 1 WHIP. No other lefty has had a season like that. 1963 was another season Koufax should have won 30 games. He went 25-5 and he had 5 no decision where he gave up 0 or 1 runs, but got no support. I can only name one pitcher better than Sandy Koufax, his name is Walter Johnson.

Both Koufax and Spahn pitched in "pitchers parks" (County and Dodger Stadium) the majority of their careers so that helps and somewhere I recall reading that the mound at LAD was unusually high in the 60s. Both fantastic however.

You obviously did not read the post you are replying too. I clarified another poster had quite explicitly said he was only good, not great, on the road. The statistics bear that judgement out. Road splits are crazy stats? We are supposed to only judge off a players last season? My list of 5 better lefties is the first reply to this thread.

Be careful? Why do I need to be careful? What’s the threat here exactly?

That's silly, and not simply as other people have mentioned (because of the Postseason). It's silly because we all know that Koufax's career averages are not spectacular because for the first half of his career, he was mediocre. Koufax wasn't "The Left Arm of God" for his entire career. No one argues that he was. For 5 seasons he was truly spectacular.

That does nothing to take away from what Kershaw has done in his career. I think he deserves the Koufax comparisons. But comparing career totals misses the story with Koufax in my opinion.

Be careful who you say is better because you don't want to look like a fool. I rest my case with the players you named.

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

Nah, just trying to offset the overwrought hyperbole about Koufax. Thing is, no one is willing to explain why he was SO MUCH better at Dodger Stadium if he was truly so great?

If Koufax was so completely unhittable, why was he awful at the LA Coliseum? Careful - if you're not allowed to attribute his success to his ballpark, you don't get to blame his failures either.

False. He missed about 1/3 of the season, maybe less, making 28 starts. And he pitched in late September & October.

Yep, 2.31 is really good.

2.93 sounds really good. Except the entire staff combined had a 2.95 all year. So he was staff-average on the road. And, while 2.93 is good, it was hardly great for the time. Wouldn't have made the top 10 in the NL, for example.

So, Koufax defenders, please explain:

1) his high ERA in 6 of 13 ballparks he pitched in?

2) why his consistent success only started when the NL expanded, the strike zone expanded, and Dodger Stadium opened? And, if it was just "well, he started throwing strikes", how do you reconcile that with the expansion of the strike zone?

Since I got asked, five pitchers better than Koufax (in no order):

1) Walter Johnson
2) Lefty Grove
3) Tom Seaver
4) Pedro Martinez
5) Roger Clemens

The Koufax argument is:

You must ignore context of era.

You must ignore home/road and context of ballpark.

You must ignore longevity.

You must ignore half of a players career if it doesn’t support your argument.

Fantasies of things you think could happen but did not are better evidence than things that actually did, and verifiably did, happen.

You must ignore new stats since none of them help Koufax’s case.

You must ignore the old stats that also do not help Koufax’s case.

If you don’t follow these principles, you are a fool and need to “be careful”. The passion for ones favorite ball players is admirable, but the logic of this argument has run off any rails in the ballpark of reason.

[QUOTE=Tabe;1998311]Where are the quotes about trying to hit Koufax in 1961?

Where are the quotes from any player that Koufax was easy to hit off of in their ballpark?.... or that he was just a "good" or "typical" pitcher when he pitched outside of dodger stadium?

"Wooohoooo.... we get to face that "staff average" guy, Koufax... Yipeeee!!!
--- Nobody

The Anti-Koufax Arguement:
Ignores that most Hall of Famers would say Koufax was the greatest lefty they had ever seen or played against. This includes HOFers who were still alive in the early to mid 1960's who had faced great pitchers from the past. THAT is the greatest compliment there is. Statistics can be bent and used in many different ways. Sometimes you have to look at other measures. JMO

Anyone who can hit hit a flying bird, gets my vote. The Big Unit Randy Johnson would do well in any era of baseball

https://youtu.be/FCNZg2xwl54

Deleted (posted twice somehow)

Regarding your saying that Koufax didn't play only 1/2 a season in 1962: he only appeared in 3 games in September, going 2/3 of an inning on 9/21, 2 innings on 9/23, and 5 innings on 9/27. He lost a game and his E.R.A was 8.22 for the month. Sounds like maybe he wasn't quite himself after having crushed the artery in the palm of his throwing hand. The 8.22 may have had a little to do also with raising his overall season E.R.A. Just like the E.R.A he got for the one appearance he made in October, which was 27.00 for one inning pitched in a game he got tagged for a loss.

So, after July he pitched a grand total of 8.2 innings. So, I'll stick with his pitching a 1/2 season.

You also say that the Dodgers team E.R.A. was 2.95 for the year in 1964. Without Koufax's 1.74 E.R.A added into the mix, the team's E.R.A. would have been somewhat higher, I imagine. If somebody can calculate that that would be good. I don't know just how much higher it would be.

Regarding Koufax's early career, he was of course, a bonus baby, and he didn't get a lot of playing time. He didn't get that all important time to develop in the minors. It also wasn't in Walter Alston's interest to experiment with a rookie when he had an established staff, was fighting for the pennant, and was working under one-year contracts. Jackie Robinson didn't like Alston and thought he was dumb for using Koufax so sporadically, especially after showing occasional flashes of brilliance. But Koufax obviously had some kinks to work out.

The mound had been mandated set to 15 inches in 1950, so that had been in place for some time. Did the expanded strike zone help Koufax? Yeah, I'm sure. But two things: the strike zone between 1963-1968 from the top of the shoulders to the knees, was also the strike zone from 1887-1950. The strike zone was changed from 1950-1963 to be from the armpits to the top of the knees. People here are acting as though 1963-1968 was the exception to the rule. At that time, 1950-1963 was the exception to the rule. After 1968, that strike zone was reinstated, this time with the lowered mound. But Koufax enjoyed the same strike zone as Lefty Grove and Walter Johnson, although pitching mounds during Grove and Johnson's time weren't uniform, in that back then it was stipulated that they could be "no more than" 15 inches.

And did Dodger Stadium help Koufax? I'd say yeah, it had to help. It had generous enough foul territory near the plate, and the hitting background wasn't supposed to be good (at least back then). But I think you are over-attributing his success to a ballpark. No other Dodger pitcher dominated the way Koufax did after he found his groove, although Drysdale of course was a great pitcher. Koufax DID start throwing strikes, with a legendary fastball as attested to by players like Hank Aaron in my previous post, as well as his 12 to 6 curve ball also attested to. Again, maybe the return to the larger strike zone helped Koufax. But every other major league pitcher was working with the same strike zone, and nobody put up Koufax's numbers. Give the man his due.

All the ballparks were and are different. There are short fences and long fences. Parks where the wind and the sun affect the playing field differently. It's one of the great things about baseball, in my opinion. It can lead to interesting discussions like this. But it's ridiculous to trivialize Koufax's achievements as merely being a product of location. Koufax worked under and worked with the rules, the parks, the hitters, and the style of play extant at that time, and excelled. Those are the facts.

Also, in response to the expanded league: Koufax had to face the great black and Latino players of his era, something the players of previous eras didn't have to contend with, sadly and unfortunately.

WHIP 4th
H/9 1st
K/9 1st
Ks 1st
K/BB 1st
FIP 1st
ERA 7th

Koufax wasn't the best lefty of all time in 1961 but he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. The left field fence at the LA Coliseum was 251 feet from home plate. Dodger Stadium a normal 330 feet and you wonder why Koufax was better in Dodger Stadium? It is common for players to do better in their home park. Sleeping in their own bed vs a hotel, no travel, familiarity with park, fan support, etc. Koufax was no different. Koufax would have been much better 1958-1961 if the Dodgers weren't playing in a football stadium with unusual dimensions, but all you want to do is criticize him for having only 5 years of a home park advantage in LA but his numbers are hurt worse for 4 in the Coliseum.

I haven't ignored any of these. I have addressed them all with fact and stats. However, in order to claim Grove is the best you have ignored on all the stats, ignored all the great Negro League players Grove didn't pitched to and cherry picker made up stats that are seriously flawed..

Koufax pitched 12 years. And half of those years were junk. Now if you are stuck on peak value with blinders on, then yes, Koufax is your man. Building a long term team, jeez, hard to go against Grove, Randy Johnson.

Grove
 

Give me a break. This type of comparison is just plain silly if you don’t take the eras into account. ERAs in the two pitchers’ eras are so different it’s almost like a different game. And there never was a pitcher’s park like Dodger Stadium in the 1960s.

The clincher for me is the nine ERA titles Grove won. I think that’s the most amazing pitching record in baseball history.
Maybe you can explain how all the great hitters on Grove’s teams enabled him to do that.


Oh yeah, one more thought about those strikeout totals. All Grove did was lead thie league in Ks seven straight years.

On a purely talent level I still think Waddell was the best lefty to ever pitch. He needed nothing but his arm to propel himself into the HOF. He lacked the mental capabilities to really pitch, but it ultimately didn't matter.

When you put it all together, I don't see how anyone could argue against Randy Johnson. He pitched at the height of the steriod era and against players who were by and large cheating, yet it didn't matter. Imagine him in a clean game. There wouldn't have even been a game.

All due respect to Koufax, but he was no Randy.

If there had been the Cy Young Award when Grove pitched, how many would he have won? Somewhere between minimum 5 to as many as 7 , perhaps ?

Your entire statistical argument was predicated on ignoring context, and supposing that stats in the 1930's AL and the 1960's NL are directly comparable in the raw. You then cherrypicked only the stats that ignore that Koufax played 9 full years, and was average or below for half his career while Grove pitched nearly 2x innings. I would love to hear a coherent, logical argument as to how Foxx is responsible for Grove's 9 ERA titles and what Koufax's offense has to do with his ERA, WHIP, and anything but W/L record, a statistic I have not cited at all in support or against any candidate.

You are right, I ignored the Negro League players as there are no reliable statistics to compare with. The question posed was "All-Time" not "Since 1947". If you would like to make a thread about the best lefty since 1947 instead of all-time to disqualify Grove for being alive at the wrong time, go do that.

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

I don't know. Arthritis is a kind of tough draw among non-lethal diseases. A lot of advances have led to better quality of life and basic functionality, but not at a peak level of performance. I am actually really happy to see him still able to get round at his age. I have a brother in law with RA that has really had to struggle and work hard just to stay able to walk and drive.

I agree with you totally on Mattingly, and I agree this is a fun debate. But if we were giving Koufax the benefit of modern medicine, we should probably give it to Grove, too, right?

I see three more seasons for Pettite and Sabathia, I wonder how close this is now? (I'm too lazy to research.)

Cool stat!!

I count 17 20 win seasons by a Yankee/Highlander, perusing Baseball Reference:

Lefty Gomez, 26 (1934)
Whitey Ford, 25 (1961)
Ron Guidry, 25 (1978)
Lefty Gomez, 24 (1932)
Whitey Ford, 24 (1963)
Herb Pennock, 23 (1926)
Tommy John, 22 (1980)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1931)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1937)
Ed Lopat, 21 (1951)
Herb Pennock, 21 (1924)
Tommy John, 21 (1979)
Ron Guidry, 21 (1983)
Andy Pettite, 21 (1996)
Andy Pettite, 21 (2003)
C.C. Sabathia, 21 (2010)
Fritz Peterson, 20 (1970)


Warren Spahn retired with 13 20 win seasons. The Yankees Lefties tied Spahn in 1980 with John's season, and passed him in 1983 with Guidry's.

Without Lefty Gomez, the Yankees would be tied with Spahn today.

Listen, we would have been great with Spahn on our team but between Lefty and Guidry the Yankees won 18 championships whereas the Braves won just the one in 1957.

Spahn added to that 50's Yankees team would have been even more ridiculous!


Another note -
Mathewson won 20 games 13 times, Young 15, putting Spahn tied for 2nd most 20 win seasons all time, the only post-war pitcher anywhere near the top.

He led the league in wins 8 times, the 2nd most is 6, tied by Johnson, Alexander, Feller and Spaulding, who pitched on a literal all-star team that destroyed the NA. If you don't count Spaulding, Spahn has the most consecutive Win titles, at 5. Johnson and Roberts posted 4. He is one of only 3 pitchers to lead the league in 3 different decades, alongside Seaver and Feller.

Spahn really has some insane longevity and consistency records.

Koufax wins three Cy Young Awards, all UNANIMOUS. I rest my case.

Well, you got us. Lefty Grove didn't win a single Cy Young Award, let alone unanimous.

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.

And we all know the story of the 1934 All-Star Game where Hubbell struck out Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons & Cronin - in a row. Legendary.

Don't forget that Koufax pitched against some great hitters (which he did,) while Grove only pitched against white stumblebums. Pitching against Pete Rose was way tougher than pitching against wussies like "Ruth" or "Gehrig."

And somehow, pitching in the most friendly park to a pitcher in the most pitcher friendly era in the last century is somehow further proof that Koufax is the GOAT.

Only thing is, his first 7 years were nothing special. And he retired at 30, so who knows if he would have continued that 4 year dominance that he did in his late 20s.

Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

Thank you for clarifying. I shall amend too:



"The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"


When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, *but since they were not unanimous Koufax wins*"


A stunning logical argument.

I love Hubbell and find it sad he's pretty much forgotten except that All Star feat. He's truly great. But I don't believe his peak beats Grove's. Sure, the King won two MVP's vs. Grove's one. But the only other stat you bring up is WHIP, and I see that Hubbell led the league 6 out of 8 times, Grove 5 out of 7. Not quite sure that's dominance. If you are only looking at 'prime,' two of his best WHIP seasons are outside the prime 5!

Forgive me, you keep resting your case but I'm not really sure what case you are trying to make. Stop dropping the mike and walking away without completing a thought. It looks like you are saying Koufax is better than Randy Johnson??

And Grove, in 4 years of dominance in which he was older than Koufax, had a record of 108-27, then injured his arm, learned how to pitch with control instead of power, and came back and won almost 100 more games.

I agree with this, Hubbell is a little overshadowed by being a direct contemporary of Grove, and both are overshadowed by the context of the offensive dominance of their context. Hubbell is a top 4 lefty for me.

1. Grove
2. R. Johnson
3. Spahn
4. Hubbell

Hubbell has better peak than Spahn, but Spahn was so reliably effective for so many more innings. I think 2-4 all have valid arguments for any position in that range. 5 on down is a drop from the top 4, I think. Plank (hurt by never leading the league in much), Ford, Carlton (inconsistent) would come next I think in some order. Kershaw is climbing up and just needs solid years, not great ones, to quickly jump up the rankings. Less than 2,300 innings and the postseason is all that holds him back

Ha! This thread is now jumping the shark. Anyway, in my last post, I said that if you're weighing the factor of expansion you could look at integration as an extra factor which made for stronger competition. This is not to say there wasn't strong competition for major league pitchers pre-integration. Of course, there was.

At any rate, again, I haven't been saying that there aren't strong cases to make for others being the greatest lefty. I am not saying that Koufax was or wasn't the greatest. But the idea that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher is ridiculous. The detractor camp is just not giving him his full due. At this point, I would say they're trying way too hard not to acknowledge him. If it comes to down to listening to what they think, and what guys like Hank Aaron think, I'll go with Aaron.

A) was not in reference to you, but another poster who used the integration cutoff to dismiss anyone pre-1947 pitchers.

Hanks testimony is useless, as he did not face any of the other pitchers in the discussion except Carlton. All of the guys in this thread have quotes from hitters about them being tough to bat against. That we selectively only apply this for Koufax, because statistical arguments in context cannot be found, is just one more reason he is not the greatest. The argument entirely relies on emotional appeals like this

I, for one, have never felt that Koufax, for 4 seasons at least and possibly even 6, wasn't great. I think he's the best pitcher of the 60's, RH or LH. I feel his lack of longevity keeps him from being best ever, and his peak, when taken in the context of eras, is not as great as Grove's.

I enjoy these topics, and I know I can come across as yelling sometimes, but that's because I love the debate, not because I think ill of someone with differing opinions.

I did learn something about Grove in this: his #1 comparable stunned me! Without looking, can anyone guess? I'll post tomorrow. Not the HOFer I was expecting!

I don’t think anyone has actually argued Koufax is merely good; one poster said Koufax was merely good, not great, on the toad and posted the math to back it up. It has turned into a talking point to argue against that nobody actually said unless I missed a post.

Since Baseball Reference similarity scores don’t adjust for era... is it Hubbell or John Clarkson? A lot of their career stats are fairly close off memory

Well, I believe I was the first to make a reference to integration. But maybe I missed a comment, or like you say, you were commenting in response to somebody else.

If Aaron's testimony is useless, so is that of everyone who is coming out against Koufax, because you guys didn't face him either, lol. Aaron wasn't saying Koufax was the greatest lefty ever, but was the greatest of the pitchers he had faced in his era. And yes, there are other quotes that will testify as to the greatness of the other pitchers. Who knows how players of the 30's would have felt against Koufax, and how players of the 60's would have felt against Grove or Johnson?

But I think some of the remarks I made, as well as those by a couple of the other posters haven't been reflected on enough by those deriding Koufax's pre-1963 seasons. I'm not saying that some of the things you guys have brought up didn't help Koufax. But Koufax dominated that mid-60's time frame, and it wasn't merely due to Chavez Ravine. He developed as a player. If you had put him in Chavez Ravine in the late 50's, he would not have excelled as he did when he actually arrived there. You keep saying that I am making emotional appeals. I think that you are taking too clinical an approach.

Yes, it was as I said. 97. Take offense if you wish, though.

Yes, we didn't hit against him. Nobody hit against all the great lefties. Which is EXACTLY why some of us are using math and verifiable facts here; something besides completely subjective testimony of people who did not face the others discussed and so have no useful relevance.

The math suggests it WAS largely due to Chavez Ravine, as he did not have excellent numbers outside of his home park. See previous breakdowns.

Yes, I am taking a clinical approach using math and things that can be verified, instead of an emotional attachment to Koufax. The question posited was who is the best of all time, not who your favorite is.

Bingo!

So I dug out my Bill James Abstract to see his rankings. It's the 2001 version, so no Randy Johnson. He has Grove tops (#2 overall), then Spahn (5), and Koufax (10).
Then:
13 Hubbell
15 Carlton
22 Ford

I wonder how many of you mathematicians have seen Koufax pitch? I have and the players he pitched against say he was the best they had ever seen. The Yankees gave him accolades when they met in the World Series even commenting on his record of 25 and 5 stating "How did he loose 5 games?" I rest my case whether you like it or not

How many of those yankees saw Grove pitch?

And the winner is...
 

I picked Valenzuela because he was the best left-hander that I witnessed. I saw Carlton and Johnson, and they were also good.

Of the players I did not see, like Koufax, Sphan, Grove etc., the most eye-popping stats belong to Ed Morris.

Over a 3 year span, from 1884-1886, Morris was 114-57. He threw 1566 innings in those 3 seasons.

Kind of difficult to decide on any single lefty pitcher given the different eras in which they played ball. Koufax supporters have a good case for Sandy but something that plays into this should be longevity and dominance. For Koufax, he pitched in 12 seasons but in only less than half of his career could he be considered totally dominant. So, why not pull out the best 5 years of any pitcher and see how it all shakes out. Koufax, an ace? Yes! The best lefty? Debatable.

It amuses me that this kind of "evidence" is cited in support for Koufax and dismissed for everyone else (as it should be). Nobody faced all the lefties in discussion, and so "best I ever faced" is absolutely irrelevant to the question of who is best all time. Yet they keep dragging this horse out, because no mathematical arguments are really there.

Seperately,
I do not see how Valenzuela can possibly be ranked ahead of Randy Johnson.

Greg, Johnson left the Astros after only half a season. He was brought in to take them to the World Series, which he did not do.

Valenzuela was always tough on the Astros. The Dodgers were in the same division, so I saw him pitch a lot. It's the same reason I think Kevin Brown is the greatest right-hander I ever saw. Rob

So no one jumped on my Ruth suggestion but he had a three year span of about 2.00 average ERA, 20 wins a year and 300 innings a year. Then he went on to hit 714 home runs from the left side with over 2,200 RBI and a BA of .342 and OBP of .474 lifetime. That’s why he’s the greatest left handed ball player of all time.

Fernando? C’mon.

What can I say. I have a very dry sense of humor.

Now I get it ;)

What is there to say? Sure, he was the most valuable left handed player who pitched, but it seems to be missing the spirit of the question if not the exact verbiage. OP obviously was referring to the best as a pitcher, which is clearly not Ruth.

Ok now I get it. My other choice was either going to be Einstein or Oprah.

Which makes him the best lefty of his era, not best of all time.

No it wasn’t. I get it if you just want to ignore what is posted that you don’t agree with, but you have never addressed any of my points. I have addressed yours. We can just agree to disagree.

Yet, the same argument is being made for Grove because he won more ERA titles. The difference is that Koufax did that against much tougher competition. To be unanimous over Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, Bunning, Perry and Sutton is far more impressive. He did that by winning the pitching triple crown each year as well as leading in most other stats. Grove was the best lefty of his era, but if he was truly great, why could he only pitch 35 shutouts in 17 seasons?

I never made an argument about Groves ERA titles. I was replying to a post about Koufax 3 unanimous Cy Youngs.

Cy Youngs are not fair judge of pitchers of different eras, only fair when judging contemporaries since their in direct competition.

Oh hey, there are no bad vibes. I wasn't at all offended. It just seemed like there were a string of a couple of sarcastic remarks by a couple of the guys, and when I saw the one I responded to, I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. This is a great discussion, and I have learned a lot from it. I will acknowledge that Chavez Ravine was an asset for Koufax, but not the reason for his greatness.

After we spoke last night, I decided to look a bit more at the stats, and I came up with what I feel is statistical proof that bears out my point.

If you break down Koufax's home and away E.R.A's year by year, they go like this:

1955

Home 2.25
Away 4.08


1956

Home 7.50
Away 3.76


1957

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1958

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1959

Home 2.71
Away 5.50


1960

Home 5.27
Away 3.00


1961

Home 4.22
Away 2.77



1962

Home 1.75
Away 3.53



1963

Home 1.38
Away 2.31



1964

Home 0.85
Away 2.93



1965

Home 1.38
Away 2.72



1966

Home 1.52
Away 1.96



Okay. If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

'I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.


1.96, his last year.


To make the claim that Chavez Ravine was largely responsible for Koufax's improvement, as evidenced by the significant improvement of Koufax's record on the road, where he had to deal with everything every other visiting pitcher had to deal with in those parks, makes the claim that Chavez Ravine made Koufax the pitcher he was, preposterous. Again, look at Koufax's stats on the road from 1955-1960, and then from 1961 onward. Koufax became a better pitcher because he changed his approach toward pitching. His stats may have been helped somewhat at home by pitching at Chavez, but given his overall improvement, as evidenced by what his E.R.A. was on the road, the argument that Chavez was responsible for his improvement, collapses.

Also, one should take into account that he struck out 269 batters in 1961, which was the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine, and took place after the Norm Sherry conversation.

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

This is a good point. Hubbell was better than Grove. 2.98 ERA to 3.06. 1.166 WHIP to 1.278. In fact of the top 8 lefties, Grove had the worst WHIP of all. Kershaw is really the only one close to Koufax, it could be argued that he was the better regular season pitcher, but his poor pitching in the postseason makes him #2.

1. Koufax
2. Kershaw
3. Ford
4. Hubbell
5. Johnson
6. Grove
7. Carlton
8. Spahn

3 and 4 are close, 5-8 are close, but there are 3 clear tiers.

That's right, because he was great and they were not. If they hadn't been in the league he would have posted great numbers as well.

This really isn't an argument. Expansion was necessary because of the influx of minority talent. The Angels went 86-76 and finished 3rd in the AL their 2nd season. Expansion really only applies to a season or maybe two, after that it is management, like any other team, that determines if they are good or bad and there are going to be bad teams in every era. After all, why did Maris set the HR record in 1961 and then Mantle or someone else come along the next season and break it or come close? Players had huge jumps in performance in the AL in 1961 and then regressed back to the norm after that.

Park effect - partially why his numbers are also so good.

I'd like to focus on stats that are important to you, so please help me:
WHIP, SHUTOUTS, and STRIKEOUTS: most important

ERA and WINS: maybe; wins subjective to team

WAR: Made-up and useless

What about ERA+?


Also, era discrepancies like vastly different batting averages and runs scored when compared between the early 1930's and mid-1960's are because the pitching was so deep and talented in the 1960's, correct? Even though you listed the amazing hitters Koufax had to pitch to?

Does the fact that Grove was often called in as an effective reliever matter?

As others gave said, Grove’s four year peak is equal or better than koufax, and his peak and career about twice the length of koufax. Koufax had some great years but Grove was just as dominant and for much longer. Les the league in strikeouts seven straight years, wins several years, complete games three years in a row, even led the league in saves one year. More than twice the war and even bigger individual seasons.

Didn’t just lead in era, also in era plus and fip so he really was that dominant.

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

Googled "best left handed pitchers of all time" to see what others were writing. Sites I heard of like yardbarker and ESPN, some I've never heard of. Clicked the first 8-10, several chose Grove, several chose Koufax. Saw a Spahn and an RJ, but no love for Hubbell, Carlton, or Plank, at least not as their #1.

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

When I brought up the road argument, it is because another poster said his road numbers were good, not great, and then the Koufax advocates tried to claim that he was being labelled as good, not great, overall. I clarified the distinction that was explicit from the first.

For the record, I think Koufax was a great pitcher from 1962-1966. He was a good pitcher in 1961 (and in the 41 innings he pitched in 1955, actually). He was mediocre 1956-1960 (actually, he was terrible in 1956). If Babe Ruth had 4 or 5 great years, he wouldn't be the greatest of all time either.

The math is compelling on the road though. His away ERA in his turning year you highlight of 1962 was actually higher than the 2 previous years. In 1964 his road ERA is 300% more than his home. It is only 1963 and 1966 that his road ERA is significantly better than it was 'before' the magic turn that just happened to coincide perfectly with adjustments to his park and context that greatly favored him. He pitched in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in one of the most pitcher-friendly periods of baseball history, and his home/road splits are drastic. It is difficult not to link the two.

When you take his road/home splits which are drastic, and factor in context (very low run league, pitchers era, high mound, ballpark extremely favorable to pitchers, expansion era, very short peak) the math does not suggest that he was the greatest ever, that his road performance was anywhere near his home performance, and highlights exactly why he put up such great numbers.

Context matters, it would be remiss to look at Bonds' stats and ignore that they happened on steroids during an offensive era that dominated baseball. It would be remiss to ignore Helton put up his numbers at Coors, even if to place into context does not mean that he was not an excellent player. It doesn't mean Sandy wasn't a great pitcher, though for a short time, or he shouldn't be someone's favorite. If the discussion is "best of all time", then it needs to be supported by the math in context or we are just praising whoever we like. No math suggests that Koufax's 4 years were more dominating than Grove's 9, or that his home ballpark was not a massive factor in his favor.

Isn't the Koufax argument that WAR is useless though because it rewards longevity? I think Drysdale was an excellent pitcher and is not an undeserving Hall of Famers, but this argument does contradict the Koufax arguments.

Vance won the ERA crown at 39 and is most famous for being a late bloomer, and 1931 is pretty deep into Grove's career. At age 40, Vance led the league in FIP still.

Vance: 1915, 1918, 1922-1935
Grove: 1925-1941

Vance's real first full year in the majors was 1922 (he pitched 30 innings in 1915, 2 in 1918), Grove's was 1925, 3 years later.

If these are not contemporaries, then Babe Ruth wasn't Lou Gehrig's contemporary either. Mike Trout is not Miguel Cabrera's.