Exactly. I'm sure Sandy's mother thought he was the best.... maybe her opinion should be used as fact.
STATS are STATS for a reason.
Otherwise, flip a coin to make your decisions. It's just as reliable and relevant as someone's opinion.

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

I don't reject or accept all advanced metrics. They are a tool. Everything has flaws but opinions have more flaws than all stats put together.

I never made an argument for Grove, I voted for Randy Johnson, who I actually saw pitch many many times.

This is a game of wins and losses. All the rest of these dumb stats mean nothing. So sick and tired about hearing all this other crap when the game comes down to wins and losses. All these stat guys should step back and take a break from this nonsense.

The key difference here is that in one case, someone creating a metric set out to reflect what happens on a baseball field separately from their opinions of any individual player. This is exactly why we have stats like FIP-, ERA+ or any other adjusted pitching metric you prefer. You're attempting to contextualize and consider all of baseball history with a relatively equal slant. You would expect that to be seen as a good thing on a pre-war baseball board rather than someone trying to play the "real stats" card that went out with Duran Duran.

When you ask a player the same question, you're overwhelmingly likely to get either someone they played against or idolized as a kid. More often than not, they're also basing this on what they personally experienced rather than the total package. In the days before video rooms, what percentage of Koufax's pitches do you think Player X saw?

To be clear, I'm not blaming players for any of this. That's human nature. But to be blunt, player evaluation skills don't necessarily overlap with playing skills. There's a reason baseball front offices hiring pools have undergone a seismic shift.

It probably got buried way up in the thread, but I asked you specifically which stats you trust/value and which you don't, if perhaps you could answer?

Pitcher Wins are a meaningless stat. If a pitcher gives up 8 runs and wins because his team scored 9, do you think that pitcher is better than a guy who pitches a complete game and loses 1-0?

Wade Boggs? Absolutely. Yeah, I'm going to listen to a guy who hit .356 - combined - his first 7 years in the majors.

Will Clark was just a name I thought of when trying to think of a left-handed hitter who played during Randy Johnson's career.

The point was to select some top guys who played against Johnson but not Koufax. Guys are ALWAYS going to have a bias toward the players they played with/against and not guys they only saw. And they're ALWAYS going to remember just the top part of their career not the other parts. When somebody talks about how tough Greg Maddux was to hit, they are ignoring the latter part of his career where he got lit up frequently. That's what Mays/Aaron/etc are doing.

It's hypocritical to uncritically accept the opinions of Mays & Aaron because they played against Koufax and not Johnson but not accept the (potential) opinions of guys who played against Johnson but not Koufax.

Bruce Hurst. That 12-6 curve was devastating.

ERA, WHIP and FIP. I have problems with other stats as they are often misused and don't translate well across eras (or positions for WAR).

There is no difference. It is still opinion. fWAR doesn't agree with bWAR. Bill James has Win Shares. Others have their own metrics. It is all personal opinions. Trying to claim that someone else can't use their or other's opinions doesn't work when you are doing the same. Especially when there is no transparency in those opinions.

Johan Santana was pretty nasty for several years in the 00s. Was he the best ever, probably not. He did have a great run that would rival previously mentioned player's best 5 seasons.

Kershaw is pretty amazing as well as far as a player we all have been able to see pitch. I hope there is some baseball still yet to see this year :)

I think Koufax's MLB career might look a little different if he'd had a few years in the minors

Great question. I have enjoyed reading the thread. For a World Series or complete season Koufax is a compelling choice. For a career I still love me some Spahn.

Lol. I should have said "don't always" make champions. Of course, good stats do help!

I honestly didn't look into what the poster was saying. Of course,there have been times when having the best stats doesn't mean you're gonna win. The 1960 World Series being an obvious case in point, where the Yankees had 55 runs for the series and the Pirates had 27.

Well, if I ever needed a life or death medical opinion, I will take the top Doctors at The Mayo Clinic or John Hopkins... but you should go to a $5 Fortune Teller..... since "opinions are like assholes..." Yes, a bit of a harsh example, but the point is that the quality of an opinion means everything.


Statistics have been USED AS A TOOL TO SUPPORT OPINIONS since the beginning of human's ability for creative thinking.

So... let's keep arguing, because....
My stats are better than your stats!

If you go with Koufax, you have to put up with 7 years of mediocrity (54-53 record, which averages fewer than 8 wins a year.) Johnson gives you 5 years of non-greatness. But if you take Grove or Spahn, you have a 20-game winner in their 3rd season, and quality and longevity from then on.

I know Koufax, in his prime, was dominant, but the Dodgers needed the rest of the staff to carry him for the first 7 years of his career. That's a long time to be average, for a guy some want to call the best ever.

This! And many others who have said basically the same thing. If you want to say the best ever (with no qualifiers), you imply their entire career. Otherwise why is the assumed cutoff to be 5 years (of 10+)? Why not 4, or 3? If you want to debate who had the best 5 year span, that's an entirely different question.

If you are looking at the entire career, Koufax was not the best ever. And as someone else has said here. Case closed!

"If you have a sombrero, throw it to this guy!!!!" Although in this day and age Vin would probably get in trouble for saying that.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Wow! People have a lot of very strong opinions. Based on my username, you might think you know my vote. This reminds me of the debates over MVP - what does valuable mean? What does best mean?

Let's put it this way. If you told me that you could take any pitcher at his peak and put him on the mound to win one all-important game - Game 7 of the World Series say - there is only one pitcher I would choose and that is Koufax.

If you told me that I could have any pitcher during his peak period to pitch a complete season to save a manager's job and get his team to the World Series, I would choose Koufax.

By the way, that includes lefties and righties (even though I would consider Walter Johnson for the season and Babe Ruth for the game).

If you told me that I could have any left handed pitcher for his career to build a team around, well then I would be considering between Grove, Spahn and Randy Johnson.

For just one pitch, Sidd Finch!

Pedro in '99-'00 and Maddux in '94-'95 did things over a two-year stretch that no one else has in the live ball era, and only Bob Gibson's '68 season could match for even one year. There isn't enough mainstream focus on ERA+ or those guys' seasons then (as they pitched in a pinball game) would be remembered with the same reverence as Gibson's 1.12.

It's tough for me to consider much what any pitcher (or hitter, for that matter) did before 1920. Walter Johnson was clearly the best out there during the last decade of the dead ball era, but it was such a different game when everyone was hitting a voit ball from gym class. And his numbers during the 1920s (when he was in his 30s) were very good, but nothing legendary and a clear step below what Grove and plenty of others did when they were the same age in the live ball era.

Excuse me, did you happen to notice the last two years of Koufax??? To say that no one could match what Martinez did n 99-00 is absurd. Koufax crushes him in every category.

No, he doesn't. Or even close. Koufax had an almost identical ERA in his final two years. Pedro's WHIP was better in '99-'00. Pitching in Fenway at the height of the steroid years.

depends...if lose a bunch of 3-2 games and you have an elite offense why is the other pitcher you are going against constantly beat you

Also if i am up 8-0, may give up a 4 runs to assure no huge inning to get the win and now my era is higher than that 3-2 game pitcher that always loses..

"No he doesn't or even close". OK lets see if his even close: Koufax had more wins, better era, games started, complete games, shutouts, innings pitched, strikeouts . You are right, Pedroo had a better whip.


Y

There has been a lot of great replies and thoughts to other pitchers, and it's been a fun thread. A lot of my opinion came from key, first ballot HOFers that said Koufax was nearly impossible to hit against in his final 5-6 years of his career, and not just his well known and obvious stats that he had. There are not any other HOFers out there that got into the Hall at age 35 except Koufax. My final thought again is this, in peak and optimum situations, where everything is equal, I'll take him against a strong left handed hitting club, and I would take Bob Gibson against a strong right handed hitting club.... There you have it

I think his induction into the Hall of Fame (the youngest player ever to be inducted) says it all. The writers evidently ignored his first six years and judged him on his last five years. That was a tribute to his dominance

No mention of Koufax being a pussy and hanging it up early?


And if you are picking Koufax for your one game, better make sure it doesn't fall on Yom Kippur.....or you better get the bullpen up.


The Big Unit all the way!

Peewee Reese also named Blackwell as the toughest he faced. Evidently he wasn't called "The Whip" for nothing.
I'm a huge fan of both Spahn and Koufax, but put me in the Lefty Grove column.

I don’t think pee wee Reese ever faced Koufax

Koufax was a creature of his home park. Home road splits are insane. It's Waddell for me.

Here's a nice anecdote from Jane Leavy's book, where she quotes something Pee Wee Reese wrote near the end of his life:

'To be honest about it, I thought the guy would never be a great pitcher. But he sure proved me wrong. When I retired and I was announcing the CBS Game of the Week, I came up to him while he was warming up. And he was really making the catcher's mitt pop. So I went up and asked him, teasing him, "Where in the hell did you learn how to pitch like that? You can't be that damn good."

'He said, "Grab a bat and get your ass up there at the plate." So I did. Here I am standing with a bat in my hand in my street clothes and I never saw anybody throw that hard in my life, and I've faced some of the greatest in the game. He had pinpoint control. I said, "How is your control on the outside part of the plate?" I was amazed. He then said, "Do you want me to show you how good my control is inside?"

'I said, "Hell, no."'

You’re blankety white-washing every opinion as equally wrong. No one is telling you that you cannot think X was best. That’s what makes open discussions fun. But you’re lashing out at everything at once with no focus.

To be clear, I don’t think sorting a column by bWAR or fWAR is the proper answer to anything. We do know that many of the newer metrics are more equipped to express what happens on the field that things like Batting Average or how Fielding Percentage skews for and against certain attributes.. Key here is that the bar for usefulness is not 100% accuracy. As the saying goes, “All models are wrong, some are just useful.”

What is your specific transparency issue here?

I really hope this was all typed in jest. Please say it is so.

You should read a good biography of Koufax. Jane Leavy's is a good start. Koufax was in so much pain - and his teammates could see it - that they were amazed he was able to keep pitching at all. This was before Tommy John surgery. He used so much capiscum that smelled so bad that other players wouldn't want to be around him when he applied it. (Capsicum is what gives peppers their heat.) His left arm was getting malformed from the arthritis. If Sandy was willing, I would wager anything that you would be the "pussy" if he pitched to you, today - and, he is 85 years old.

As for Yom Kippur, suffice it to say that Drysdale asked Alston if he didn't wish that he was Jewish too after his outing. Baseball is important, but not that important. Let's give Koufax credit for being true to himself.

jgannon --- Great anecdote. Loved it!

Koufax32fan --- Thanks for reminding the uninformed about why Sandy Koufax retired following the '66 season. The increasing pain and what it took to get himself on the mound was frightening. He believed if he continued to pitch, his arm would become deformed or would not function at all. The Dodger's owner and management did not believe him, and treated him shamefully for years afterwards. --- Brian Powell

The fastest Koufax threw was clocked at 93.2, I'd hardly fear that. The 60's had about 5-6 really good hitters in the WHOLE N.L. 60's was just the weakest baseball, other then the 40's, for pitchers and hitters.

And if your saying he could throw when he is 85 then he should have rested, rehabbed whatever and pitched when he was 32. Terrible mechanics.....could have adjusted, taken stress off the arm and continued on.......nope he quit......reminds me of Barry Sanders. Quitters club.

delete, just not worth it.....

Spoken like a true jock sniffer

I believe they clocked a pitch when it crossed the plate back then. It has slowed down quite a bit by then. By today's measurements he likely threw in the 97-98 area.

Careers Ruth Cobb Aaron etc had can be discussed as GREATEST ever!!!!!

A 4 year run????? While tremendous.....hardly can be called greatest of all time.

If that's the case Bo Jackson was the Greatest Hitter of All Time. Eric Gagne was the Best reliever.


Please!


A great 4 years yes, but too many garbage years before that, period!

I played semi-professional hacky sack for 10 years.

Wow, didnt know how qualified you were.

Yes, Koufax threw much faster than 93 MPH.....Thanks for that info Tom

Koufax to me is a left handed version of John Clarkson, and you never hear his name mentioned as the Greatest Righty of All Time.

Why?

He didn't have the longevity of Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson.

Need some longevity to be the BEST.

Best 4-5 year run probably, best ever.....NO!

Paul, with that statement, you have just pissed in the Church social punch bowl..... WTF???? John Clarkson??

What's wrong with Clarkson? HOFer, best pitcher of the 19th century by far.

Paul, for the record, I think Johnson and Matty are two of the best Ten pitchers of all time....Ironic isn't it? I put them ahead of Cy Young who had over 500 wins!!

Right but Cy Young got the award named after him.....because of the wins.

Compare Clarkson to Young

Clarkson 12 years 328 wins
Young 22 years 511 wins

Had Clarkson pitched 10 more years he passes that 511, and the award is named after him.

But he didn't. Not even brought up amongst the greatest........all due to longevity.

At that brings us to Mr Koufax, tremendous pitcher no doubt, but the longevity kills him. Just like it did Clarkson in historic context. Sorry Koufax fans, face the facts.

Why isn't Smokey Joe Wood considered the Greatest RH-er or even in the discussion????

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...woodjo02.shtml

His numbers are as good, if not better, as any for a shorter time frame then Mathewson, Johnson, Feller, Gibson, etc.

Why?

Longevity.


The only reason Koufax is in the conversation is because people have seen him, he's more recent, more video footage, otherwise he's in the same boat as Clarkson and Wood. The "if they only pitched longer, they could be considered the best ever" boat. But they didn't.

And Kevin you help prove my point here, you immediately mention Johnson and Mathewson, but why didn't you mention Smokey Joe Wood?


Longevity.....He had a very similar run to what Koufax had, hell probably better......so you should have said Wood, but the reason you didn't is because the others are considered the best pitchers of their time.

I saw Koufax pitch. And Randy Johnson, Spahn, and Carleton.

Koufax had his not quite great years, then he had his dominant years. I saw him when dominant. He was a durable craftsman on the mound, overpowering on one pitch then totally deceiving the hitter on the next pitch.

I didn't see Grove, but I think he's the answer to who's the best. And I think Spahn deserves recognition. I saw him at the end of his career pitching for the Giants one day against St. Louis. (I think McCarver got hurt or was hurt, and Uecker too, anyway they stopped the game and let Mike Shannon take some warmup catches as last hope catcher, and he caught the rest of the game.) Anyway, after reading James' Historical Baseball Abstract (I prefer the 1xt edition) I had to reconsider my thinking on the best lefty I saw... The man was a dominate pitcher and a war hero (not a modern 'he served' hero, but a WWII hero in combat actions.)

I do know when I'd listen to KMOX or WLW as a kid when the Cards or Reds were playing at night in LA, the odds were if Koufax was starting then the Reds or Cards were gonna lose, Wills or Gilliam would get on base, steal or get bunted over, then one of the Davis guys or Ron Fairly would drive them in. Seemed like a couple of runs would win a game out there. And the hell of it was that Drysdale was gonna do the same thing, only righthanded.

So I think it's Grove. For the numbers guys (I'm a bit of one somethimes), look at the career Wins Above Replacement. 26-Grove, 29-R. Johnson, 32-Spahn, and 321-Koufax.

Yeaaaaah....I'm gonna go with "stories that never happened for $500, please, Alex."

They measured 10 feet in front of the plate. They over this a lot in detail in the book "High Heat". Even in the era of Nolan Ryan, who was clocked at 100.9, they were still 10 feet in front of the plate (by today's standard, that pitch would be *108.5*). I forget when that changed but it's part of the reason why there's a billion guys throwing 100* now.

(Link to book: https://smile.amazon.com/High-Heat-F...5141568&sr=8-3)

* - In 2006, when they made the World Series, they Detroit Tigers had something like 10 or 11 pitchers who could throw 95+. That includes old dudes like Kenny Rogers and Todd Jones (yes, those guys were really clocked at 95+ that year).

My vote (posted because I just like lookin at it)

It's hard... no, impossible to argue against this...
Great point. Probably the best one made in this thread.

Thanks, Brian! Despite some of the silly Koufax detractors on this thread and someone who just "knows" that this is a false story, this story was published by an accomplished and best-selling author, who said that Reese wrote it. It was not hearsay, but something that she saw written by Reese.

And you are correct about Koufax wanting to get out of the game before risking permanent injury to his arm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at Koufax numbers in 1961, his first really good year and the Dodgers last year at LA Memorial Coliseum. He was pretty bad at home and very good on the road. Then look at his home/road splits the next five years. He was very good on the road but put up video game numbers at Dodger Stadium. To be fair the numbers in 1966 were pretty even. But the other four years he was a border line HOF pitcher on the road and the best ever at home.

Larry Walker syndrome. Still a very good player on the road but freakish at home. That doesn't get enough play with Koufax for some reason. The numbers don't lie

Frank

It is really great hearing from you. And, you described the Koufax story very well. I am somewhat older than you, and I saw him pitch when he started in Brooklyn.
Then, I followed him during the LA years because I had a feeling he would be great. His style of wind-up was impressive, quite compact and very effective.

However, the two Lefty's that haven't gotten any "play" in this entire thread are Eddie Plank and Lefty Gomez. I'm not that old that I have seen Plank play :)
But, I have read a lot about him....and, he is my man on the mound in any given season.
Lefty Gomez..I can say a lot about him; however, I leave you with this: I will place him above any other Southpaw when it's time for World Series play. I dare
anyone here to argue against Lefty's 6 - 0 W.S. record.

Changing Pitching styles....some one here mentioned Smoky Joe Wood. Last Summer we visited friends in Milford (Northeastern Pennsylvania), and I ran into
Smoky Joe Wood's Grandson. We had a great conversation, and I could sense that Wood's family cannot understand why Smoky Joe is not in the HOF.
His stats are as good (if not better) than pitchers currently in the HOF. Most notably his 1912 W.S. W-L 3 -1 record.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Sorry Ted, but Koufax blows him away. Koufax has more Innings Pitched ERA, Shutouts, Strikeouts. Its not even close. Gomez has two more wins And that's in 4 world series.

10 years is a plenty ling career to say someone is greatest pitcher of all time.

Not 3 or 4 years. 10 Plenty long enough.

Tony

I qualified World Series play regarding Lefty Gomez (6 - 0). Koufax W.S. record is 4 - 3.

With respect to career numbers Gomez has 189 Wins vs Koufax 165 Wins.

I prefaced my story that I was a Koufax fan, since I saw him pitch from 1955 to 1966.
Did you see him pitch in real time ?

Therefore, I'm not sure what you are saying.

And, when you compare numbers between Plank and Koufax, Plank wins the discussion.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Gomez has a great WS record because of the run support he received. In the 1936 WS he had a 4.70 ERA but the Yankees scored 18 and 13 runs in his two starts. In his 6 starts, the Yankees scored 54 runs, an average of 9 per game. It is pretty hard to lose when you get that kind of support.

Koufax on the other hand started 7 WS games, the Dodgers scored 17 runs total about two and a half per game. In his 3 losses, the Dodgers were shutout twice and scored one run in the third game. Koufax had a much lower ERA, WHIP, K/9, etc.

Plank was a dead ball era pitcher. It is difficult to compare him to Koufax. Plank was the best lefty of his era and one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Also, he is one of the most underrated players of all time.

Yes I did see him pitch. I responded to your assertion that because Gomez was 6 -0 in world series play he was the best left hander in that arena. I started following baseball in 1955. Wasn't a dodger or Koufax fan. I was drafted to be a yankee fan because that's what my family rooted for. Believe it or not, I am from NY but a staunch Minnesota Twins fan. Followed the Twins since day1 in 1961. This brings me to the 1965 world series. I will never forget how Koufax dominated them. I am not a huge Koufax fan but I have to give him his due. Never saw a pitcher like him.
.

rats60

Finally, after 300 posts on this thread, someone agrees with me regarding "Lefty" Eddie Plank.

Incidentally, the title of this thread is...."Best lefty of all-time ?"....therefore, era is immaterial.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Tony

Great, having seen him pitch, we both appreciate how good he was. Actually, I grew up being an avid Yankees fan because Phil Rizzuto was my neighbor in Hillside, NJ (his house
was 2 blocks away from ours).

Monday nights (when it was an off day for the Yankees), Phil would join us kids at St. Catherine's School and entertain us with all his stories. Also, he would give us tips on how to
play the game.

We both grew up in some great times, Tony.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Koufax’s road ERA was 2.81 those 4 seasons. If that is borderline HOF, then what does that say about guys with higher ERAs like Grove, Spahn, Randy Johnson, Carlton etc.? Are they not Hofers? Should we kick out everyone above your borderline? That would leave us with Koufax and Ford as the only post 1920 HOF starting pitchers and Kershaw and maybe deGrom as the only future HOF pitchers. Koufax was still one of the greatest pitchers of all time on the road those seasons and that is with you excluding his best season.

By the way, Ted is it true that Rizzuto didn't like signing autographs?

Tony

I could tell you many stories about Phil Rizzuto. He was quite a character in real life. But, he loved talking with you. Every BB card show (since the 1980's which I saw him at,
he drew large crowds and it looked like he was having fun talking with the people while signing his autograph.

Here is a personal story I have to tell you. April 1984, I am at Newark Airport standing in the ticket counter line and who's in front of me, but Phil. I tap him in the shoulder to
say hello. We start talking about our old neighborhood in Hillside. It happens that we both are flying out to O'Hare airport in Chicago. Our flight is delayed, so we spend three
hours talking and sipping coffee at Newark. Finally, we board our plane, Phil is in 1st class and I am sitting in the back of the plane. Phil finds me back there and invites me to
sit with him in 1st class. We spent the next 2 hours "Talkin' Baseball". Actually I was mainly listening since he was doing all the talking. That was one very interesting flight to
Chicago.

https://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan...keeStadium.jpg


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I am a die-hard Dodger fan and love the history of the Brooklyn years. The one autograph I will never part with is my Phil Rizzuto. I've told the story on Net54 before, but I was set up as a dealer at a show in the Poconos when I was 14 or 15. Rizzuto was the autograph guest. At the end of his signing time I realized I hadn't gotten anything and I didn't have anything good to get signed. I took a piece of poster board and a sharpie and drew a quick picture of him with the Yankee logo and took it to get signed. He wanted to know who did it and I told him that I did and that the marker was probably still wet. He said "Holy cow, that's terrific" and signed it.

Fast forward MANY years. I am in my 40's and there's a large package under my parent's Christmas tree. I open it and there's Scooter beautifully framed. My parents had moved that piece of poster board from house to house more years than I care to think about and I had forgotten about it entirely.

Still have to hang it in my office, but I will never part with it.

An ERA of 2.81 (over a piddly four year period no less) is equal to the greatest who ever pitched? 2.81? Really? For starters, ERA? Holy crap. But let's get past that. His road ERA of 2.81 over that four year period on its own is so impressive that he would be one of the greatest of all time had that been his career number. Really? Ok.

Any idea who had a 2.58 ERA over that same four year period? And if you include 1966 to add a fifth year this person had an ERA of 2.34 .

Any idea?

Gary Peters.

But sure. Koufax road ERA of 2.81 from 1962-1965 makes him super special.

Larry.

Walker.

Koufax home ERA 1962-1965............... 1.32

Koufax road ERA 1962-1965................ 2.75


Nothing to see here obviously.

Great story...

Another great story...

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

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

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

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

According to baseball reference, Koufax’s road ERA from 1962-1966 was 2.59. For pitchers with 400 or more innings pitched, the minimum to qualify for the ERA title, that was the best in Major League Baseball. Gibson and Marichal tied for second best at 2.69.

There is nothing to see. Koufax was great on the road and even greater at home. Any advantage Koufax gained from pitching in Dodger Stadium for 5 years is more than offset by pitching 4 years in the LA Coliseum with its 250 foot left field fence and 320 foot power alley in left-center.

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

You are proving my point. If all you complain about is longevity why did the HOF committee elect him on first year of eligibility. There are a lot of players out there with several great seasons on their resume and are still waiting. The man was getting better every year until his injury. They recognized it, it's a shame a lot of you guys don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Koufax is the same pitcher at home as he was on the road he isn't close to a Hall Of Famer. That's a fact. He would have been a really good pitcher for five years. Not the insane pitcher that his stats show. He was able to turn his video game numbers at home over a five year period into the Hall Of Fame. That's not that much of a knock on him. I think Larry Walker should have been in the Hall a while ago. I think Koufax is an obvious Hall Of Famer and one of the best who ever threw a baseball. We all missed out on a lot when he was physically unable to perform.

It just mystifies me why nobody seems to want to admit that he was a creature of his home park during his prime. As you say, even if you take into account his road numbers and just double them, he is likely the best pitcher in the game over those five years. But he's not "Koufax!!!!!!!". He's just Koufax.

And yes, from 1958 to 1961 his home park hurt his numbers. Actually he had an anomalous 1959 season where he was much better at home, but the rest he was much better on the road. He wasn't the same pitcher he would become after 1961 during this time however. Doubling his road numbers to replace his home numbers he was still fairly ordinary over that period, save for a lot more strikeouts than the ordinary pitcher. It is what he did from 1962-1966 that got him immortal status, and that was largely a home field driven event. That's just a fact. His home field over that period is why his numbers are so insane.