I love Jeter, but you may want to check their wins above replacement.

If I was a manager, I actually might take Jeter because I want to relax and not deal with drama and Jeter was very good.

However, A-Rod is going to generate more runs and I don't think that can really be denied or argued plausibly. He was the better baseball player because it is runs, creating them offensively and saving them defensively, not drama, PR, or being popular that produces wins.

Arod stat padding in meaningless games can generate a high WAR. Jeter with a critical hit at the right time wins you a World Series. I’ll take the latter. If it’s just a WAR calculation to figure out who is the greatest why is this thread so long?

"I know this is a thread where ascertainable facts are an annoyance, but I can never resist the use of provable facts to support an argument."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by aro13 View Post

He was a very good pitcher up until 1961 who happened to pitch in a lousy home park in the Coliseum.
Koufax posted an ERA+ of 100 through 1960. He performed at exactly league average, not "very good".

Koufax was very good up until 1961 and then became otherworldly - he just happened to pitch in the LA Coliseum with it's 253 foot left field line.

In 1961 on the road Koufax had a 2.77 era and more than a strikeout an inning. In 1960 Koufax on the road Koufax had a 3.00 era and had 126 strikeouts in 105 innings. Those are stats of a very good pitcher. Had he pitched his home games anywhere but the Coliseum no one would have said he learned to control his stuff in 1962. In 1962 his era on the road was 3.53 and he struck out 98 men in 81 innings. But he also happened to move into Dodger Stadium that year and put up a 1.75 era there. Koufax was already a very good pitcher in 1960, all that happened in 1962 was that he switched from a horrible pitchers park to a great one and in 1963 the strike zone was enlarged. It wasn't some great devine intervention or the words of a backup catcher.

They played on the same team together for a decade. Jeter had a postseason OPS of .838, Rodriguez one of .822.

I don't see how A-Rod's career can be dismissed as unimportant games while ascribing immense value to Jeter's games over statistical value.

Again, he was factually not "very good" until 1961 - he performed literally at the league average until 1961. I have said not a single word about divine intervention or a backup catcher, I corrected a demonstrably false claim about his career through 1960 that stats after 1960 are utterly irrelevant too.

EDIT: ERA+ is park adjusted, which is why it was used over ERA.

Huh? You're using ERA+ without understanding that Koufax had a huge disadvantage pitching in the Coliseum. Take out his coliseum numbers and his ERA+ changes to 30% above average. That's a very good pitcher. His road numbers were literally no different from 1960 to 1966. He was a very good pitcher in 1960 and 1961.

Again, don't let facts cloud your judgment. I would offer this, but clearly distorted by ARod padding his stats in meaningless games.
https://stathead.com/baseball/vs/der...alex-rodriguez

And did ARod win 3 MVPs or is that my faulty memory?

Yes, Jeter was better post season.

Jeter VS ARod
 

The Jeter vs ARod debate comes down to how much you view Jeter's intangibles. Do Jeter's intangibles offset ARod's stats?

Agree, I just don't think it's valid to say ARod's huge advantage in numbers is due to "padding".

ERA+ accounts for park. You made the claim that Koufax was very good through 1960. Your new argument now is that was very good in 1960 and 1961. Your original claim as quoted was and is demonstrably false. Your new version may not be.

ARod
 

That's a whole lot of stat padding.

They played the same games together for a decade, a large proportion of their careers. I don’t see how one was padding in meaningless games and the guy literally right next to him on the same diamond was not.

But of course that’s clouding judgement with pesky facts that get in the way of a narrative. Can’t have that :). The math gap between them is not even close

Koufax
 

All I said was Koufax was very good up until 1961 and then starting in 1962 he was great. ERA + accounts for park, but not for the extreme differences in parks for various pitchers. The same way OPS+ doesn't account for the huge advantage some players had playing in Fenway Park or Coors Field.

He performed at the league average level until 1961. That is not “very good.”

Koufax
 

You're using one statistic that doesn't accurately reflect how well he pitched. But if you think he was average until 1962 and then suddenly became the best pitcher ever, that's fine.

A-Rod did win two MVPs in New York and he came up big in the postseason in 2009, but my memories of his time on the team were mostly of a guy who seemed to be very good when it didn't always matter and had a tendency to disappear when it did.

I wouldn't say Jeter was better than A-Rod when you're talking about stats or even natural ability, but he is someone most Yankees fans have always seen as a guy you could count on to come up in a big spot. He also won a WS MVP to back it up. I think that counts for something even if it's hard to show with stats.

Agreed, and I think they do. I’m a Mets fan. Hated Jeter because he felt like a winner. Hated ARod because he was a self-centered cheater. Never felt like he was a winner like Jeter. Jeter won 5 World Series. How many did Arod win? 4 less. Mic drop.

You know what, mea culpa. All of the players people like are just better than objectivity suggests despite the math. Koufax was very good even as he gave up league average runs and did a definably average performance at his job.

If he was arguing that Spahn was the greater player over Koufax methinks suddenly Koufax’s peak stats would be more important to you out of a desire to be contrarian.

I have the same recollection of Boggs in Boston, as I've posted, but it's probably not accurate.

I watched ARod with the Yankees over and over and over. Aside from his PED-enhanced, all about me stats, he was horrendous in the clutch. He was known throughout the Yankee Stadium bleachers, which were totally isolated from the rest of the stadium at old Yankee Stadium, as "The Anti-Clutch".

Below are A-Rods' stats in the clutch fyi:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...&t=b#all_clutc

The problem with just relying on stats is that they’re cold and don’t take into account the intangibles that make players great. I watched a thousand Yankees games when ARod played with Jeter, and while I wasn’t a Jeter fan I couldn’t help but acknowledge his winning plays and his clutch at bats compared to ARod. I wouldn’t go as far to say Jeter was a better player because ARod’s numbers were so huge, but this is at least a valid question, despite the huge numbers disparity.

Koufax is the postwar pitcher most people would choose to start one game you had to win. He pitched hurt and on little rest, he completed games and he came up huge in the WS. But it was really a five year period — just the greatest five year period in modern times. I suppose it depends on how you define greatness for him: can a five year period be enough? Or do you take in the entire career when deciding? I’d have to say the former for the same reason I favor Koufax’s greatness over Don Sutton’s.

You may refer to the 1,000+ post best lefty thread for my opinion there. Please, go find a contradiction! Great opportunity to get me if you can.

By ERA+, Pedro, Maddux and Unit had a better peak stretch than Koufax. Not that Koufax's peak wasn't phenomenal, but I think in some people's minds he gets a bump for nostalgia bias and mystique.

GREATEST 5-YEAR PEAKS BY ERA+

# NAME Years AGE 5Y_IP 5Y_ERA+
1 Pedro Martinez 99--03 29 933 227
2 Greg Maddux 94--98 30 1140.3 202
3 Walter Johnson 11--15 25 1745.7 200
4 Mordecai Brown 06--10 31 1460.7 182
5 Randy Johnson 98--02 36 1274.3 177
6 Lefty Grove 35--39 37 1143 173
7 Christy Mathewson 08--12 29 1601.3 171
8 Sandy Koufax 62--66 28 1377 168
9 Kevin Brown 96--00 33 1209.7 165
10 Hal Newhouser 42--46 23 1297.7 164

Koufax did throw over 400 innings more than Pedro and over 200 more than Maddux. Who knows if they would have been able to sustain their level of performance over an equal workload to Koufax. Also, I think people give credit to Koufax for pitching through significant injury.

+1

This is an excellent assessment; totally agree.

Era+
 

If you make it a 7 year stretch Pedro is even better. In 1997 he put up a 1.90 era and threw 13 complete games. It's probably one of the most overlooked great seasons in the past 30 years.
Runs saved is a better metric than ERA+ to evaluate pitchers as it factors in innings pitched as well.

Boggs
 

Watching Boggs play in Boston for his entire career I tend to agree with you by the eye test. However, with Boggs he never deviated from his plan regardless of the situation. He would virtually always take the first pitch, he didn't venture out of the strike zone, he hit mostly everything to center and left-center. His career stats indicated he wasn't nearly as good with 2 outs and runners in scoring position (.306 to .335) and late and close situations (.309 to .335). And because he didn't ever deviate he didn't drive in as many runs. The Red Sox were a slow base running team to begin with, but a majority of Boggs two out singles were hit to left field and particularly at Fenway that is not going to score a runner from second. His value is enormous because of his OBP but objectively and subjectively he wasn't nearly as good when it counted.

He truly seemed to care only about his hit totals. He would protest, apparently, when an error was called instead of awarding him a hit. You would think in a key situation you would rejoice to see a .350 hitter (at that time in his career he was) coming up, but quite the opposite.

He wouldn't be the first player to protest an error call on an apparent base hit. Especially considering he was always a candidate to win a batting title.

Boggs scored over 1500 runs in his career, including 7 straight years scoring 100+ runs. I think it's a little tough to downgrade him for also not driving in a bunch of runs. Rod Carew was the same type of player, although he scored fewer runs in his career than Boggs.

Appreciate what he does do - high on-base percentage (keeping rallies alive) and being on the scoring end. It's not all about driving runs in.

I agree Pedro (and probably every pitcher not named Koufax) is probably underrated in the poll. Where does one find the runs saved metric? Is it on baseball reference or fangraphs, or somewhere else?

ItÂ’s probably on one of the sites. I calculate it myself. Take Pedro in 2000 - he posted a 1.74 era allowing 42 earned runs. The league average was 5.06 and pitching the same number of innings as Pedro would have allowed 122 runs. Therefore, Pedro saved the Sox 80 earned runs relative to an average pitcher.

Koufax in 1966 posted a 1.73 era and allowed 62 earned runs. The average pitcher in 1966 posted a 3.29 era and allowed 118 earned runs. Koufax saves the Dodgers 56 runs.

If I could only use one star to evaluate pitchers I would choose runs saved. Obviously itÂ’s not the only important stat.

I like the runs saved/avoided metric. Its kind of like ERA+ multiplied by the innings pitched.

In any case, the common conception that no one since has matched Koufax's peak may not necessarily be so.

Pedro, Kershaw, Maddux, Ryu :D. Been some great peak pitchers since.