Koufax
 

For anyone that saw Koufax pitch he will always be the greatest pitcher they ever saw. Nobody can change that.

However, no one had more circumstances or advantages that favored him than probably anyone in history including Bonds.

He was a very good pitcher up until 1961 who happened to pitch in a lousy home park in the Coliseum. In 1962 the Dodgers moved to Dodger Stadium the greatest pitchers park in history. In 1963 the strike zone was made larger both up (a huge advantage for fastball pitchers that worked up in the zone) and down. In 1962 mound heights were virtually ignored and when Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium he was pitching down hill. At home Koufax walked 2.1 men per nine on the road 3.5 men per nine. Check out the perfect game by Koufax when a complete unknown named Bob Hendley threw a one hitter in the same game. The mound height was crazy high.

The best example of the mound height and the influence in Dodger Stadium is in 1964 when Dean Chance of the Angels (who happened to be playing their home games in Dodger Stadium until Anaheim stadium was built) won the CY Young award by posting a 1.07 era at Dodger Stadium.

Evaluating Koufax is really hard, if you just look at the raw numbers he has a place in the discussion for greatest ever but if you look at the circumstances it sways the decision. I don't know where to put him, but you would likely be better off trying to convince people that the world is flat than Koufax wasn't an elite pitcher.

Probably because most are naming a player that they are totally overlooking their PED use because it didn't happen in the so called steroid era.. LOL, seriously Roger Maris was named as a clean player in this thread. The same guy that played 12 years and hit 22% of his total HRs in one season. If he played in the steroid era with those exact same numbers is there anyone who would believe that was a PED free season?

Of course there is no comparison, but Jeter was everything intangible that ARod was not -- clean, modest, team oriented, and at least perceived to be a clutch hitter. The perfect foil to the ultimate prima donna.

Norm Cash had an insane 1961 too.

Would take Jeter over Arod hands down, especially in the playoffs.

Roger Maris won the 1960 MVP award. His 1961 season was not an aberration, he was already the reigning MVP.

If he hit 61 homers in 2023 he wouldn't have been under anymore scrutiny than Aaron Judge was. He was 26 years old in 1961, typically a player's physical peak. I don't see anything to speculate about.

The only reason 1961 is such a large portion of his total production is because he went through physical and mental hell just to complete the year that took an obvious toll on him in every way.

To the bold part. We need the rolling on the floor laughing emoji.

Arron Judge is a 6'7" beast that looks like a body builder without his shirt on. Pretty sure he is PED free also.:rolleyes:

Except in 2009: Alex Rodriguez batted.365 with 19 hits, 6 home runs, 18 RBIs and 15 runs scored in 15 games in the 2009 postseason.

Do you not believe that there are 6 foot 7 people in the world? How much do you think the average 6 foot 7 person weighs? What do you think the average 6 foot 7 NBA player looks like with his shirt off? I don't know what you're suggesting.

Roger Maris led the AL in slugging and RBIs in 1960. His OPS+ that year was 160. In 1961, his OPS+ after hitting 61 home runs was 167.

He essentially had the same season twice, with the caveat that he hit 61 home runs the second time. And if you don't believe Roger went through hell that season, I have several books and articles I could suggest that might shine a light on what he went through.

I do truly believe Roger did go through hell that season. As for PEDs we have way different beliefs. Do you really think the NBA guys are PED free?

I honestly don't get people that think professional athletes are PED free. Drug test are way more of an IQ test than a drug test. Just look at how many times Lance Arrmstrong tested positive. Oh that's right he never failed an IQ, I mean drug test.

I just don't know what you're suggesting about being tall. There are a lot of tall people in the world. These are professional athletes who have been training their whole lives. Why would they not be in great shape regardless of using PEDs? I don't think it's unusual for an athlete to be in great shape.

Ryan Ludwick had by far his two Best years batting in front of the 2008 MVP and the 2009 MVP - when he went to San Diego in 2010 his batting average dropped from 281 to 211 . He never had another year remotely close to those seasons in his career .
Roger Maris clearly benefited batting in front of a switchhitting monster

Oops - looking at some box scores it appears Ludwick was batting forth behind Pujols 😐 for some reason I remember different

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.

Koufax posted an ERA+ of 100 through 1960. He performed at exactly league average, not "very good".

For the second time, not a single poster in this thread has argued the steroid era did not happen or pretended it did not. They just do not come to your blacklist conclusion, which is entirely different.

Officially? Jeter is officially better than A-Rod? What is this official proclamation? Who issued it? Where can I find it?

:) I think we have all done that. I did it yesterday with a stat from by far my all-time favorite player.

I will admit I only hate 2 players in baseball and A-Rod is one of them. I can't say Jeter was better. I will say I have never seen anyone in baseball play/try to win harder every single game than Jeter.:)

I guess you never saw Pete Rose play.

There is a story probably true. Rose goes 6 for 8 in a double header. Afterwards, he persuaded someone to keep the lights on and someone to pitch to him, and is taking batting practice. Someone asks him what the hell he is doing, he went 6 for 8 that day. Rose says, they got me out twice.

Quote definitely true: "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball."

It's a total shame his gambling addiction undid him.

That is precisely the difference that is ignored by most posts. Who one likes more and who is better at the sport are completely unrelated things. A-Rod is obnoxious, but he's one of the 2 best shortstops ever. Barry Bonds publicly acts like an enormous jackass and used steroids, but that doesn't change that only Babe Ruth dominated the game offensively like he did. Jeter had a likable and positive public persona and PR, but that doesn't change actual performance.


I don't really understand a concept of 'liking' a person I don't know or hating a person I don't know (I mean, I guess I could hate Mel Hall or John Wetteland...), but wherever one leans emotionally has nothing to do with objective and honest evaluation. Claims to fact should not be made if those claims are untrue just because they support a preferred candidate.

Normally I would agree with this but for me taking Jeter over Arod is about more than just stats. I can firmly say I believe he is the greater player over ARod with his clubhouse presence and other intangibles, including just seeking to have a killer instinct at exactly the right moment. Arod seemed like a self-centered jerk who caused distractions and was suspended for cheating. I think my fictional team with Jeter beats a team with Arod over the long run.

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.