If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

In the NINTH inning!

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

I've read this in many books, including by teammates. The claim is frequently made in the literature on the 50's Yankees. After taking a look at the statistics and his innings by opponent, lifetime and during the individual systems in the mid-late 50's when Ford was established, and Stengel was the manager, the claim is not really true.

He DID start inordinately against the White Sox, but there's not much else in the individual team matchups to support this.

He pitched 1,707 innings against teams greater than .500, 1,463 against teams under. The discrepancy actually mostly comes from the 60's, after Stengel had been fired. He did pitch better against successful teams than poor ones, 2.68 against winnings clubs, 2.83 against.

The specific claim, that Stengel's saved Ford to face the good teams, checks out as generally false (I would be shocked if this did not occasionally happen, as it does with many pitchers), BUT this does reflect well on Ford. He did pitch a bit more against good teams than bad, and, unusually, he performed better against winning teams over his career than bad ones.

Well, in 1958, for example, Ford had 5 starts against KC out of only 29 all year. In 1959, he had 4 starts out of 29. In other words, exactly the number you'd expect him to have when facing 7 different opponents all season. Other years, he had less. A review of his career starts against various opponents shows the quantity to be pretty bunched together other than the White Sox (his most-frequent opponent).

I'm sure Stengel was trying his best to win but that doesn't mean he was always right.

We need to throw out Hank Aaron too. The first half of his career he played in a stadium that for all but 1 year was in the top half of the NL in HRs allowed. From 1966-1974 Aaron played in the easiest stadium to hit HRs in. And in 1969 the Braves moved the fences in to make it easier for Aaron to hit home runs, moving the fences back in 1974 when his career was pretty much over and he was about to break Ruth's HR record. Why isn't there an asterisk by Aaron?

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

Ford was an amazing pitcher, but he readily admits to becoming Harris from Major League with the baseball in his later years.

There was someone above who considered Clemens to be the antichrist because he cheated. Well, obviously some of the old-timers did too. Most of it was just accepted back then (and ignored by anyone looking back today.)

That's why it's never made any sense to just forget what guys like Ford did when it comes to the subject, and focus only on Clemens, Bonds, etc. As far as HOF credentials or otherwise

Bumgarner

But did it really? In 1961 Candlestick had a park factor of 94. The Giants played 40 years in Candlestick and it had a park factor under 100 30 of those seasons. Candlestick was always known as a pitchers park. So was Marichal really hurt or was 1965-1966 an anomaly? Those just happened to be two of the worst six seasons for pitchers in Candlestick history.

Even if you go by ERA+, Marichal is only ahead 9%.Does that really out weigh a better WHIP and FIP? 40 more innings pitched? And the real deciding factor, Koufax setting a MLB record with 382 strike outs? This is my problem with bWAR, it doesn’t add up. Even if you mainly rely on ERA+, the difference should be .5 or less. There has to be some value to pitching more innings and allowing fewer base runners. I think today, even with advanced metrics, Koufax still wins. Remember he led Marichal by 3.2 in fWAR, which is just as ridiculous as bWAR in 1965.

This is a good point against Ford. At the end of his career he had a ring that he used to cut baseballs with to give his pitches extra movement. Ford was cutting balls in the 1963 World Series and Koufax still beat him twice.

Harry Breechen has a better post-season, 0.83 ERA. His regular season ERA+ is better than Koufax too. In a similar amount of innings.

If we are pretending a players best is who they are and ignoring everything else and their poor seasons or the context, by the Koufax logic Ferdie Schupp is still the best lefty all time regular-season.

Bumgarner!

Bumgarner is unhittable in the World Series. In five career appearances, he has a microscopic 0.25 ERA, which is the lowest of any pitcher in history with at least 25 World Series innings pitched.

You’d already cited Bumbarner. My point is the ridiculousness of the standards for Koufax that are not applied to anyone but him.

That's certainly a fair point, and hits close to home as a fan of a team that has sucked ass for a long long time (Pirates). What does one value more? Excellence over a longer period or outright dominance over a short period? To me it needs to come as close as possible to both criteria, which is why a Niekro at one end of the extreme or Koufax at the other would never get my vote.

But I certainly understand the sentiment.

The reason I cited the other Dodger pitchers, specifically Drysdale was to show that while their E.R.A.'s were also lower at Dodger Stadium, Koufax,'s were MUCH lower than theirs. In other words, he was down in the 1.00's and even below 1.00 while Drysdale was doing very well in the 2.00's. The point is, while the stadium may have been a factor, that Koufax did so well there also had to be due to his ABILITY.

And I want to reiterate that while yes, the 1960's favored the pitcher, this dismissing of the 1960's as being weak on hitting or a second deadball era, is unfair. It gives short shrift to the many great hitters who played back then, and doesn't take into account the more rugged and aggressive style of the game. Hitters had to face brush back pitches and the threat of being knocked down without all the protective gear of today. Calling it a second deadball era is such an inaccurate term. It reminds me of placing Mantle's record of 18 World Series home runs, down the list under the heading of "post-season home runs". The cheapness of the more modern statistics in ballparks that are smaller, with a much livelier ball, doesn't make the ball that was used in Koufax's day dead, nor the hitting weak. The modern outlook doesn't acknowledge the great hitters who had to play a truer game and face some of the greatest pitchers who ever played, under much more arduous circumstances. Guys like Koufax didn't dominate because the hitters were weak, but because the pitchers were good.

If Chavez Ravine was a factor, no one was able to capitalize on the conditions there like Koufax. That had to do with Koufax's amazing ability. I don't think the doubling of his away numbers is useful, and I don't think the Larry Walker analogy is fair, as Walker played in an environment with no gravity or atmosphere, lol. I think Coors Field was a much more extreme thing. And Koufax's road E.R.A.'s were still great.

And Barry Bonds.

Obv another discussion in itself, but it's always fascinated me that this dynamic hasn't been considered a lot more in those guys' legacy. You have five of the best eight or so hitters to ever step on the diamond, and just two combined titles.

It's hard for me to believe that it's ALL a function of just subpar teams at the wrong time for those guys.

Common denominators there are sullen/unlikeable personalities and maybe not much team leadership by your superstar. But then, Dimaggio was a jerk who wasn't the rally the troops type, and he won like crazy. Maybe that era's Yankees was still enough regardless.

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

???

Kershaw has a 2.15 ERA at home, 2.78 away. That's significantly closer than Koufax for splits (Dodger Stadium home).

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

Koufax
 

I agree 150%. Here’s what certain people are missing. A “high mound” is an advantage to a pitcher, BUT any hurler requires the world-class tools to capitalize on the mound’s higher plane. In Koufax’s case, it was his incredible “12 to 6” curveball that bottomed out right at the hitting zone. In those 5 years of sheer dominance, Koufax’s curveball was as good as any pitcher who ever toed an MLB rubber, combining the curve with an upper 90s riding fastball to dominate hitters as good or better than any all-time great in a 5-year span. The greatest lefty of all-time - NO - just not enough years of dominance to stake that claim. However, from a “peak-value” perspective, he stands at or near the top right alongside any lefty or righty.

You are still arguing against things not said, instead of what it is said. I have acknowledged Koufax had a great streak for five seasons and used numerous superlatives in describing them as "astounding", etc. He is still a product of time and place, a time and place that are very, very favorable to him, historically so, as they were not for pitchers who had much better careers.

Nobody has said he wasn't great these years. Nobody has said other Dodgers of the period were better. Not a single post has said this.

The same handful of strawmans, arguing against points nobody has actually made, again and again and again and again while ignoring the points actually made.

Nice strawman.

Not for his career.

Nice strawman.

Hey, I am old enough to remember 1971 and 1979. I am thinking about friends who are Cubs fans. Winning one was the highlight of their life. Imagine having a 5 year run like the Dodgers had with Koufax. There are a number of teams that have never won. Winning is all that matters.

True. The conversation, however, was centered on his ridiculous splits during the Dodger Stadium years.

This is another strawman. I have never excluded Koufax's first 7 years from my arguments. His career numbers, ERA, WHIP and FIP are better than any other lefty other than Kershaw. Koufax's postseason gives him the advantage there. Changing the argument and arguing something different is the definition of a strawman and has been done throughout this thread by the anti-Koufax group.

False. We haven't changed any argument. From the get-go, the argument from the anti-Koufax crowd - if you want to call us that - is that his severe home/road splits, specifically during his 1962/3 - 66 stretch, work against him, same as they do for Larry Walker, Jim Rice, Chuck Klein, et al.

Surprises me that Lolich isn’t mentioned more often. He along with Kaline were the team leaders on the Tigers for many years. I know he isn’t in the Koufax, Carlton, Johnson, etc discussion......but I know I could make a very strong case to have him in the HOF rather then some other recently voted in players.

His career ERA being the league average (104 ERA+), plus leading the league in more negative things than positive things is a hard case to overcome. We're getting pretty far down the list to get to Lolich.

If we now want to make the argument that Koufax is best because his ERA, FIP and WHIP for a career are lower than the other candidates (Context really seems to be missing), he still loses. Jack Pfeister has the lowest career ERA of a left hander. His WHIP and FIP is better than Koufax too. If the time and place and context and longevity don't matter, then why isn't he the greatest ever? Using the "logic" used in the arguments for Koufax, Koufax still doesn't come out on top. Other pitchers have had equal or better seasons, other pitchers have anecdotes from guys they played against, others have better stats even context is stripped away, and if you ignore longevity, it gets even more absurd with the guys you can proclaim #1 using the same argument made for Koufax.

You are right Pfeister is better. I would rather have Pfeister.over Koufax any day

That isn't true. Rube Waddell and Jack Pfeister are both better than Koufax in those measurements. Since context is also ignored in regard to Koufax vs other superior pitchers like Randy Johnson or Lefty Grove, then Waddell and Pfeister are both better than Koufax in that same context-free stats.

As stated, Kershaw also bests Koufax in those measurements...but that is dismissed by you because of post season performance. Basically, your criteria says that being better than someone in the World Series will wipe away the advantage in the thousands of innings pitched in the regular season.

If that is your criteria, then Madison Bumgarner is better than Koufax. Bumgarner is 4-0 with a 0.25 ERA in the World Series. Koufax is 4-3 with a a 0.95 ERA in the World Series. Bumgarner has three rings, Koufax three.

Also, if winning is all that matters, then Whitey Ford has six World Series wins, which(based on your criteria), makes him better than Koufax too. Ford also has 10 World Series wins to the 4 for Koufax.

Johnson is better than Koufax regardless. Here are their top 12 ERA+ seasons(seasons in which they qualified for ERA title):

Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify


Johnsons's top years are better than Koufax's from top to bottom...and Koufax's bottom is really bad since he wasn't good enough to play, and was way below Johnson in most of those other years.

I put some of Grove's top years in there too for more comparison.

Big Unit is the best lefty ever as he has both the elite prime AND elite longevity. He has the results in conjunction with the ideal physical size and overwhelming superior stuff that make him both umpire proof and era proof.

If anecdotes are your 'thing' then just a little digging will provide more 'fear' of Randy Johnson anecdotes from MLB hitters, than probably any other MLB pitcher in the history of MLB.

This isn't meant as any disrespect toward Koufax. He is the ultimate "what if" player, and he was great indeed, albeit for a very short time. Be careful how much credit you give him for that as history is filled with guys who lost career length or effectiveness due to injury. I give more credit to the guys who lost time due to WWII.

What we can do with stats. Here is some for you. Career Numbers Led League:

IP ERA Titles Shutouts IP BB K WHIP W-L PCT

Kou 2324 5 40 2 0 4 4 5

RJ 4135 4 37 2 3 9 3 4

This is what Koufax did in his short career. Johnson had close to 2000 more innings pitched. Give me Koufax in a heartbeat.

First thing, being able to pitch 2,000 more innings is a credit to Johnson, not a negative.

Second, I find it odd that you left off other categories in your 'black ink' test.

Johnson has led in more categories than Koufax. For instance, Johnson has 99 black ink compared to Koufax having 78.
Gray ink is 280 for Johnson and 151 for Koufax. Not even close.

Third, Run prevention is what matters most...run prevention in comparison to the league run prevention. As you can see, Johnson was vastly superior than Koufax.

Best ERA+ seasons. Johnson's best beats Koufax's best every single season. Johnson beats Koufax at his peak, destroys him in the middle, and Koufax wasn't even good enough to play in the bottom third. So if you are going to take Koufax, you may as well take yourself or me, because for years 12-18 we were just as good MLB as pitchers as Koufax.

Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify

Fourth, your method completely ignores context of ballpark, as Dodger stadium was partly responsible for several of Koufax's 'league leading' accomplishments.

Koufax had 23 shutouts in 85 career starts at Dodger stadium.
Koufax had 17 shutouts in 229 career starts everywhere else.

Hmmm.

Finally, if that is your method, then do that same thing with Lefty Grove compared to Koufax. Nine ERA titles for Grove etc... If titles is your method, then compare him to Ford, etc..

babe ruth
 

If Babe Ruth's pitching career hadn't been tragically cut short at about age 24, wouldn't he have been the best lefty ever? Incredible post season performances, and he would have had a great number more. He contributed a bunch of extra value from his hitting during his pitching years, and likely would have continued to do so even if he remained primarily a pitcher, whereas somebody like Koufax for example of course is famous for his absolutely terrible hitting (gotta subtract a bit for his lifetime 097 average).

Of course, Ruth is sadly a what might have been, I realize he cannot be in the discussion except for one of the best single pitching years ever --1916 --when factoring in batting and world series performance. And since it was Ruth who insisted on playing every day, he is not blameless in this tragic decision that may have deprived everyone of the greatest lefthanded pitcher in history.

Lefty Grove has a thousand more innings pitched. So lets see. He never led the league in innings pitched, Led the league 7 times in Ks (never struck out more than 206 Batters in a season), 9 era titles, 35 Shutouts, BB once, w=l Pct 5xs and whip 5 times. So being that he had a 1000 more innings pitched I would say Koufax wins.

Based on the statistical methods put forth by the Koufax camp, Ruth already is a better lefty than Koufax....don't even have to deal in what if.

ERA
Ruth 2.28
Koufax 2.76

Winning Percentage
Ruth .671
Koufax .655

World Series
Ruth 3-0 with a 0.87 ERA
Koufax 4-3 with a 0.95 ERA

Innings or career length don't matter in the Koufax statistical camp method. Nor does context of ballpark or league scoring environment.

Therefore, based on the methods put forth by the Koufax camp, Ruth already is a better left handed pitcher.

Lefty Grove has 111 league leading black inks.
Sandy Koufax has 78 league leading black inks.

Lefty Grove has 319 Gray inks.
Sandy Koufax has 151 Gray inks.

However, despite the astronomical lead Grove has over Koufax in league leading and top ten finishes, it is the run prevention(in relation to the league)that truly matters:

Best ERA+ seasons:
Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify

Of course, when looking at those league leading categories, DO NOT forget to account for the ballpark advantages:

Koufax had 23 shutouts in 85 career starts at Dodger stadium.
Koufax had 17 shutouts in 229 career starts everywhere else.

Dodger Stadium is responsible for a good chunk of all of Koufax's league leading events.

The ability to pitch 1,000 more innings is a positive....not a negative.

Allstar team selections for lefties.

Doesn't settle Koufax vs. Grove since they are tied, but there may be another candidate superior to Koufax, dunno if he has been mentioned --Hal Newhouser.

Hal Newhouser --7
Lefty Gomez --7
Chris Sale --7
(may be others with 6-7 I stopped looking)

Sandy Koufax --6
Lefty Grove --6

Babe Ruth --2 (both as hitter so really zero as pitcher) (not adjusting for lack of all star games since we don't know if he would have been selected)


Hal Newhouser really did have a great 2-3 year peak,

His single highest year WAR is higher than Koufax's best year. Led in wins 4 out of 5 years. Led in FIP 4 years in a row. His hitting isn't much better than Koufax's, but he does have more career WAR.


ok yeah he gave up 14 runs in the 1945 world series, but went 2-1, that's a much better winning percentage than Koufax's 4-3.

So what you've shown is that by any measurement there is a left hander that is better than Koufax. The myth is strong my friend.

Have no hitters come back yet? Then we can anoint Ryan, Koufax, Feller, Young, and Verlander as the greatest rotation that could ever be compiled.
We'll have to push one of them out though if Homer Bailey or Mike Fiers tosses another one.

Whitey Ford also has 7 all star appearances! Sorry missed him.

If context and league don’t matter, then why not Newhouser? He won twice as many MVP’s as Koufax too!

Can’t wait for the Koufax die hards to decide that Newhouser’s peak aligning with extremely favorable conditions to him matters and that context actually is important, but not for Koufax because he’s Koufax.

yeah, let's ignore the fact that the first All Star Game was in the final year of Grove's peak. So call it a tie.

Well, the problem with all of this is you are obviously using bWAR, which is a garbage, made-up stat that shows its flaws by having lesser players like Newhouser or Grove come out ahead. You must use twar and twar only. Then you will see that nobody compares to Koufax.

And yet again, Koufax has a built-in advantage: there were 2 All Star games played in 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962.

Grove was the best left-hander of all time.

And this:

all star games
 

ok -- I concede that the all-star game is not a single uber stat that should be used to decide the greatest lefty pitcher of all time. And that the only thing the stat is useful for is to tell us how many all-star games a player was selected for.

I thought it was obvious I wasn't serious about that, but I guess not. Sorry, was just having fun with garbage stats. Luckily it isn't possible for me to derail this thread.

But leaving aside all-star game appearances, it does seem that Newhouser is a pretty good comp for Koufax for reasons other than the similar number of all-star games. His peak extends beyond 1945, so that alone shouldn't be a disqualifier.

It's gotta be Grove
 

Best "all time" isn't Best over a 5 year period. Koufax was a great pitcher, dominant for those last 5 years. Hall of Famer for certain, and I wish that being that caliber of player was still what it took to get into the Hall.

But Lefty Grove carried a franchise for 5 years longer than Koufax pitched, he started 45% more games that Koufax, and won 82% more games than Koufax. All time has to mean all time, not single season, not peak 5... (and if it was based on a single season 31-4 and a 2.06 ERA isn't paled when compared to 27-9 and 1.73)

Imagine if Koufax pitched 5 more years at his prime and not retire after posting a 27 win season. This conversation would be over

IF is one of the biggest words in the English language.

Only if we aren't allowed to imagine that Spahn never went to war, Grove didn't ruin his arm, Randy found control earlier, and Waddell wasn't mentally challenged.

But you keep trying, so I will concede: Fantasy Koufax is way better than any pitcher who had an actual career. No doubt about it!

One could also imagine him pitching his entire career at Coors field in the live ball era, then he would never even have a thread dedicated to him...and only the people who recognize the importance of context, would see his value.


But really, what you said is the entire point. He would need five more elite years just to get into the discussion, because only then would he would begin to match the length of dominance of Unit or Grove.

Until he puts up those five more elite years...he doesn't belong in the conversation of all time best lefty.

If we're going to rate based on people's fantasies, then literally anyone can be proclaimed the greatest ever. If Walter Johnson had pitched with his left arm, he would be the greatest lefty ever. I nominate him as a result.

Pfeister had the lowest career ERA of a lefty, and a better whip and FIP. With context removed, why isn't he the greatest, Koufaxers?

Or if career stats don't matter, because longevity doesn't favor Koufax at all, and only peak does, then why isn't it Schupp?

I once heard from someone that somebody who faced him said Lefty Leifield was unstoppable! If anecdotes are our basis, why not him?

Even removing longevity, ignoring context of time and place, taking all the ridiculous claims for Koufax no matter how many principles of logic they violate, he still doesn't come out #1. The "best of all time" and "my personal favorite" are not synonyms; they are wildly different things.

Also keep in mind that Koufax used every ounce of his body to achieve the velocity on his pitches and torque on his curve ball. That is what it took for him to achieve what he did in his last five peak years.

Who is to say that was sustainable? Actually, it proved not to be sustainable.

So either he was going to break down had he continued(which he did break down), or he would have had to pitch a little differently DURING his peak to last longer(which would mean his peak wouldn't have been as good as it was), and his next five years even lower.

So instead of throwing 27 complete games, it may have been 19. Instead of throwing ten shutouts, it may have been six. Then you wouldn't be citing his complete games etc.


Kind of reminds me of Tim Lincecum and how he used every ounce of his body to achieve four excellent years...and then that was all his body could handle, and then he quickly went to becoming mediocre, and then was done soon after.

On the flip side, someone like Randy Johnson did it for 4,100 innings and within that career length he had a better dominance than Koufax, as he led the league in ERA+ SIX times and IP twice. Koufax led just twice in ERA+ and twice in Innings pitched.

Johnson won five Cy Young awards and finished second three more times...and was able to be better than average up until the age of 44.

I'm sure Unit could have shined even brighter some of those years, adding a few more complete games, striking out 400 batters in a season had he chosen to...but then he may have burned out more quickly and not added an entire 'second' career that Koufax never was able to do.

Johnson had a BETTER and LONGER peak than Koufax and he was better much longer too. That equals a slam dunk win over Koufax as to who was better

And since "winning is all that matters" in the biggest game, according to some....Randy Johnson was 3-0 with a 1.04 ERA in World Series play, taking an EXPANSION TEAM to World Series victory over one of the greatest dynasties in MLB history. An expansion team!

Since fantasy talk is prevalent, Koufax doesn't go to any World Series playing for the expansion Mets in those years. Zero. Zilch.

[QUOTE=HistoricNewspapers;2004405]One could also imagine him pitching his entire career at Coors field in the live ball era, then he would never even have a thread dedicated to him...and only the people who recognize the importance of context, would see his value.


But really, what you said is the entire point. He would need five more elite years just to get into the discussion, because only then would he would begin to match the length of dominance of Unit or Grove.

Until he puts up those five more elite years...he doesn't belong in the conversation of all time best lefty.[/QUOTE

You know nothing about Grove other than his suspect stats. Not many of us were alive when he pitched. You probably never saw Koufax pitch as well as most of you Koufax deniers. You rely on these made up metrics that some jock sniffer made up in his basement and you tout them as gospel the fact that he is a first round hofer and the youngest elected says it all.

[QUOTE=cammb;2004466]Please identity which of Grove's stats are suspect.

This is the perfect encapsulation of how utterly absurd, comical and ridiculous the emotional argument for Koufax is. Grove's stats are made up metrics by jock sniffers. Koufax is therefore the GOAT. Stunning.

Well, you can't argue with the fact that he was a HOFer at age 37. Clearly that makes him superior to bums like Feller (44), Walter (49), Nolan Ryan (52.) Guess that also means Mays (48), Aaron (48), and Musial (49) must be fairly mediocre.

That bum Grove was still winning ERA crowns at the age Sandy made the hall, he sure was terrible (and his league leading ERA’s were made up by jock sniffers! But Sandy’s ERA’s are evidence of his greatness). Cap Anson didn’t make it until he had been dead for 17 years, I can’t believe I used to think he was pretty good too.

That Joe DiMaggio guy took three tries to get selected. That guy must have been awful.

OK, I have refrained from comment thus far. But this has devolved into idiocy IMO. As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is true. You can skew them however you want, depending on the point you want to prove. Depending on how they are used, stats are opinion-based. They are not necessarily objective. Junk in, junk out. Not saying that they are useless, because they represent the current best effort. But they are certainly not gospel, as some here seem to believe.

Ten years from now, all the stats that are now being spouted as gospel will be denigrated as old, stupid, and misplaced. There will be newer and better stats that prove whatever point someone wants to make. That's how it works. Also, people who think Koufax was the best will continue to think that. People who don't will continue not to believe that. And both will continue to cite whatever stats they contrive that they think prove their point. This discussion is completely pointless.

Koufax was a great pitcher. Grove was a great pitcher. Spahn, Carlton, Plank, Waddell and arguably certain others were great too. Whether one of them is the greatest is completely viewpoint dependent. Is the "greatest" the best peak, the best during his time, the best over his career, the most wins, or something else? I can see each point of view. This whole debate is stupid because there are no parameters.

BTW, the Anson analogy is wholly misplaced because: 1) there was no HOF until way after he played, so the length of time between his death and his election is totally irrelevant; and 2) the first vote was, to say the least confused because none of the voters seemed to understand that there were supposed to be TWO categories of players elected, 10 from the 20th century and 5 from the 19th century. Cy Young split that vote. Anson did too, as I understand it. The claim that the length of time between Anson's death and his election somehow means something is so off base that it doesn't even deserve further comment.

Koufax was the greatest pitcher I have seen in my lifetime. He was also the first pitcher I ever saw in a live game, so I can fairly be accused of some hero worship. I saw Gibson, Marichal, Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Drysdale, and many others too. None blew me away like Koufax. I didn't see Grove, Plank, or the others, so I can't comment on them. Maybe they were better. It doesn't matter. The person who you actually saw that blew you away is likely to be your pick as the best ever I would think. I'm good with that because all of this statistical "comparison" stuff only tells part of the story IMO. Shoot away.

I don't know how you could possibly read my post and take it literally. Obviously the Anson point is idiotic. Devolved into idiocy, you got that right...

Well, at least e agree on something ...

Yep, that I'm a jock sniffing idiot for using statistics in an all-time debate. Really opened my eyes. Thanks.

LOL, completely missed the point, yet again. Not surprising. Have a nice day. Continue on with your bad self.

Any other Koufaxers got any more? "bad self", "idiotic", jock sniffer. Surely we can get 5 today. My block list is filling up fast.

Please do. Then I don't have to deal with your idiocy any more.

Of with there heads!
 

Holy smokes...without me even paying any attention, this thread has 550 replies.

I did not check, nor am I going to, but I am pretty sure no one has mentioned the misspelling in the thread title. It was of-putting enough to make me want to bypass this thread altogether.

Brian (by the way, I am the best lefty ever, even though I am right handed)

So after 550+ posts it appears we now have a consensus..... Koufax is the "Best Lefty of All Time" - correct?

I never called any poster a jock sniffing idiot but if you insist on wearing that mantle go right ahead. Reread my post. I will repeat, I am not a Koufax fan but I have seen him pitch several times. His performance was jaw dropping total dominance. So yeah I have never saw a better pitcher than him. When you compare Pfeister to Koufax it’s time to leave the building

Please identity which of Grove's stats are suspect.

I’m not the first to compare koufax to Newhouser! This article even includes the allstar appearance similarity. Hopefully there is a more rigorous statistical comparison out there so I don’t have to try to do it. Ondeckcircle.wordpress.com

Randy Johnson is best lefty of all time and is in serious discussion for best pitcher of all time as well.

Had Johnson gone the Koufax route and put everything he had into a five year stretch, with no concern for his future, he would be putting up 420 strikeouts per year while pitching another 60+ innings a year. However, he didn't do that. He didn't need to do that...but still had a greater peak than Koufax.

Instead, Johnson was still able to throw a perfect game at age 40, win five Cy Young awards, and finish second three more times.

You know what is crazy?

If you remove those FIVE years where Johnson won the Cy Young award, he still has more career wins than Koufax; 204-165.


Best ERA+ seasons:
Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify


Johnson had unrivaled physical tools. No pitcher in MLB history can match his physical tools. He was six foot eleven and threw over 100 MPH with a ridiculous slider....WITH COMMAND(after a few year learning curve). Some pitchers had one or two of those tools, but nobody had ALL of those tools like he did.

Let me explain why the physical tools are of such importance. Why would you take another pitcher over Johnson if the other pitcher was ten inches shorter, threw three miles an hour slower, had lesser command, and similar or less breaking pitches? The only other factor would be mental make up. Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES.

Environments a player plays in severely muddles or hides statistical measurements, but the tools are concrete. The tools are a known. A lot of the statistical measurements are unknowns because environment muddles them. An environment can give false perceptions of ones true ability. Six foot eleven cannot be muddled. 100 MPH cannot be muddled. Nasty slider cannot be muddled. Command cannot be muddled. The only other obstacle is mental make up and thrive to succeed. He obviously passed that only unknown hurdle.

So when you are weighing all this, the physical tools play a vital role in solving the dilemma of cross era comparison.


He had the results to back it up.

He was umpire proof. He didn't need the inches off the plate like Maddux and Glavine often did to excel to the levels they did.

He was era proof. He didn't need lineups in the league where numbers six through nine were zero threats and hit basically zero power...like which occurred in other eras where scoring was depressed, or era's like the 30's where only the elite few were legit power threats.

In fact, he pitched in probably the toughest era to be a pitcher, with the live ball, DH, and steroids. Any pitcher that can handle the toughest environment to pitch in, surely would have no problem in the eras where it was pitcher friendly.

He didn't need a dead ball to excel or last a long time.

He was stadium proof. He didn't need to rely on a certain stadium to make him dominant.

He had peak dominance and longevity dominance.

He was the guy that if you lined all these historic pitchers up at a local baseball field standing shoulder to shoulder, then watched him unleash what he had, he would be the guy every single coach would pick. Coaches would be drooling.

I agree that it comes down to Grove or Johnson. Excelling like they did in the hitter's era really clinches it.

This is a circular argument. A logical falacy. It's not a valid argument. Dodger Stadium has an average park factor of 95. That means that Koufax benefited 5% from pitching there. 5% is all. The reason he was so good in Dodger Stadium is because he is the best lefty of all time. Dodger Stadium's park factor is in line with other pitchers parks. The Astrodome averaged 94. Candlestick Park averaged 97. Why couldn't Marichal come within 2% of Koufax's home ERA? Or any Astros pitcher match it?

Now let's look at hitters parks. The "Launching Pad" in Atlanta had an average park factor of 105 with a high of 114. So, a hitter in Atlanta got the same bonus that a pitcher did in Dodger Stadium. The Baker Bowl was a little more extreme. From 1921-1937 it averaged 112 with a high of 116. The Rockies average park factor for their entire history...118 with a high of 128. I will let you figure out Fenway, but it is going to be close to 105, the best season was 112. I find it a little hypocritical that you mention Jim Rice. Sure he got a boost from the Green Monster being 310 feet in LF. Why doesn't Koufax get the same respect for pitching 4 seasons with a LF screen 251 feet in LF?

A normal park factor is 100. +/- 5% is a normal range. Denver is way outside of any normal range. That none of the parks in the discussion have had a single season what Denver averages is why home/road spits matter for Rockies players. For Koufax, it is a very minor factor.

You haven't used any stats.