So wait, now Park Factor is a legit stat? I'm having a hard time keeping up with you. You told me the only stats that mattered, but didn't respond when others pointed out that those specific stats could be used show others as better than Koufax, like bringing up ERA+ to use against Marichal but ignoring it with Grove.

Newhouser ERA 3.06 WHIP 1.311 FIP 3.19
Koufax ERA 2.76 WHIP 1.106 FIP 2.69

for their careers, Koufax was clearly better.

Let's look at their 5 year peaks

Newhouser ERA 2.35 WHIP 1.189 FIP 2.59
Koufax ERA 1.95 WHIP 0.926 FIP 2.00

Koufax's peak was much higher.

That people have now chosen to pull "deadball" era pitchers in to compare Koufax is more evidence to Koufax's greatness. Plank was the best of the deadball era.

Koufax
 

The one major issue with Newhouser is that his best seasons were during WWII when many of the league’s star players were overseas. League was significantly “watered down.”

You must not have read my post. Park factor isn't a significant factor. I also never used ERA+ against Marichal, I was giving another poster the benfit of the doubt who was using it, but it is seriously flawed. Its fatal flaw is the assumption that pitching is equal from one era to another which it clearly isn't. People picking deadball era pitchers to compare to Koufax doesn't need a response. I addressed that early in the thread and it should be obvious to any baseball fan why.

I love these type of threads. Throw out a question with no answer and here comes the passion. I always learn a lot.

Historic Newspapers
 

Brian - Historic Newspapers -

Very well thought out posts. Appreciate both the statistical analysis and the physical points. Unfortunately, the physical stature of an individual is becoming more and more sought out every year in athletics.

AMEN! Brother!

He was superman because he was bullet proof

If you go back and look over my posts, I specifically talked about Koufax's four seasons at the Coliseum. Excluded them from stats, in fact. However, had people saying "park doesn't matter" (paraphrase) when it come to explaining Koufax's greatness at Dodger Stadium but wanted to say that the Coliseum hurt Koufax. You can't have it both ways. Either the stadium matters or it doesn't.

If it was such a minor factor, Koufax wouldn't have average well over double outside of Dodger Stadium what he averaged inside it. If it didn't matter, he wouldn't have an ERA over 3.50 at half the stadiums where he pitched 6 or more times.

ERA+ makes no assumption about eras. People who misuse it do that. ERA+ *only* measures a pitcher against his yearly contemporaries. It's a measure of how great he is relative to his competition.

I also want to point out that Randy Johnson injuries also forced him to miss most of two seasons in the middle of his prime when he won his FIVE CY Youngs and nearly FOUR more.

He also missed most of another season near the end of his career when he was averaging 11.4 K per nine innings.

He also had to retire earlier than his stuff dictated due to injury. He had more years left as he was averaging 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season...and pitching through pain costing him effectiveness as well.

SO if Koufax is getting credit for injuries...don't forget to give that to Randy Johnson as well.

It cost Johnson the all time strikeout record.

Eh, he was still 900 Ks short of the record after pitching to 45. He would have needed another 3 full seasons of top-flight effectiveness to get there and he didn't miss that much time.

Point is, if you are going to assume with Koufax, you have to do the same with Randy Johnson. Johnson was averaging around 10 K's a game(it's ten for this exercise to make the math easy :). He usually started 34 games a year. Just looking at the years where he missed significant time:


1994/95 missed 15 starts due to the strike......150 k's
1996 he only started 8 games................260 K's
2003 he only started 18 games.............160 K's
2007 he only started 10 games..............240 K's

That is 810 K's right there going into his last season.

2009 he only started 17 games.....?

2010 he retired even though he still had elite K ability having pitched through injury while still maintaining 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season.

So who knows how long he could have gone. A healthy Johnson easily had two or three years left after he retired.

Also, if he is within 100 strike outs when he decided to retire in 2010...seems to be a good chance he sticks it out for more seasons.

I personally don't see the need in adding the what if, but just being fair that if you apply it to one player, make sure you apply it to others as well.

I always feel the complication with these arguments are you have different criteria for "best ever"

Is it the best overall career statically? (think Jerry Rice)
Is it the most accomplished career? (think Tom Brady)
Is it the best at his absolute peak? (Puts Gooden in the best pitcher argument)
Is it the best peak statistical seasons strung together?
Is it the most talented at peak? (Michael Vick was as scary as there was for a time, but is not in any sort of greatest conversation)

Probably most agree it is a combination I think career statistically combined with peak seasons is how we look at baseball players. Football and basketball have more emphasis on most accomplished which is why they count Rings in the arguments.

Based on this, Its very hard to argue against Randy Johnson as he checks all the boxes.

It is hard to argue for Koufax as "best ever" due to his short career. You can say greatest pitcher to dominate a sport during his time which he was. When you talk of legends of the game you can put Koufax in that category. I don't think anyone can consider Johnson a legend. Go to youtube and see for yourself the videos of Koufax , how he was held in high esteem, treated like a movie star. See f how other great players of his time spoke about him. You try to compare Johnson's mediocre injuries to Koufax. Are you kidding. Koufax ended his career. We will never know what kind of stats Koufax would have given if he pitched another five years. you can't play the "what if "game with Grove or Johnson because they played out their careers.

Sounds like you're talking about Bo Belinsky again. :)

All the things you say about Koufax above are true. What I say about Grove is true. So I think we've pretty much come around to agreeing, generally. Or if not, close. Koufax was dominant for a stretch; Grove was dominant for a full-length career.

If you open the 'what if' game, you can play it with anyone.

For instance, in a 12 year stretch, Johnson won five cy Young awards, finished second three other times, third, and 7th.

THat stretch itself is more dominating than anything Koufax every did.

However, if we play the 'what if' game....what if Johnson wasn't injured for two of those seasons during that stretch?

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.

Randy Johnson stats from his 4 consecutive CY Young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

ERA Koufax 1.86 Johnson 2.48
WHIP Koufax .909 Johnson 1.044
FIP Koufax 1.97 Johnson 2.53

Now some counting stats
CG Koufax 89 Johnson 31
ShO Koufax 23 Johnson 11
Wins Koufax 97 Johnson 81
Ks Koufax 1228 Johnson 1417


They are clearly picking Koufax.

home run!!!!!!

Fielder's choice!


How many birds did Koufax kill?

Wrong because you are picking Koufax based on those statistics resulting from the low run scoring environment, not based on his abilities.

You also forget the key measurement from those years, ERA+
Johnson 187
Koufax 172

So again, Johnson had a better peak, a longer peak, and a vastly better career. Johnson was also better in every physical measurement and tool. Mentally better too because he didn't quit. Johnson was better. Period.

For example, the environment in the NL in 1965 created a league where the league average ERA was 3.54. Compared to 2001 where it was 4.36.

So what you are saying is that half the pitchers in the league in 1965 were better than every National League pitcher in 2001, except for the 12 in 2001 who who were able to have an ERA below 3.54(the league average of the NL in 1965)?

I guess Vern Law with his 2.15 ERA that year was ALSO better than Randy Johnson and his 2.49 ERA in 2001?

Also the dozens of pitchers with more complete games were better than Johnson too??

From 1964-1968 Joe Horlen had 2.32 ERA. Hmmm.

Seems like there are plenty of choices of low ERA's from that time to choose from, other than Koufax. Can't quite be that dominant if several other players offer similar output

Put Horlen in the HOF I guess.

It is the environment creating those statistics..

Also, Dodger Stadium was responsible for 15-20% of those numbers from Koufax. Again, the environment.




Just because the league was easy to pitch in in the 1960's doesn't make you better. If you flip that around and compare the hitters from the era's without understanding the context, then you are going to get a lot of Colorado players with better peaks than several Hall of Famers from the 1960's.

Vinny Castilla, Hall of Fame, here we come I guess.

Vinny Castilla 162 game average from 1996-1999

41 HR
120 RBI
.301 BA


Ellis Burks 162 game average from 1994-1997
39 HR
110 RBI
.311 BA

Todd Helton 2000-2003
40 HR
133 RBI
.349 BA

Dante Bichette 1995-1999
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Those guys are in a dead heat with Willie Mays from the 1960's. Mays and Aaron are the only ones from the 1960's that can compete with them.

Nobody else from the 1960's can match those peaks.


So if you are going to hold tight to looking at Koufax without the context of the league or stadium, that is fine.

Just don't forget to do the same with the Colorado group above.


If you are out there selecting a team, please let me know if you have two pitchers with equal mental capacity, and one is ten inches taller than the other, throws 5-7 MPH harder, has better command, better movement, and more physical mental toughness in pitching through pain.

I'll take the taller kid. You can have the other one.

and although its been mentioned, you can't mention it enough

Johnson pitched in the steroid era......and pitched in the Kingdome and Arizona's park, two very hitter friendly parks.

and still put up those numbers.

Wait... I've seen the video of Johnson hitting that bird and the feathers flying, but did the bird actually die?

And more than half of his starts came in the DH league.

Johnson had a better peak than Koufax, a longer peak, and a vastly better career. Johnson was also better in every physical measurement and tool. Mentally better too because he didn't quit. Johnson was better. Period.

The dove died. Thankfully, it probably didn't hurt much to be annihilated by a fastball. A dead dove is the logo for his photography business now

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13 ;)

Just sayin, Rats has already addressed these arguments:
the 60's has weaker hitting stats because the pitching was so good, although there are incredible hitters that Koufax had to face.
there really isn't a difference between eras, except of course the actual dead ball era, so comparing pitchers is linear post-1920
Don't be bringin' ERA+ or any other of those made-up BS stats, the only ones that count are WHIP, ERA, and strikeouts. Except, of course, when Kershaw is mentioned because he outperforms in all categories (in the vaccuum of "there is no difference between eras"). Then we move on to post-season performance.

Pretty sure the argument for Koufax here will be the same as against Grove: Koufax was the supreme pitcher of his era (and in all honesty, I fully agree with that.) But he had an incredible amount of HOF pitchers he was competing with, making his accomplishments EVEN GREATER!! But Grove had Hubbell and a bunch of stumblebums. I'm not looking, but I'm sure RJ had no competition, that's why he was so much better than his league.

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a plan. :)

I'm waiting for the Koufax group to start the Dante Bichette for the Hall of Fame based on his dominant peak offensive years.

If we flip the switch on the peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

ERA+ measures the domiance vs their peers. That is not misused at all: However, no point beating a dead horse:

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a good plan.



If we flip the switch onto the hitters and peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.



PS The ONLY measurable across eras is:

If you are out there selecting a team, please let me know if you have two pitchers with equal mental capacity, and one is ten inches taller than the other, throws 5-7 MPH harder, has better command, better movement, and more physical mental toughness in pitching through pain.

I'll take the taller kid. You can have the other one.

Told you, Brian!

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

If you get the 1955-1961 Koufax to show up, you've lost.

I assume you mean circa 1965 Koufax, right? Versus RJ who has a lower mound, facing a DH, in the steroid era? I agree!

Bob Uecker had a 200 lifetime average and hit .429 off Koufax in over 50 ABs. So....

So, so what?

Johnson would be my #2 pick. That his first season where he was notably above the league average was at age 29 is largely offset by his great effectiveness over age 40.

There are the 7 best (leaving Kershaw out; it is exceptionally difficult and unbalanced to account a player who is not done. His ERA+ will decline significantly, balanced by his effective innings increasing but who knows exactly how this will balance or when he will stop) + the 2 super short careers

ERA+
Grove - 148
Johnson - 135
Ford - 133
Koufax - 131
Newhouser - 130
Hubbell - 130
Plank - 122
Spahn - 119
Carlton - 115

Innings
Spahn - 5,243
Carlton - 5,217
Plank - 4,495
Johnson - 4,135
Grove - 3,940
Hubbell - 3,590
Ford - 3,170
Newhouser - 2,993
Koufax - 2,324

Black Ink
Grove - 111
Spahn - 101
Johnson - 99
Koufax - 78
Carlton - 69
Hubbell - 51
Newhouser - 47
Ford - 41
Plank - 15

Gray Ink
Spahn - 374
Grove - 319
Plank - 291
Carlton - 285
Johnson - 280
Hubbell - 252
Ford - 234
Newhouser - 180
Koufax - 151


If we have to pick one thing, the most important attribute of a pitcher is to give up as few runs as possible. His effectiveness at doing this is, in the context of an all-time debate, has to be measured relative to the context in which events actually happened, in time and place; which means ERA+. Innings Pitched is the balance to this; a pitcher who hurls a 0.90 ERA for 1 year is clearly not the best ever; how long a pitcher is effective is the other half of the equation.

Black and Gray ink I think are the best of the modern analytics, again in the context of "best all time". Black Ink is preferable, but a player CAN benefit or be hurt by not having their peak align with some other legends (Johnson suffers in black ink due to Maddux). It also matter where the ink comes from; I wouldn't value the categories in the same 1/2/3/4 point order assigned by the formula. Spahn gains a lot of his from wins, which I don't think are actually an effective metric to determine a pitchers performance.

These aren't everything, but I think these should be the starting points. Grove's ERA and league domination + a good, but not great, inning count puts #1 pretty easily in my book. Johnson seems to me pretty clearly the #2 as well. Spahn wins #3 without much difficulty, I think. After that, it gets harder to pick.

How one weighs different values, any of these 3 can reasonably be assigned the title of the greatest lefty of all time. Johnson and Spahn have excellent cases. The statistical and logically consistent reasons to pick between these three, and not anecdotal, emotional, and logically contradictory arguments based on what seems to currently favor the pitcher we want to win, are what the real debate should be.

If I have a bias for any of these pitchers, it is in favor of Randy Johnson.

Good call :)

If you are picking that based on Koufax getting to pitch off a higher mound, with a bigger strike zone, with a less lively ball, and vs a lineup with less threats up and down....and Johnson having none of those advantages...then yes, not only do you pick Koufax:

Then you also pick all these guys from 1968 over Johnson too:
Bobby Bolin 1.99
Bob Veale 2.05
Stan Bahnsen 2.05
Steve Blass 2.12
Ray Washburn 2.26
Jim Nash 2.28
Joe Horlen 2.37
Etc..Etc...Etc..

"The regular changing of mound height was eventually prohibited. In 1950, teams settled on a height of 15 inches for the mound. Despite this regulation, some teams were accused of using a higher than regulation height mound; Dodger Stadium was particularly notorious for having a high mound. Following the incredibly low scoring in 1968, the rules were changed to reduce the mound to the contemporary 10 inch height. Some accusations of gamesmanship with mounds continue, usually with visiting teams complaining that the mounds in the visitor's bullpen don't match the mound of the field, so that relievers entering the game aren't properly adapted to the game mound." -Baseball reference.

I think everyone knows the advantage a higher mound gives a pitcher.

It is the same advantage, that nobody in their right mind is going to pass up on a pitcher(Johnson) who is ten inches taller, throws harder, has greater command...and also is superior in all the other pitching tools and mental capacities. Nobody takes the inferior(Koufax)pitcher there....unless a person is fooled because that inferior pitcher is being judged on extreme advantages that give him the ILLUSION of superior effectiveness.

No Brainer.

If that is anyone's rationale, great, your choice...but then:

Would you also be willing to partake in a home run hitting contest against me if I got to use the live ball from last season, and you had to use a ball from 1965...and I got to hit in Coors field and you had to hit in Dodger Stadium? Also, the pitcher you are facing is six foot ten inches tall and throwing 85MPH, and the pitcher I am facing is five foot eight and throwing 75MPH.

I'm willing to bet that people would immediately change their tune on the context once it was applied to them directly ;)


PS If Aaron Judge is on this board, I'm changing the context in our home run contest, that I get to hit in the field they play the Little League World Series on, and you have to hit in Old(DiMaggio) Yankee Stadium. :)

Then I can walk around saying I am a better home run hitter than Aaron Judge...just like the people saying that Koufax is better than Randy Johnson.

Isn't it odd hat his great performances happened during the chemical enhancement era? He was dominant during 1995 to 2004 at the height of the steroid use.I know runs and home runs were way up during this period and yet he, clemens, martinez put up some ungodly numbers. We know Clemens was a cheater. Maybe the whole story has not come out.

I wouldn't put it past anyone.


However, in Johnson's case it was simply a matter of harnessing his control....that is all well documented. I'm not going to bother going through that entire history, both story-wise or statistical wise.

He always had the 100 MPH heat.

Unless steroids made him grow six inches from 1992 compared to 1995?

However, if you bring the steroids up and Johnson was NOT doing them(which it is very unlikely he was, and there is zero suspicion of him), and many of his pitching peers were? That only makes Johnson even more impressive!

For instance, Johnson lost the Cy Young to Clemens in 2004! I appreciate you bringing that up. Johnson gets another Cy Young award...according to your premise.

He also came in second to Clemens in 1997. There is another Cy Young for the Big Unit!

As one baseball writer put it, "we don't vote for Clemens but we accept the accomplishments of other power pitchers that time". You like comparisons, so I like to compare him to Barry Bonds. Both got better with age.

I'm personally undecided how to treat Clemens or Bonds. If you disregard steroids they are the best pitcher and best hitter ever respectively. However, I have no interest in getting into that debate :)

However, if you are going to ding Bonds and Clemens, then that just makes guys like Randy Johnson shine even brighter. Johnson gets a couple more Cy Youngs. I'll take this debate every day for the rest of the summer though. Maybe not every day...:)


I do want to point out, that as much as I am hailing Johnson over Koufax, I do agree that Koufax gets dinged a little too much by many sabermatricians for his home ballpark. It is definitely a factor, but the degree of which is indeed still up for debate.

Yes, Johnson pitching against a bunch of steroided up hitters in an offensively dominated era should count against him.

You keep assuming your boy was clean. During that period no one gets a pass That's all I got to say. I will leave it up the the readers. lol.

Don't buy the if one did they all did - everyone's a cheater.
I think we seek ways to excuse the behavior of those we admire.

Like I said, I don't put it past anyone.

However, if they were all doing it like you said, then isn't it a level playing field??


As it stands, the Big Unit looks like the least likely candidate to be doing PED's, with zero credible suspicions, let alone evidence.

Clemens has pretty good evidence that he was deep in PED.

Therefore, based on your assertions of not counting PED accomplishments, that gives Randy Johnson two more Cy Young awards.

Did Johnson grow six inches from 1992-1995 or gain 8 MPH?? If not, then those attributes are what made him what he was. Once he was able to repeat his mechanics and developed control...he became the best lefty in the history of baseball, both at as his peak and for his career ;)

And no, Lefty Grove cannot match those attributes either. There is zero evidence to support placing Lefty Grove on a pitchers mound over Randy Johnson. Johnson has him beat in every measurable attribute you look for in a pitcher, as well as the 'intangibles' needed to succeed as a professional player. There would be zero point in taking a pitcher who is ten inches smaller, throws slower, has lesser break on his pitches, and has lesser command....assuming their mental and competitive capacities are the same(and Johnson obviously proved his mettle there).

As for 'my boy', I'm beholden to no other human. I'm simply looking from an objective view point, backed with knowledge, logic, and common sense.

How do you know this?

How do I know how tall each player was? Pretty simple.

Lefty Grove did not throw 100MPH. He did not throw as hard a Bob Feller.

The break on the pitches is pretty clear and has a strong correlation to how much torque is put on the ball.

I also know that the average fastball has risen over time.

I know that in the 20's and 30's there were several players who were swinging 40oz plus bats and having no problem getting around on the ball. That tells you that the ball is simply not coming in as fast. That many players cannot do that against 100 MPH pitches when you also have to guard against a breaking pitch.

However, if anyone puts Grove ahead of Johnson...It's close enough that I'm not going to bother debating it.

It’s funny how you continue to ignore the suspicion of steroid use. From ages 36 to 39 head pitching like Koufax (the peak of steroid use) He began to decline soon after with sky high eras, coincidence?

If you have credible evidence, I'm all ears.

Currently, you are the only person I've ever heard accusing Randy Johnson of steroid use. But I like your idea of giving Randy Johnson two more Cy Young awards because Clemens was doing steroids. Me personally, I still don't want to knock Clemens, because if like you said, "they all did steroids", then they all played on the same level playing field.

If you have something solid, put it forward.

Then where do you draw the line with Koufax getting elbow injections etc...? Who is to say if there were steroids in those injections? Seems like a slippery slope.

Your statement above doesn't make a lot of sense though. Please rephrase it. After age 36-39 you are saying he had sky high ERA's?

Are his ERA's supposed to stay the same until age 60?

Age 40 his ERA was 2.60.

He went back to the American League after that, which will cause a jump in his raw ERA.

From age 41-45 his ERA in the AL was 4.28. ERA+ 104.


Nothing sky high there, it was better than average.

Actually, the natural decline would show the OPPOSITE of steroid use. When you eclipse age 40, your skills tend decline soon. He was also injured in those years.

But I like your premise saying that injuries cost Randy Johnson elite ERA's until age 60. That makes his case even better as the best ever. That makes him the best athlete ever.

You are grasping...but if you believe Randy Johnson did steroids, put forth the evidence. More power to you.

It's funny how you ignore my requests that you tell us which of Grove's stats are "questionable."

I didn't question the height difference.

On what do you base this conclusion?

Johnson was a foot taller than Camilo Pascual, who was a 20 game winner a couple of times and was famous in his day for his curveball. How can you say Johnson's curve was better than Pascual's, or Grove's?

Well, since most Olymipic records, especially track and swimming, do not hold up well over time, I guess we can simply conclude the best athletes are the recent ones, period. Fastballs are getting faster, as are runners, and hitters are getting stronger, etc.

Back in the day, most hitters, with a few notable exceptions, didn't hold the bat down at the end of the knob, to swing for the fences. They choked up a bit, had shorter, more compact swings, and let the weight of the bat do the work, as opposed to relying on their arm/bat speed to do so.

Lefty Grove’s stats are made up by jock sniffers and Randy Johnson was a steroid abusing cheater because... he was alive when some other people did?

How is this the actual argument for Koufax? This is the stupidest argument one could possibly make. Can we move on to applying some rationality and considering the actual candidates instead of this garbage?

I think Tony is more interested in a "mike drop" moment instead of a cohesive debate. Maybe he's a politician?

Somebody might be gaining
 

I haven't followed the whole thread, I guess y'all ended up deciding on Glavine?

Heads up on Framber Valdez. Highest spin-rate going and Trout says he has the best stuff he's seen.

If you say it’s stupid, then it must be.

Groves stats as well as others in that era and before are suspect because we have no idea how records were kept, how lenient scoring was and most of all the hitting Just wasn’t that great. I hope that my opinion satisfies your craving as to my meaning of suspect.

Once again, this is easily proven to be completely false garbage. We do know how records were kept. The majors have excellent documentation of this period, for every single league game. What game are the records incorrect or incomplete for? Just one, solitary example.

How was scoring more lenient in 1930 than in 1965?

Hitting WAS great. Far better than during Koufax's period. We can see this in the stats. It's basic math; many more runs were scored in an average game in 1930 than in 1965. This has been explained about 300 times in this thread.

You did not say they were "suspect", you actually said his stats were made up by jock sniffers (implying that God Sandy's are not). But fine, we'll go with suspect.


Have any evidence for your charges about Johnson? Whatsoever? No?


Can we please find a rational argument for the views advanced? We've had logical cases presented for Grove and Johnson. I guess logic is for jock sniffers. This is even more ridiculous than basing a case upon anecdotes one likes. Denying easily verifiable facts is absurd.

Holy Crazy Train! No idea how records were kept?? It wasn't the dark ages. So you discount Walter, Cy, Hornsby, Ott, Cobb and Wagner? And that non-great hitting includes those bums Ruth and Gehrig, but they probably sucked because the scorekeepers were so lenient.

This from they guy who says Koufax must be the best of all time because he's the youngest HOFer, cause all the other guys ruined their careers by playing longer

In all seriousness, you might want to avoid discussions on baseball history.

I have to evidence against Johnson because I did not accuse him of directly taking steroids. He is suspect as others who performed over their heads as they got older

This from a guy who is an Early Wynn fan. What happened to you?

The logic just gets better and better. All the options before Koufax have "suspect" stats from bad record-keeping (a completely made up fiction, please identify a single such gap in the records) and the work of "jock sniffers". The options after Koufax have to be dismissed because other players cheated.


I don't think you have any idea what "all time" means.... If our premise is that only Sandy Koufax even qualifies to be discussed, well I guess he is the best. This is mindless drivel.

You cannot use ERA+ to compare pitchers between eras. Here are the Topps RCs of starting pitchers elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.

1955 Koufax
1957 Drysdale
1959 Gibson
1961 Marichal
1963 Perry
1964 Niekro
1965 Carlton
1965 Hunter
1966 Palmer
1966 Sutton
1966 Jenkins
1967 Seaver
1968 Ryan
1971 Blyleven
1987 Maddux

Between 1955 and 1967 13 starting pitchers elected by the BBWAA to the HOF made their MLB debut. From 1971-1985 zero. MLB talent is not the same from era to era.

I have already shown that why people discount stats of Rockies players, average park factors 118. So, you think picking a Rockies player makes a valid comparison? Lol.
It is not like Bichette faced anywhere near the pitching talent that Mays or Aaron did.

There is a simple reason for the above. MLB was integrated between 1947-1960 seeing an increase in talent in baseball. The rise of the NFL in the 70s and NBA in the 80s has diverted talent from MLB to the NBA and NFL. Jackie Robinson played pro football before baseball. If he was playing pro sports today, it would be in the NFL. Bob Gibson played with the Globetrotters before baseball. If Gibson were playing today, most likely it would be the NBA.

I will take Koufax over Johnson or any other lefty and win championships.

Nice try, but wrong on every count.

So NOW you understand park factor when it pertains to the Rockies??? But ignore it when it pertains to Koufax? Hilarious. Superb. Nice try.

And if your criteria is Championships, then Whitey Ford or Madison Bumgarner are your pitchers.

And if winning is all that mattered, how do you pick a pitcher who only won 165 games over someone who won 304??

Population and talent is a whole other exercise I can take you through....but it is long and won't look pretty on your end of the debate. In short, African American participation declined in MLB, but Latino participation rose at a higher rate than that decline.

There were also many more people to draw from in general in the 1990's onward, compared to 1960's and previous.

Over time, players have continued to be bigger, faster, and stronger in every aspect. The athletes are getting better...not worse. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

When is the last time you worked with growing athletes to draw your conclusions from?? Athletes are better than ever right now. Period. Romantic viewpoints of yesteryear does not change that fact.

World Wild inclusion also became far more impactful. So instead of just drawing American born talent, it was from all over the world. You had millions upon millions more people to draw from, from other countries.

All that adds up to far more available MLB talent that any expansion or popularity of basketball or football.

Kids that can throw 98 MPH with success, play baseball regardless how good they are at other sports. So those other sports are not taking pitchers away from MLB. Sorry. The average MLB fastball has risen steadily over the years. Based on your premise, it should be declining...not rising. They are not only throwing harder, they are taller too. They can also place the ball better. They also have an array of pitches as well. Nasty ones.

Fielding percentages in baseball have risen steadily over time...another sign of the superior athlete. EVERY shortstop today makes throws from the hole with ease now...throws that only an elite few could make even as late as the 1970's. There is zero comparison between the arms of now compared to the arms of then. If basketball and football are taking athletes away from baseball...then how are the fielders continually getting better over time?? How are their arms getting stronger if athletes are being lost to other sports??? How are they running FASTER? If your premise that competition was better then, then the players should be running SLOWER now, NOT FASTER!

So the players now can catch the ball better, throw it better, and run faster. Yet they aren't as good??? Yeah that makes total sense...lol.

Please...football and basketball were both mainstays already in the 1960's. Basketball was actually the more popular high school sport even then.

In the meantime, you enjoy taking Joe Horlen and company over Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Max Scherzer, etc...and all those other pitchers from the 1960's who had better ERA's than superior pitchers.

You are picking it based on an illusion of the rules, not on the talent of the players.

Otherwise who would pick a pitcher who is ten inches shorter, throws seven MPH slower, has less command, and less MENTAL CAPACITY? NOBODY. Unless someone was fooled because the rules of the time dictated that his numbers 'looked' a tad better. You got fooled. NOt going to fault you for it, but you did.

Yes, Koufax had less mental attributes. Koufax quit...which makes him soft. I would use another word, but don't want to offend anyone. If he isn't soft, then he is unreliable. Neither are good attributes. If he isn't unreliable, then he is made of glass. Again, not a good attribute in an athlete when there are others who don't have those issues.


Lets go have a contest you and me.

We will play a baseball game against each other. When I am pitching, I will pitch off of a mound that is 15 inches high, will use a dead ball, and the strike zone will be strictly from the arm pits to the knees. We will play in the largest field at a local complex.

When you pitch, you will have to pitch off of flat ground, use the live ball from last MLB season, and the strike zone will be from the knees to my waist. For your pitching, we will move to the smallest field at the local complex(but you will still be pitching from 60 feet 6).

Put your money where your premise is. If you don't think those factors matter, then lets make a wager and have that contest.

.














"Yes, Koufax had less mental attributes. Koufax quit...which makes him soft. I would use another word, but don't want to offend anyone. If he isn't soft, then he is unreliable. Neither are good attributes. If he isn't unreliable, then he is made of glass. Again, not a good attribute in an athlete when there are others who don't have those issues."

So now you are a doctor. You could diagnose Koufax on his mental attributes and the extent of his rheumatoid arthritis. The stupidest statement yet that he is a quitter. You lost all credibility. Come to think of it, I would rather be a quitter than a cheater.






.

Calling Koufax a quitter is kind of a head scratcher. When you think about yourself in your life, how often do you keep doing something that causes you immense pain for the entertainment of others?

Implying Sandy was mentally incompetent because his arm was injured is as horrible an argument as calling Johnson a cheater with no credible evidence whatsoever, or claiming that record keeping before Koufax’s first start was not done thoroughly.

There are logical arguments, supported by actual evidence, that can be made. Why do we keep drifting into deeper absurdity with every post instead?

"Yes, Koufax had less mental attributes. Koufax quit...which makes him soft. I would use another word, but don't want to offend anyone. If he isn't soft, then he is unreliable. Neither are good attributes. If he isn't unreliable, then he is made of glass. Again, not a good attribute in an athlete when there are others who don't have those issues."


You choose which one made him quit. It is one of the three. I'm merely going through the choices that led to him stopping while others didn't. The wording may seem a tad harsh. I personally don't think he is a 'quitter' in the sense that word is usually associated with quitting. But in the end, one guy is there to play and the other isn't.

I thought he was doing it to get paid. If he was pitching with pain out of the kindness of his heart for the entertainment of others, my apologies.


Me? Quite often actually. Just not in the spotlight. I've thrown millions of pitches to hitters for their benefit(it was/is for a little more than entertainment,but you can call it entertainment if you want)...and it is to the detriment of my body. And often after already working my day job. Sucks getting old.

Yes me too. Thats why I agree with you in giving Randy Johnson two more Cy Young awards because, as you say "Clemens cheated" to win them over Johnson.

Seven Cy Young awards...pretty impressive. Thanks for pointing that out.

Who had better relief pitching numbers?

Back to original post - best lefty of all time. Longevity does count a lot toward "Best All Time", does it not? Peak value is also very important. And other pieces to the puzzle also count - stadium, mound, time in which they played, etc.

But if you are looking at the whole puzzle, chances are slim Koufax is the man. Grove and Randy Johnson are better choices - overall - all things considered.

Now if the original post was, "which lefty had the greatest Peak Value?" Koufax definitely then enters into discussion as possibly the best.

Sandy Koufax, then Randy Johnson.

Don’t mean to exhume such an old debate, but I sure wish I saw this in its heyday.

Huge southpaw buff here, and in the pre-blog days (early aughts) I spent far more time than I’d care to admit analyzing/ranking any and all lefties.

While I didn’t read all 636 posts, I thoroughly enjoyed the outstanding analysis and comments supporting and critiquing each candidate.

No point adding my own list, but I did want to echo the sentiment that peak value carries tremendous weight when determining “greatness”. It almost cannot be argued that without it, Koufax’s legacy would not have existed at all.

By this I mean even if he compiled the same exact single season totals, but only staggered across his career rather than being super-concentrated as they were, we would not be talking about him in nearly the same light.

Lest we forget that it was actually his non-statistical narrative that has fuelled his mystique to this day in a way no other pitcher has. The no-no’s, the hardware, the championships, the conviction not to pitch in the World Series on his Sabbath, the early retirement after the greatest final season ever, his post-retirement reclusiveness, etc…

Sandy’s peak cannot be overestimated because it has endured for 55 years now. 55 years and he is still being discussed among the young and less-than-young. Among casual fans and the most ardent students of the game. Among the vast majority of us who are relegated to YouTube highlights and the privileged surviving few who witnessed his magic in person (who when you think about it, would have to be at least about 70 right now to have a vivid and full appreciation of what they saw then).

How many retired players period are still revered the way Koufax has been…let alone for half a century+?

Say what you will about how fans tend to carry selective memories when it comes to their teams/heroes, but can millions upon millions be wrong?

Among hitters, the list is much longer of course (Ruth, Mantle (see my previous question), Mays, Clemente, Aaron, etc…), but among pitchers? I contend an honest list would be limited to Cy Young, who despite the eponymous annual award, doesn’t even qualify for this debate because he threw with the wrong hand :) Curiously, Young’s mystique is nearly the polar opposite of Koufax’s as it leans almost exclusively on his otherworldly career output.

Don’t scoff when I say just Young…name one other pitcher who stopped playing before Sandy did, and who not only lives but flourishes in our modern collective consciousness the way Koufax does?

Does Big Train (who is certainly #1 ever) honestly evoke that emotion? If not Walter, how can any other until Koufax came along? That is the essence of peak value.

Okay, let’s move the chains to post-Sandy. Nolan Ryan? Fair, but not exactly a “peak” guy the way Sandy was. Plus, that was a mere 28 years ago since he finally hung up his cleats. Double that and see if we are still gushing (spoiler alert, we are).

Pedro? C’mon, that was just 12 years ago…practically yesterday. Will we still be romanticizing his exploits in 2064 (43 years from now to match the 55 year retirement Sandy has today)?

Koufax meanwhile, while still with us, has been largely absent from the public eye for several decades, so it is not like we are being spoon fed regular reminders of him through appearances, autograph signings, commercials, etc…. His “greatness”, however you wish to define it, speaks for itself and stands on its own…sabermetrics be damned:) The essence of peak value, and why he’s in the conversation in the first place.

Now career value is another matter…Spahn is my guy.

Spahn is also my guy for career feats.

I think this small part of what you wrote (all of which I read) encapsulates the reverence of Koufax. Other than having a killer nickname (Seriously you're not doing better than the Left Arm of God) Koufax's career is the perfect blend of Greatness combined with "What If"

People saw Koufax at his peak, rattling off three Cy Young awards in four years, winning three pitching triple crowns, yet his name always comes up with "oh well if he was healthy, he'd probably have even more" His strikeout numbers for his career, while pedestrian by today's standards, were extremely impressive for the time, he ranked 7th all time, when he hung them up, despite the bulk of them coming in the latter half of his career that lasted only 12 seasons.

I think it's very hard to argue against Koufax's peak. The only thing he has working against him is the offensive climate of the league at the time, which I suppose would work in someone like Randy Johnson's favor, who pitched in a more difficult offensive environment, but I think we hit a level of greatness where it's almost impossible to distinguish, even through statistics who was better. It's more along the lines of "flip a coin" of who would you rather pitch. Because really Whether it be The Unit, Koufax, or Grove it's going to be extremely hard to pick.

I like to look at peak performance and Baseball Reference has a good short-hand look at the peak 7 year performances. Seven years is enough to weed out the anomalous streaks but short enough to discount cumulative stats due to longevity:

Grove:
JAWS Starting Pitcher (7th):
106.8 career WAR | 65.6 7yr-peak WAR | 86.2 JAWS | 6.8 WAR/162

Johnson:
JAWS Starting Pitcher (10th):
101.1 career WAR | 61.5 7yr-peak WAR | 81.3 JAWS | 5.6 WAR/162

Koufax:
JAWS Starting Pitcher (90th):
48.9 career WAR | 46.0 7yr-peak WAR | 47.4 JAWS | 4.7 WAR/162

Kershaw:
JAWS Starting Pitcher (34th):
71.9 career WAR | 49.7 7yr-peak WAR | 60.8 JAWS | 6.4 WAR/162

Hubbell:
JAWS Starting Pitcher (40th):
68.5 career WAR | 47.7 7yr-peak WAR | 58.1 JAWS | 4.8 WAR/162

I'm a huge Koufax fan and Kersh is a Dodger too, but Grove was just...better. As for Kersh and Koufax (which is a big debate in True Blue LA), gotta give it to Koufax based on what went into each season (Kersh pitches a lot less) and post-season performances.