[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Responding with numbered points to make this a little easier:

1) The math suggests that too much emphasis is not being placed on the change in ballpark. If it was how he pitched, then his road era would not be 300% higher in 1964. It would not be essentially the same as it was in his 'before' period for most of the years after the magic change. These are things we can actually look at, with data. The data does not support the allegation. At all.


2) If you "don't care" what the math suggests and the fact that his road/home splits are extremely abnormal, well, what is the point? If we ignore verifiable data in favor of narratives we like, there is nothing to say. The decision is made before the examination. I don't care about people's narratives, I care about things that actually check out as true. One pitchers case is based on data and things that are verifiable as true. The other is based on dismissing such data.


3) Your strike zone allegation is also demonstrably false. It was redefined in the rules before the 1963 season, expanded from the armpits to the top of the shoulder. The knees were also adjusted. Again, this is not a narrative, it is actual, verifiable fact. Sandy responded by cutting almost a full run off his ERA from his excellent 1962 season, his first really good year, and posting his mind-boggling 4 year peak between 1963-1966 with this expanded strike zone in place. His peak aligns EXACTLY with a material change in the strike zone in favor of pitchers. And it also aligns with a pronounced change across MLB, as run production fell and pitching dominated the 60's.


4) As for the mound, the rule was that the mound had to be 15 inches or less. In 1950, it was changed so that it had to be 15 inches, an advantage to the pitcher.


5) If folks are going to try and use integration as a reason to dismiss pre-1947 pitchers, than it is absolutely fair to point that as the talent pool widened, more and more teams were quickly added to the league and Sandy's numbers were absolutely helped by beating up on new expansion teams that performed terribly. He was not alone in this, Gibson and Marichal's impressive numbers were also run up in this environment.


6) Grove's ERA's are higher, because he pitched in a high offensive context. Compared to the league average, Grove outpaced Koufax by a wide margin, 148 to 131 ERA+'s, which account for league and park. Context. Do we seriously not think there is a difference between offense in the AL in 1930, and the NL in 1963? Again, this is not a narrative. It is verifiable fact, we can look at what occurred over the course of the entire league during their careers (a huge sample size of batters), we can easily prove the 1930's AL is a much higher run environment. If context doesn't matter and we don't care about longevity, then Ferdie Schupp is the greatest lefty of all time. But nobody will make that argument, only for Koufax is the argument that we should ignore context and time.


7) If we are going to ignore verifiable data, ignore context, and pretend major rule changes simply did not occur that are clearly in the rule books there is no point into any actual examination. Those looking for concrete evidence do not find narratives to provide any actual evidence, and those relying on narratives that run counter to the demonstrable facts will never be convinced by any amount of data. There is a significant difference between players we like and who the best was. I have a sentimental attachment to Ferris Fain, and he was an excellent ballplayer, but he isn't better than Lou Gehrig. I have a sentimental attachment to Joe Dimaggio, but he isn't better than Willie Mays or Ty Cobb, because a preponderance of the data does not suggest that he was, but suggests the opposite. I think we should recognize these as two separate things. Data should guide to the conclusion, not make the conclusion and then try to form the argument after the fact.


Koufax was great for 4 years, in a time and place heavily advantageous to the pitcher, in which pitchers dominated, and had failed to produce until the conditions were in place and the rules re-written in his favor. Grove was great for twice as long in a context in which batters were heavily favored and dominated his entire career. I don't think it's close, when you look at the totality of the data. If data to the contrary exists, I would change my conclusion. I have no attachment to Grove, and the era he played is one of the periods of baseball history I am least interested in, but the data in context is compelling.

Just real quick - I do care about statistics. My point about Koufax's 1964 E.R.A. spread was that his home E.R.A. was much lower than the other major ace on the staff. With an E.R.A that low, it was going to be much lower percentage-wise than his away E.R.A. which was also very good. Yes, I know you say it was the park. But Koufax's home E.R.A. improved year to year with a 1.75 in '62, a 1.38 in '63, and a 0.85 in '64. And then the last two years were below 2.00. Saying something increased 300% is misleading. If one person is in the room and another one enters, I can say the population increased by 100%.

Regarding the strike zone, I read that it was changed to the armpits to the knees in 1950 from where it had been previously since 1887, which was from the shoulders to the knees. I read that off a site called Baseball Almanac. Maybe they're wrong? If they are, I would be glad to be directed to the correct history. As to the change in the height of the mound, I cited the change in earlier posts.

I was only poking fun about Grove's E.R.A due to the seemingly selective hysteria about Koufax's.

At this point, I think you're making a bit of a fetish out of statistics and completely ignoring the fact that Koufax changed his approach to pitching in 1961 and started to get better results. You've never acknowledged that. Did bringing back the strike zone to it's pre-1950 level help? Yes, I think it was an advantage for all pitchers. Did Chavez help? Yes. But again, it was an asset, not a cause. If it were, then all the Dodger pitchers should have had years like Koufax. Koufax grew as a pitcher. He had a long apprenticeship where he didn't put up the numbers. But he learned and got better. That shouldn't be ignored in your analysis.