Quote:
Originally Posted by cammb
Could it be that the pitching was superior? I can’t believe all the naysayers out there. Koufax was the most dominant pitcher of his time. His election to hall At such an early age proves that.
|
Yeah, the way I look at it, if the offense was "down" it wasn't because of any shortcomings on the part of the hitters, it was just that the pitching was THAT good. And if any players from other eras had had the chance to hit against the pitching of the 60's they wouldn't necessarily have done any better.
Ultimately, you can't really compare eras, although it's a lot of fun. Would batting averages have been as high as they were during the early days if the fielders back then used modern gloves? Would the pitching of the 1960's have been even more effective if they were using the dead ball of the early days? Would night baseball and traveling had any effect on the earlier generation's numbers? How would the dimensions of the ballparks had an effect on play?
I don't think you can say that Koufax getting the Cy Young awards and his early election to the hall, proves that he was "the greatest". But those honors attest to the universal acclaim and high esteem in which he was held by those who saw him play day to day at that time.
I understand the longevity argument in naming a GOAT. But I think what is missing from some of the analysis on this thread, is a respect for what Koufax actually DID. First of all, it wasn't just his record and his numbers, but it was HOW he attained those numbers. He wasn't a junk ball pitcher who was extremely effective. The guy was a force of nature on the mound. Maybe he could have stuck around longer if he learned the knuckleball, or concentrated on throwing off-speed stuff, thus easing up on his arm. But he continued to pitch the way he pitched. Also, to go out ON TOP as he did, was unheard of. Most athletes have their great years and then begin a slide. What Koufax did reminds me of the home run that Mantle hit which almost went out of the stadium in 1963. It was still rising when it hit the facade. (And yes, I do know that it's possible that Josh Gibson may have actually hit one out of the original Yankee Stadium, and that Frank Howard might have as well one foggy evening.)
I have argued that Koufax's success is largely attributable to his own natural talent and the change he made in his approach to his pitching he made in 1961.
The arguments that I think are most pathetic on this thread are the ones pointing to the first several years of Koufax's career. as some kind of detriment. Koufax left that pitcher behind. Yeah, he had a longer apprenticeship than many of the players we think of as greats. But it shouldn't be used against him. The fact that it was longer, and that after it, he found himself and did achieve greatness, is something that should be in his favor.
Yes, the larger strike zone was beneficial to all the pitchers of the time, and Chavez Ravine was a good park to pitch in. But no other contemporary Dodger pitcher achieved what Koufax achieved. The quotes I've seen by the greatest hitters of that era, don't say that he was the greatest of all time, but the greatest of THAT time. Or if they don't say he was the greatest of that time, they say things that let us know that he was not just another great pitcher. There WAS something special about Koufax.