Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
Theoretical questions are theoretical. If you're considering Koufax at all, he must be Koufax already, no?
|
If length doesn't matter, Ferdie Schupp (since we are ignoring time and league and offensive context and longevity etc.) in all of 1916 was far better than Koufax's best, by almost a full run. If we must only consider Koufax who is "Koufax already", why don't we apply this same exact standard to every other pitcher, ignore their bad years or lack of longevity and count only their absolute best? Is there any logical reason to treat Koufax so vastly different from every other pitcher?
By your reasoning, Koufax still isn't the best. The Koufax argument relies on longevity being a key factor but lasting for exactly four years, no more. This standard makes absolutely no sense.