Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards
Yes his career home ERA at the Coliseum wasn't great, not sure about his numbers at Ebbets. But EVERYONE'S numbers were awful at the Coliseum.
People also seem to lose track of the fact that Koufax put it all together as a starter around 23 years old and became elite at 24. Perfectly normal ages for a pitcher to "get there" Do we really penalize him for the Dodgers not being able to send him to the minors because of the bonus baby rules?
If he had been able to develop normally maybe his greatness comes out even earlier, who knows. At the very least he doesn't have those first 4 or 5 years weighing down his career numbers because they're in the minors.
Hell there are a number of elite pitchers who don't even start getting their first cups of coffee until about the time he started to put it all together. I just don't see the sense in "punishing" him for career totals that are deflated by those years that should've been spent in the minors.
Also, those years that everyone loves to hate were actually right about league average, not some dumpster fire. So you get a guy who was average from age 19 to age 23-24. I did the work in another thread somewhere but there are tons of HOF pitchers who weren't very good until that 23 -24 year old range, and they NEVER had a 6 year stretch like Koufax's peak. IF you're going to argue against Koufax the better argument is him being done at 30, rather than criticism of his learning years that should've been spent in the minors.
And again I didn't vote for him as the greatest living player.
|
All of that is completely legitimate but Koufax still played those years so they still count for/against him.
Did he get good at 24 because he figured it out? Or because they raised the mound, increased the size of the strike zone, added two awful teams via expansion, and moved into Dodger Stadium?