Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

Agree. Kershaw might end up with top-10 career stats, but his current postseason record is what we'll remember.

Sorta like AROD vs Reggie. AROD was a much better player, but nobody wanted to see him batting for the home team in the WS! (Well, I did, but I'm a life-long yankee hater.)

[Kenmarks]

Agree with the consensus that longevity counts in determining the GOAT left-hander. But for me, if it was one game my team needed to win, I chose Koufax to pitch for me (and I am a die-hard Giant fan!!)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Longevity seems to be what's at issue for many here. The early part of Koufax's career seems to cancel out for many, any claims Koufax would have to being the greatest of all-time. I understand the argument. If everybody wants to go for Grove, that's fine. I'm not saying Grove wasn't great. He of course, was. I'm just arguing against those who seem to want to downplay just how great Koufax was by overplaying the Chavez angle, the mound, strike zone, and expansion.

I have said Chavez was an asset. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on it, rather than the conscious change on Koufax's part as to how he pitched. And 1961 was the year he changed direction.

I don't care by what percentage his road E.R.A was higher in 1964 over his home E.R.A. You want to say how easy it was to pitch at Chavez. Don Drysdale was no slouch, and his E.R.A that year was 2.02. He was a great pitcher. Why wasn't he down at 0.85? I guess one could go on and on trying to uncover the nuances of just went into all of these statistics. You seem to want to concentrate on the park. I am not saying the park wasn't a factor. But it was not the cause. If Koufax hadn't become a better pitcher, Chavez Ravine wouldn't have helped him.

Also in regard to guys like Grove and Walter Johnson: they enjoyed the same strike zone Koufax did. The height of the mounds varied in those days, as the rules only stipulated that they couldn't be more than 15". But who's to say some of them weren't 15".

The 1960's were a pitching dominant era, because there were great pitchers, who pitched with the strike zone that had existed for the better part of baseball's history up until that time. Some of the game's greatest hitters played then as well who had great offensive numbers. If it's referred to as the second dead ball era, it is not because the ball itself was dead, but because it is much too lively today and everything benefits the hitters.

If you want to use expansion to try to eclipse what Koufax did well what can I say? Knock yourself out, I guess. But you can start throwing in all sorts of intangibles like traveling and night baseball, as well the broadening of the talent pool with the inclusion of black and Latino players.

Looking at Grove's E.R.A.'s I'm surprised that he's getting a pass on winning over 20 games a couple of years with E.R.A.'s over 3.00.

Finally again, I understand the longevity argument if you're going to argue for a best of all-time. I think Koufax's case is unique for consideration with a short career. Many players take a couple of years to get off the ground. Koufax took a little longer for the reasons I explained. But once he did, what he did was phenomenal. What makes his peak so interesting, is that it stopped at it's height, unlike most players, who usually go downhill. Koufax struggled and surmounted his control issues, and dazzled more and more each year. Three times his E.R.A. was under 2.00. It's looks like we're going to disagree as to why he was as great as he was and just how great. But that's okay. I've really enjoyed discussing this with you.

Really quick, when speaking about context, I agree that one can't ignore that Bonds took steroids. But that was cheating. Koufax was a champion in every sense of the word.

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.

[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.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I guess... if you believe statistics tell the whole story, and sums up baseball.
I don't. There is much more to this beautiful game and individual's greatness than just these numbers being thrown back and forth.

But, for you stat/science heads, if you really want to use your method to "tell what happened..." you forgot to analyze the molecular structure of the infield dirt at each Pitcher's home park (I think each granule was .000000000001229 larger in Lefty Grove's home park than at Dodger Stadium, giving Grove's infielders a significant advantage over time on Koufax by increasing ground-outs), humidity and air pressure, tides and gravitational forces (including the number and average weight of fans at the stadium)... and this should be done for every game pitched for each of these top left-handed pitchers.

You might be onto something!! Lol

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

1) This appears to be your source on the Strike Zone. Note the section under "1963" stipulating the referenced change, expanding the strike zone. You an compare it to the 1950 adjustment and see that it enlarged the strike zone. this can be verified in literally hundreds of sources, the 1963 adjustment is not some minor footnote but defined the hitter/batter context until 1969, when some pitcher advantages were removed because pitchers were dominating the league by a wide margin with the ruleset: https://www.baseball-almanac.com/art..._history.shtml


2) I did acknowledge it. I explained at length that the math does not suggest this is actually true, as his road numbers stayed about the same and his home park performance drastically improved. If it was not the park (how then, is his ERA 300% higher elsewhere if its not the park?), then it would be a similar improvement everywhere. It is factually not.

That Koufax is a better pitcher than his teammates is, again, irrelevant narrative that has 0 to do with the question. I am and have been arguing that Koufax is not the greatest lefty ever, or even the second or third really. I have no idea why people want to argue against a position that Koufax was a bum, worse than his teammates at the time, or something else which I nor anyone else has made. I even referred to his peak in my last post as "mind boggling" and included him on my short list of the best, which is the first reply to this entire thread. You keep ignoring the verifiable facts, actual data, to argue against a point which I do not hold and have never made.


3) Yes, I'm a fetishist because I don't care about unsourced narrative claims that contradict verifiable fact. You've just put the nail in my coffin, I concede. Koufax = GOAT. You won with this stellar analysis of the data.

[howard38]

/

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

Kershaw wasn't able to pitch under pressure. The game is played to win championships and Kershaw has cost his team. Koufax has 2 WS MVPs plus a career postseason ERA under 1. ERA+ is a flawed stat to base an argument on. It is as much a product of the quality of pitchers in your league as anything. Pitchers in weak eras like Grove and Kershaw are going to look better than they really were. Koufax is the best, even with his shorter career, the combination of being great in the regular season and even greater in the postseason can't be match by any other lefty.

Koufax got out before the strike zone was shrunk, and the mound lowered.

ERA+ is a flawed stat? Ok. FIP isn't. Walks, hit batters, strikeouts and home runs allowed. All it looks at. It completely eliminates the strength of the defense behind you.

Sandy Koufax 1961-1966 2.16 FIP
Clayton Kershaw 2011-2016 2.26 FIP

And the other stats...

ERA
Koufax 2.19
Kershaw 2.06

WHIP
Koufax 0.970
Kershaw 0.908

K:BB ratio
Koufax 4.16:1
Kershaw 5.62:1

And again, Koufax had a bigger strike zone, and a 15", not a 10" mound.

Average NL ERA
1961-1966 3.65
2011-2016 4.19

Spread
Koufax 2.19 ERA, league ERA 3.65, spread -1.46
Kershaw 2.06 ERA, league ERA 4.19, spread -2.13

Before Koufax began his peak run in 1961, he pitched from 1955-1960, totaling 103 games started (174 appearances, in total), throwing 691 2/3 innings. He had a 4.10 ERA, a 100 ERA+ (league average), and a FIP of 3.94.

Before he started his peak of 2011-2016, Clayton Kershaw pitched from 2008 to 2010, totaling 83 starts, throwing 483 innings. He had a 3.17 ERA, a 126 ERA+, and a FIP of 3.32.

In his second season, 2009, Kershaw was 8-8 in 30 starts. He had a 2.79 ERA in 171 innings of work, striking out 185 batters, had a 143 ERA+, and a 3.08 WHIP. His 6.3 hits allowed per 9 innings pitched was the best in baseball. His 3.08 FIP was the 5th best in the National League.

By his second year in baseball, after only 21 starts as a rookie, Clayton Kershaw was an elite pitcher.

1961, the first year Sandy Koufax was an All Star, and received any MVP votes, was his seventh season in the Majors.

There's no comparison to make! Clayton Kershaw's peak was better, and it's not particularly close.

Clayton Kershaw's spread against the rest of his league was better than Koufax's spread against the rest of the league. Kershaw's ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and strikeout to walk ratio are all markedly better than Koufax's. Their FIP are virtually identical, which is mind boggling, considering that scoring was up during Kershaw's peak, and he pitched on a shorter mound, with a smaller strike zone. And he became an All Star caliber pitcher by his second season. It took Koufax until his seventh season to reach that level, and even then, his ERA 3.52 in 1961 was only about a half run better than league average (4.03).

And beyond all that, beyond each player's 6 year peaks, Clayton Kershaw has pitched at a high level. In 2017, which isn't included in Kershaw's 6 year peak, he led all of Major League Baseball with 18 wins. He led the NL with a 2.30 ERA, struck out 202 batters (against 30 walks), and he had a league best 179 ERA+. His K:BB ratio, 6.73:1, was the best in the National League.

That 179 ERA+ (which you say is flawed) is better than all but two of Koufax's best seasons, 1964 (186) and 1966 (190).

And last year? Clearly on the down side of Kershaw's career, now, he was still 8th in the Cy Young, going 16-5, with a 3.03 ERA (league ERA was 4.39, the highest in the National League since 2007), and 189 strikeouts in 178 innings.

Kershaw became a great pitcher much faster. His peak has been better, under tougher conditions for pitchers, and it has lasted far longer than Koufax's did. So, just stop this nonsense.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Billy Wagner

[the 'stache]

And before anybody starts in with the "Koufax was God in the post season", has anybody looked at the teams he beat to win those rings? I think a little context would help.

In 1959, the Dodgers beat the White Sox. A team that ranked 6th (of 8 AL teams) in runs scored, 8th with 97 home runs, and 6th in OPS. Koufax was 0-1 with a 1.00 ERA against a team that was 94-60 because of its pitching staff. The White Sox, led by 22-10 Early Wynn, had an American League best 3.29 ERA. Their lineup was "Punch and Judy".

Koufax was the Series MVP In 1963, facing the Yankees. But this wasn't the "Yankees" that had ruled the 50s and early 60s. Yes, they won 104 games, but, again, it was on the strength of their pitching. Whitey Ford was 24-7. Jim Bouton 21-7. The Yankees' 3.02 ERA was the second best in the American League. The Bronx Bombers? Yogi Berra had retired. The Roger Maris that had been the MVP In 1960 and 1961, played only 90 games in 1963, hitting a whopping 23 home runs. Mickey Mantle's body broke down. The Commerce Comet played only 65 games that season. He played 5 games in June, missed all of July, played 8 games in August (going 1 for 8, with a pinch hit home run), and hit 3 home runs in September. From June 1st to September 28th, Mantle hit 5 home runs. He totaled 72 at bats the final four months of the season. And in the series? He was 2 for 15 with 1 home run. He could barely walk. Roger Maris was 0 for 5 in the 1963 World Series.

Elston Howard, Joe Pepitone and Tom Tresh led the "Bronx Bombers" with 28, 27 and 25 home runs.

Quite the murderer's row Koufax was "owning", there.

In 1965, the Dodgers beat the Minnesota Twins. Their big bomber was Harmon Killebrew. Hmm, he was hurt at the end of the 1965 season, too.

I'm sensing a pattern here!

Killebrew played two games in August, August 1st and 2nd. He played 10 games in September and October, totaling 38 at bats. Between August 1st, and October 3rd, Killebrew hit .167 across a total of 42 at bats. 3 home runs. In the 1965 World Series, 7 games, he had 6 hits. 1 home run, 2 RBI.

The rest of the "vaunted lineup" Koufax faced?

C Earl Battey
1B Don Michner
2B Jerry Kindal
SS Zolio Versalles
3B Rich Rollins
LF Bob Allison
CF Jimmy Hall
RF Tony Oliva

Oliva was the AL MVP runner up in his second season. Other than him, and the aforementioned Killebrew, who was clearly hurt, nobody else in that lineup would scare me. Versalles won the MVP in a career year, and never got another MVP vote again. He scored a lot of runs, had a lot of doubles and triples. He also led the American League with 122 strikeouts.

The '66 Series, Koufax made one start, and lost it against the Baltimore Orioles. He had a 1.50 ERA across 6 innings.

He didn't face one offense at nearly full strength in any of the first three series he pitched in. The Sox had no offense. No slugger. The Yankees had lost Berra, and Maris and Mantle were non factors, injured. The Twins? Killebrew was playing injured. He dislocated his elbow his elbow on August 2nd, and had one of the worst seasons of his career.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bow down before Koufax's mastery in the World Series.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

1) This appears to be your source on the Strike Zone. Note the section under "1963" stipulating the referenced change, expanding the strike zone. You an compare it to the 1950 adjustment and see that it enlarged the strike zone. this can be verified in literally hundreds of sources, the 1963 adjustment is not some minor footnote but defined the hitter/batter context until 1969, when some pitcher advantages were removed because pitchers were dominating the league by a wide margin with the ruleset: https://www.baseball-almanac.com/art..._history.shtml


2) I did acknowledge it. I explained at length that the math does not suggest this is actually true, as his road numbers stayed about the same and his home park performance drastically improved. If it was not the park (how then, is his ERA 300% higher elsewhere if its not the park?), then it would be a similar improvement everywhere. It is factually not.

That Koufax is a better pitcher than his teammates is, again, irrelevant narrative that has 0 to do with the question. I am and have been arguing that Koufax is not the greatest lefty ever, or even the second or third really. I have no idea why people want to argue against a position that Koufax was a bum, worse than his teammates at the time, or something else which I nor anyone else has made. I even referred to his peak in my last post as "mind boggling" and included him on my short list of the best, which is the first reply to this entire thread. You keep ignoring the verifiable facts, actual data, to argue against a point which I do not hold and have never made.


3) Yes, I'm a fetishist because I don't care about unsourced narrative claims that contradict verifiable fact. You've just put the nail in my coffin, I concede. Koufax = GOAT. You won with this stellar analysis of the data.

1) Duh. We all know that strike zone was changed in 1950 and then in 1963. The fact that you feel compelled to point that out shows you are missing completely what I am saying. Everybody knows that. But doesn't the site which you posted, and was the one I was referencing, also say:

"1887

The batter can no longer call for a 'high' or 'low' pitch.

A (strike) is defined as a pitch that 'passes over home plate not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulders."

And:

"1907

A fairly delivered ball is a ball pitched or thrown to the bat by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman that passes over any portion of the home base, before touching the ground, not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulder. For every such fairly delivered ball, the umpire shall call one strike."

???

There are NO adjustments until 1950 when the strike zone is change to armpits to the top of the knees.


So unless Lefty Grove was pitching for anyone between 1950 and 1963, he enjoyed the same strike as did pitchers from 1963 - 1968. The only difference was the 1950 stipulation that the mound had to be at 15".


2) No, not really. You haven't acknowledged the human element. Koufax changed his style. The bricks at Chavez had nothing to do with that. And his road numbers did NOT stay the same. His E.R.A. on the road goes down beginning in 1961. 1962's E.R.A. would have been lower if he hadn't pitched those last four starts trying to recover from the crushed artery in his left palm.


3) And I didn't call you a "fetishist". I said you were making "a bit of a fetish" out of the statistics. Not quite the same thing. It wasn't a personal attack. In my opinion, you aren't reading the away stats correctly and are ignoring or downplaying information that doesn't correspond with your pre-conceived ideas. It's too bad you've resorted to making petty remarks.

All along, I have not been arguing that Koufax was the GOAT. I have been saying that the period of time you acknowledge is "mind boggling" was not due primarily to the factors you cite. I didn't say the factors you cite didn't play a role. Koufax improved independently of those factors as well. That's the difference in our opinion. If you want to deny that aspect of the story, go right ahead.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And before anybody starts in with the "Koufax was God in the post season", has anybody looked at the teams he beat to win those rings? I think a little context would help.

In 1959, the Dodgers beat the White Sox. A team that ranked 6th (of 8 AL teams) in runs scored, 8th with 97 home runs, and 6th in OPS. Koufax was 0-1 with a 1.00 ERA against a team that was 94-60 because of its pitching staff. The White Sox, led by 22-10 Early Wynn, had an American League best 3.29 ERA. Their lineup was "Punch and Judy".

Koufax was the Series MVP In 1963, facing the Yankees. But this wasn't the "Yankees" that had ruled the 50s and early 60s. Yes, they won 104 games, but, again, it was on the strength of their pitching. Whitey Ford was 24-7. Jim Bouton 21-7. The Yankees' 3.02 ERA was the second best in the American League. The Bronx Bombers? Yogi Berra had retired. The Roger Maris that had been the MVP In 1960 and 1961, played only 90 games in 1963, hitting a whopping 23 home runs. Mickey Mantle's body broke down. The Commerce Comet played only 65 games that season. He played 5 games in June, missed all of July, played 8 games in August (going 1 for 8, with a pinch hit home run), and hit 3 home runs in September. From June 1st to September 28th, Mantle hit 5 home runs. He totaled 72 at bats the final four months of the season. And in the series? He was 2 for 15 with 1 home run. He could barely walk. Roger Maris was 0 for 5 in the 1963 World Series.

Elston Howard, Joe Pepitone and Tom Tresh led the "Bronx Bombers" with 28, 27 and 25 home runs.

Quite the murderer's row Koufax was "owning", there.

In 1965, the Dodgers beat the Minnesota Twins. Their big bomber was Harmon Killebrew. Hmm, he was hurt at the end of the 1965 season, too.

I'm sensing a pattern here!

Killebrew played two games in August, August 1st and 2nd. He played 10 games in September and October, totaling 38 at bats. Between August 1st, and October 3rd, Killebrew hit .167 across a total of 42 at bats. 3 home runs. In the 1965 World Series, 7 games, he had 6 hits. 1 home run, 2 RBI.

The rest of the "vaunted lineup" Koufax faced?

C Earl Battey
1B Don Michner
2B Jerry Kindal
SS Zolio Versalles
3B Rich Rollins
LF Bob Allison
CF Jimmy Hall
RF Tony Oliva

Oliva was the AL MVP runner up in his second season. Other than him, and the aforementioned Killebrew, who was clearly hurt, nobody else in that lineup would scare me. Versalles won the MVP in a career year, and never got another MVP vote again. He scored a lot of runs, had a lot of doubles and triples. He also led the American League with 122 strikeouts.

The '66 Series, Koufax made one start, and lost it against the Baltimore Orioles. He had a 1.50 ERA across 6 innings.

He didn't face one offense at nearly full strength in any of the first three series he pitched in. The Sox had no offense. No slugger. The Yankees had lost Berra, and Maris and Mantle were non factors, injured. The Twins? Killebrew was playing injured. He dislocated his elbow his elbow on August 2nd, and had one of the worst seasons of his career.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bow down before Koufax's mastery in the World Series.

Koufax and the Dodgers faced the American League pennant winners. Apparently the best stats, don't make champions.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I agree with you totally on Mattingly, and I agree this is a fun debate. But if we were giving Koufax the benefit of modern medicine, we should probably give it to Grove, too, right?

Mattingly don't have the stats to be hall of fame. One really great year. Never had a 40 homer season and NEVER was in world series.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Koufax and the Dodgers faced the American League pennant winners. Apparently the best stats, don't make champions.

Except they do. The 1963 Yankees had the #2 offense in the AL. The 1965 Twins had the #2 offense in the AL. The 1966 Orioles had the #1 offense in the AL. I guess some expect the Dodgers to play the AL All Star team in the World Series for the stats to count.

[Frank A]

Spahn!!!!!!!!

[Robbie]

I'm going to chime in one more time here...

Especially for the "Anti-Koufax", "stat-head" faction, I want to clarify that I never said stats are unimportant, or are not critical to consider ... I said that they do not give the complete picture... they are selective, leave things out, and do not tell us everything.

Unlike G1911, I believe a great pitcher's ability to teach and share their craft adds to their greatness. I think if you ask the Braves pitching staff about the value of having the knowledge of Greg Maddux, even when Maddux wasn't pitching, they would agree. This has held true even after his playing days. I believe this adds to Maddux's greatness. So again I will ask, which other top 10 lefty besides Koufax had the knowledge and ability to teach and mentor another all-time great pitcher?
And BTW, which of the top 10 lefties did Johnny Sain coach or mentor?

One thing that I put weight and merit into, that the stat heads put little to none, is what the best players to have played the game in the past 100 years have to say on the subject. They may actually know something about this that we seemingly don't. Casey Stengel and many other old-timers saw and played against Carl Hubbell and Lefty Grove, and also saw Koufax pitch 20-25 years later. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Yogi Berra, Ernie Banks, Joe Morgan, and many other great HOFers played against Koufax and have also seen Randy Johnson’s career. And the common thread is that since Koufax pitched, a majority of the living HOFers from that point forward already have and would still tell you that Koufax was the best left-handed pitcher ever.

To my knowledge, there was never, and is not that same consensus that Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Warren Spahn or Randy Johnson is the greatest lefty ever… although Spahn gets a lot of respect (and deservedly so) for having the most wins ever for a left-hander.

This following is from the SABR website, with credit to them and the writer Marc Aaron;

The great Ernie Banks described what it was like to face Koufax. “It was frightening. He had that tremendous fastball that would rise, and a great curveball that started at the eyes and broke to the ankles. In the end you knew you were going to be embarrassed. You were either going to strike out or foul out.” Banks said, “He was the greatest pitcher I ever saw. Most of the time we knew what was coming…. but it didn’t matter.”

Does this in itself mean that Koufax was the best and you can ignore statistics? Of course not. But given that the statistics are generally great for all the guys being discussed, maybe more weight should be put into what the people who know best have to say. Maybe Stengel, Mays, Aaron, Berra, Banks, Stargell, Morgan, Et al. are onto something.

"I know (Sandy) Koufax weakness. He can't hit."
--- Whitey Ford

One last thing….

There has been a lot made about the height of the mound at Dodger Stadium when Koufax pitched. Well, I don’t know if anybody has brought this up, but:

Randy Johnson was 9 or 10 inches taller than Sandy Koufax. So, even though Koufax pitched on a mound that was as much as 5 inches higher than the modern mound, Randy Johnson had the advantage of a much higher release point than Sandy Koufax. So, Johnson was taller, had longer arms, and released the ball at a point much closer to the plate.

Should Randy Johnson be considered greater because of the advantage of his height, or should Koufax be considered greater because he did not have the same advantages?

Sandy Koufax threw the ball as hard or harder than Randy Johnson did, but 35 years earlier… without the specialized training techniques, coaching, science on mechanics, health and other advances, and modern day pampering.

Koufax had no chance to develop before the big leagues. Stat-heads blame him for his early record and stats... when in truth, he deserves a lot of credit for overcoming this obstacle. Most players would have folded.

So... Yes, shorter career. Early career ending ailment. But still, Koufax became the best Left Handed Pitcher the game has ever had.

Ok…. This is fun but I’m all debated out! 😊

If you don’t like Koufax, I’m going with Eppa Rixey.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And before anybody starts in with the "Koufax was God in the post season", has anybody looked at the teams he beat to win those rings? I think a little context would help.

In 1959, the Dodgers beat the White Sox. A team that ranked 6th (of 8 AL teams) in runs scored, 8th with 97 home runs, and 6th in OPS. Koufax was 0-1 with a 1.00 ERA against a team that was 94-60 because of its pitching staff. The White Sox, led by 22-10 Early Wynn, had an American League best 3.29 ERA. Their lineup was "Punch and Judy".

Koufax was the Series MVP In 1963, facing the Yankees. But this wasn't the "Yankees" that had ruled the 50s and early 60s. Yes, they won 104 games, but, again, it was on the strength of their pitching. Whitey Ford was 24-7. Jim Bouton 21-7. The Yankees' 3.02 ERA was the second best in the American League. The Bronx Bombers? Yogi Berra had retired. The Roger Maris that had been the MVP In 1960 and 1961, played only 90 games in 1963, hitting a whopping 23 home runs. Mickey Mantle's body broke down. The Commerce Comet played only 65 games that season. He played 5 games in June, missed all of July, played 8 games in August (going 1 for 8, with a pinch hit home run), and hit 3 home runs in September. From June 1st to September 28th, Mantle hit 5 home runs. He totaled 72 at bats the final four months of the season. And in the series? He was 2 for 15 with 1 home run. He could barely walk. Roger Maris was 0 for 5 in the 1963 World Series.

Elston Howard, Joe Pepitone and Tom Tresh led the "Bronx Bombers" with 28, 27 and 25 home runs.

Quite the murderer's row Koufax was "owning", there.

In 1965, the Dodgers beat the Minnesota Twins. Their big bomber was Harmon Killebrew. Hmm, he was hurt at the end of the 1965 season, too.

I'm sensing a pattern here!

Killebrew played two games in August, August 1st and 2nd. He played 10 games in September and October, totaling 38 at bats. Between August 1st, and October 3rd, Killebrew hit .167 across a total of 42 at bats. 3 home runs. In the 1965 World Series, 7 games, he had 6 hits. 1 home run, 2 RBI.

The rest of the "vaunted lineup" Koufax faced?

C Earl Battey
1B Don Michner
2B Jerry Kindal
SS Zolio Versalles
3B Rich Rollins
LF Bob Allison
CF Jimmy Hall
RF Tony Oliva

Oliva was the AL MVP runner up in his second season. Other than him, and the aforementioned Killebrew, who was clearly hurt, nobody else in that lineup would scare me. Versalles won the MVP in a career year, and never got another MVP vote again. He scored a lot of runs, had a lot of doubles and triples. He also led the American League with 122 strikeouts.

The '66 Series, Koufax made one start, and lost it against the Baltimore Orioles. He had a 1.50 ERA across 6 innings.

He didn't face one offense at nearly full strength in any of the first three series he pitched in. The Sox had no offense. No slugger. The Yankees had lost Berra, and Maris and Mantle were non factors, injured. The Twins? Killebrew was playing injured. He dislocated his elbow his elbow on August 2nd, and had one of the worst seasons of his career.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bow down before Koufax's mastery in the World Series.

You convinced me. Koufax was mediocre at best and very lucky.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Billy Wagner

I'm not crazy about 1-inning relievers in the Hall, and don't think Eck belongs but...

If we're putting those guys in the Hall, Wagner belongs. 15 year career, exactly 1 non-good season. 1.43 ERA and 104 K in 69 innings - in his last year, as a 38-year old.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The great Ernie Banks described what it was like to face Koufax. “It was frightening. He had that tremendous fastball that would rise,

Given that it's literally impossible for a fastball to rise, please forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Randy Johnson was 9 or 10 inches taller than Sandy Koufax. So, even though Koufax pitched on a mound that was as much as 5 inches higher than the modern mound, Randy Johnson had the advantage of a much higher release point than Sandy Koufax. So, Johnson was taller, had longer arms, and released the ball at a point much closer to the plate.

Should Randy Johnson be considered greater because of the advantage of his height, or should Koufax be considered greater because he did not have the same advantages?

Sandy Koufax threw the ball as hard or harder than Randy Johnson did, but 35 years earlier… without the specialized training techniques, coaching, science on mechanics, health and other advances, and modern day pampering.

1) This is laughable. C'mon. Surely you can see the difference between height and a different pitching mound?

2) You don't know that Koufax threw harder than Johnson.


Of course guys like Aaron, Banks, Mays, and so on are going to be biased toward Koufax. How come you're not quoting Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn or Will Clark?

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Given that it's literally impossible for a fastball to rise, please forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.


1) This is laughable. C'mon. Surely you can see the difference between height and a different pitching mound?

2) You don't know that Koufax threw harder than Johnson.


Of course guys like Aaron, Banks, Mays, and so on are going to be biased toward Koufax. How come you're not quoting Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn or Will Clark?

Because they never faced Koufax. Duh

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cammb

Because they never faced Koufax. Duh

But Mays, Aaron and Banks faced Grove and Randy Johnson? News to me.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Koufax got out before the strike zone was shrunk, and the mound lowered.

ERA+ is a flawed stat? Ok. FIP isn't. Walks, hit batters, strikeouts and home runs allowed. All it looks at. It completely eliminates the strength of the defense behind you.

Sandy Koufax 1961-1966 2.16 FIP
Clayton Kershaw 2011-2016 2.26 FIP

And the other stats...

ERA
Koufax 2.19
Kershaw 2.06

WHIP
Koufax 0.970
Kershaw 0.908

K:BB ratio
Koufax 4.16:1
Kershaw 5.62:1

And again, Koufax had a bigger strike zone, and a 15", not a 10" mound.

Average NL ERA
1961-1966 3.65
2011-2016 4.19

Spread
Koufax 2.19 ERA, league ERA 3.65, spread -1.46
Kershaw 2.06 ERA, league ERA 4.19, spread -2.13

Before Koufax began his peak run in 1961, he pitched from 1955-1960, totaling 103 games started (174 appearances, in total), throwing 691 2/3 innings. He had a 4.10 ERA, a 100 ERA+ (league average), and a FIP of 3.94.

Before he started his peak of 2011-2016, Clayton Kershaw pitched from 2008 to 2010, totaling 83 starts, throwing 483 innings. He had a 3.17 ERA, a 126 ERA+, and a FIP of 3.32.

In his second season, 2009, Kershaw was 8-8 in 30 starts. He had a 2.79 ERA in 171 innings of work, striking out 185 batters, had a 143 ERA+, and a 3.08 WHIP. His 6.3 hits allowed per 9 innings pitched was the best in baseball. His 3.08 FIP was the 5th best in the National League.

By his second year in baseball, after only 21 starts as a rookie, Clayton Kershaw was an elite pitcher.

1961, the first year Sandy Koufax was an All Star, and received any MVP votes, was his seventh season in the Majors.

There's no comparison to make! Clayton Kershaw's peak was better, and it's not particularly close.

Clayton Kershaw's spread against the rest of his league was better than Koufax's spread against the rest of the league. Kershaw's ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and strikeout to walk ratio are all markedly better than Koufax's. Their FIP are virtually identical, which is mind boggling, considering that scoring was up during Kershaw's peak, and he pitched on a shorter mound, with a smaller strike zone. And he became an All Star caliber pitcher by his second season. It took Koufax until his seventh season to reach that level, and even then, his ERA 3.52 in 1961 was only about a half run better than league average (4.03).

And beyond all that, beyond each player's 6 year peaks, Clayton Kershaw has pitched at a high level. In 2017, which isn't included in Kershaw's 6 year peak, he led all of Major League Baseball with 18 wins. He led the NL with a 2.30 ERA, struck out 202 batters (against 30 walks), and he had a league best 179 ERA+. His K:BB ratio, 6.73:1, was the best in the National League.

That 179 ERA+ (which you say is flawed) is better than all but two of Koufax's best seasons, 1964 (186) and 1966 (190).

And last year? Clearly on the down side of Kershaw's career, now, he was still 8th in the Cy Young, going 16-5, with a 3.03 ERA (league ERA was 4.39, the highest in the National League since 2007), and 189 strikeouts in 178 innings.

Kershaw became a great pitcher much faster. His peak has been better, under tougher conditions for pitchers, and it has lasted far longer than Koufax's did. So, just stop this nonsense.

Kershaw over Koufax? Really? How about crunch time in the playoffs when it really counts? Kershaw is a joke compared to Koufax IMO Kershaw's Post season stats?? 9-11 with a whopping 4.63 ERA and that is with an always stacked Dodgers line up, any other questions? How many World Series wins??

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

But Mays, Aaron and Banks faced Grove and Randy Johnson? News to me.

Got to play by the rules, anecdotal evidence proves Koufax is the best and is superior to data; anecdotal evidence for others is irrelevant since they didn’t face Koufax.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Got to play by the rules, anecdotal evidence proves Koufax is the best and is superior to data; anecdotal evidence for others is irrelevant since they didn’t face Koufax.

Whoops, my bad. Thanks.

[CMIZ5290]

I'm asking everybody out there..... Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Clayton Kershaw? Forget about the differences in the times, pitching mound, and players, but on a level playing ground, who would you take?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I'm asking everybody out there..... Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Clayton Kershaw? Forget about the differences in the times, pitching mound, and players, but on a level playing ground, who would you take?

I would take Kershaw if we are talking about the 1955-1960 Koufax.

For people who want to say Koufax was the best, but then conveniently limit their definition of Koufax to his best several seasons, I'll ask this:

Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Len Barker on the day he pitched a perfect game?

[wondo]

How about we frame it in this context. If you were a general manager, who would you pick at the start of his career and he would have the same career?

I would pick pretty much Grove or Spahn over anyone.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by wondo

How about we frame it in this context. If you were a general manager, who would you pick at the start of his career and he would have the same career?

I would pick pretty much Grove or Spahn over anyone.

Me too. Spahn or Grove will give you twice as many career wins.

[Chris-Counts]

I still say Grove was better. In fact, when considering that Grove missed several years of his prime due to having his contract owned by the independent Orioles, and had to suffer through the juiced ball era of 1929-30, I consider him a viable candidate for the greatest pitcher who ever lived.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Me too. Spahn or Grove will give you twice as many career wins.

D

I would go with Bo Belinski to start a career

[wondo]

Originally Posted by cammb

D

I would go with Bo Belinski to start a career

I would go with Bo Belinsky and his female companions. Slam dunk.

His no-hitter was in his fourth start.

[Touch'EmAll]

Gotta go with Sidd Finch.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Gotta go with Sidd Finch.

Right handed

[cammb]

Originally Posted by wondo

I would go with Bo Belinsky and his female companions. Slam dunk.

His no-hitter was in his fourth start.

f


That's what I meant. Wasn't,t Jayne Mansfield one of his conquests?

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I'm asking everybody out there..... Game 7 of the World Series, would you rather have Sandy Koufax or Clayton Kershaw? Forget about the differences in the times, pitching mound, and players, but on a level playing ground, who would you take?

Hey Kevin

That's a great question.

And, my 1st choice is Lefty Gomez [World Series W - L record is 6 - 0 (1932 - 1939)].

My 2nd choice is Whitey Ford [World Series W - L record is 9 - 4 (1950 - 1962)].


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey Kevin

That's a great question.

And, my 1st choice is Lefty Gomez [World Series W - L record is 6 - 0 (1932 - 1939)].

My 2nd choice is Whitey Ford [World Series W - L record is 9 - 4 (1950 - 1962)].


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

My vote goes to Koufax game 7 versus Twins , 2-0 shutout on 2 days rest. Second would be Jack Morris game 7 10'inning shutout of Atlanta

[Shoeless Moe]

It can't be Kershaw, at least not until he redeems himself a couple times in the Post Season.

It can't be Koufax, yes some very great years, but longevity and late start does him in. (It's almost like saying Eric Gagne was better then Mariano Rivera)

It comes down to Lefty Grove vs Randy Johnson

World Series - 2-1 Grove (but RJ got one, and 3-0 with a 1.04 era vs a very tough 2001 Yankees lineup, Kershaw needs something like that before he can even get into the discussion)
All Star - 10-6 Johnson
Cy Youngs - 5-n/a Johnson (granted not fair to Grove, but Johnson's 5 is more than any other lefty in the history of it, and won it in both the NL & AL)
Wins - 303-301 Johnson
ERA - 3.29-3.06 Grove
K's - 4,875-2,266 Johnson (all of the above was pretty close between Johnson and Grove, but here is where RJ starts to step on the gas)
Perfect Games - 1-0 Johnson (pitched his vs the Braves who would finish 1st, Koufax pitched his against a Cubs team that finished 8th out of 10 teams)
No Hitters - 1-0 Johnson (threw his NoNo 14 years b4 his perfect game, un-hitable when he was young, un-hitable when he was older)
Birds killed - 1-0 Johnson
Made Kruk turn his helmet around and nearly shit his pants in the batters box - Johnson

Stuck out 19 in a game twice, 18 once (Neither Grove or Kershaw have reached 16 once).


Johnson pitched from 1988 to 2009.........so he did all of the above in the heart of the steroid ERA.

PS - RJ pitched until he was 45, Koufax 30.

Also ask yourself these questions if you had a big league career.

Would you want to have a great 4 year run, arm shot, career over at 30? Would you want to be great/dominant each and every season, but continue to tank in the post season over and over? Or would you want to pitch for 22 seasons until you were 45, win a WS, win 5 Cy Youngs, throw a NoNo and a Perfect game, K almost 5,000 hitters? Also, would you as a batter with the game on the line step into the box and try your luck with Lefty Grove or Randy Johnson, I'm guessing you'd rather take your chances with Grove. Ask Wade Boggs who he'd pick. Johnson was feared!

BEST EVER Randy Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2RsY9x8ftg

[thecapeleague]

agreed.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Tabe

1) This is laughable. C'mon. Surely you can see the difference between height and a different pitching mound?

I sure can. That's the point. Koufax had more talent. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Tabe

Of course guys like Aaron, Banks, Mays, and so on are going to be biased toward Koufax. How come you're not quoting Wade Boggs or Tony Gwynn or Will Clark?

How do you know that Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Will Clark, and even Steve Balboni would not agree with Frank Robinson, Aaron, Mays, McCovey, Banks, Stargell, and other losers like that?

Have you ever heard Tony Gwynn say there was a greater left handed pitcher than Sandy Koufax? I grew up in SoCal, and I haven't. That does not mean he did not comment otherwise, however I think he would agree with Aaron, Mays, etc...

Anyway, I would love to hear a conversation between Willie McCovey (RIP) and Will Clark... It would likely go something like this...

CLARK: Hey Willie, what was it like hitting against Koufax?

McCOVEY: Pretty impossible. Getting a piece of a pitch was a victory. I was only able to manage a lifetime .148 batting average against Koufax.

CLARK: Well guys like you, Mays, Aaron, and Banks just don't know how to hit. You should really watch some film on me, Wade Boggs and Steve Balboni to see how real players do it! I would have hit at least .200 against a scrub like Koufax, Boggs would do so well that he would be known for more than riding a horse in Yankee Stadium, and Balboni would have hit an inside-the-park single.

McCOVEY: Thanks for the advice, Will.


In other words... Are you seriously putting up the opinions of Wade Boggs, and Will Clark at the same stature and weight as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, Willie McCovey, etc, etc.? Tony Gwynn...okay. Those other guys? Pleeeeeeeeeeeze!

[Jim65]

The most unreliable way to judge a player is from someone elses opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they almost always stink.

Bob Uecker's career BA against Koufax was .429, if Uecker said Koufax was easy to hit against, would you believe him?

Ralph Kiner said Ewell Blackwell was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, does anyone believe that Blackwell was an all-time great?

No because stats are facts, not opinions.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The most unreliable way to judge a player is from someone elses opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they almost always stink.

Bob Uecker's career BA against Koufax was .429, if Uecker said Koufax was easy to hit against, would you believe him?

Ralph Kiner said Ewell Blackwell was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, does anyone believe that Blackwell was an all-time great?

No because stats are facts, not opinions.

Exactly. I'm sure Sandy's mother thought he was the best.... maybe her opinion should be used as fact.
STATS are STATS for a reason.
Otherwise, flip a coin to make your decisions. It's just as reliable and relevant as someone's opinion.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The most unreliable way to judge a player is from someone elses opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they almost always stink.

Bob Uecker's career BA against Koufax was .429, if Uecker said Koufax was easy to hit against, would you believe him?

Ralph Kiner said Ewell Blackwell was the toughest pitcher he ever faced, does anyone believe that Blackwell was an all-time great?

No because stats are facts, not opinions.

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by rats60

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

I don't reject or accept all advanced metrics. They are a tool. Everything has flaws but opinions have more flaws than all stats put together.

I never made an argument for Grove, I voted for Randy Johnson, who I actually saw pitch many many times.

[Frank A]

This is a game of wins and losses. All the rest of these dumb stats mean nothing. So sick and tired about hearing all this other crap when the game comes down to wins and losses. All these stat guys should step back and take a break from this nonsense.

[Greg Sonk]

Originally Posted by rats60

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

The key difference here is that in one case, someone creating a metric set out to reflect what happens on a baseball field separately from their opinions of any individual player. This is exactly why we have stats like FIP-, ERA+ or any other adjusted pitching metric you prefer. You're attempting to contextualize and consider all of baseball history with a relatively equal slant. You would expect that to be seen as a good thing on a pre-war baseball board rather than someone trying to play the "real stats" card that went out with Duran Duran.

When you ask a player the same question, you're overwhelmingly likely to get either someone they played against or idolized as a kid. More often than not, they're also basing this on what they personally experienced rather than the total package. In the days before video rooms, what percentage of Koufax's pitches do you think Player X saw?

To be clear, I'm not blaming players for any of this. That's human nature. But to be blunt, player evaluation skills don't necessarily overlap with playing skills. There's a reason baseball front offices hiring pools have undergone a seismic shift.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Then I guess you reject all advanced metrics because those are all statistical models based on the designer’s opinion. It is a good thing that Koufax has the stats to back up being called the greatest lefty of all time. Grove on the other hand doesn’t, he just has opinions of some who have made models.

It probably got buried way up in the thread, but I asked you specifically which stats you trust/value and which you don't, if perhaps you could answer?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Frank A

This is a game of wins and losses. All the rest of these dumb stats mean nothing. So sick and tired about hearing all this other crap when the game comes down to wins and losses. All these stat guys should step back and take a break from this nonsense.

Pitcher Wins are a meaningless stat. If a pitcher gives up 8 runs and wins because his team scored 9, do you think that pitcher is better than a guy who pitches a complete game and loses 1-0?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robbie

In other words... Are you seriously putting up the opinions of Wade Boggs, and Will Clark at the same stature and weight as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks, Willie McCovey, etc, etc.? Tony Gwynn...okay. Those other guys? Pleeeeeeeeeeeze!

Wade Boggs? Absolutely. Yeah, I'm going to listen to a guy who hit .356 - combined - his first 7 years in the majors.

Will Clark was just a name I thought of when trying to think of a left-handed hitter who played during Randy Johnson's career.

The point was to select some top guys who played against Johnson but not Koufax. Guys are ALWAYS going to have a bias toward the players they played with/against and not guys they only saw. And they're ALWAYS going to remember just the top part of their career not the other parts. When somebody talks about how tough Greg Maddux was to hit, they are ignoring the latter part of his career where he got lit up frequently. That's what Mays/Aaron/etc are doing.

It's hypocritical to uncritically accept the opinions of Mays & Aaron because they played against Koufax and not Johnson but not accept the (potential) opinions of guys who played against Johnson but not Koufax.

[7nohitter]

Bruce Hurst. That 12-6 curve was devastating.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

It probably got buried way up in the thread, but I asked you specifically which stats you trust/value and which you don't, if perhaps you could answer?

ERA, WHIP and FIP. I have problems with other stats as they are often misused and don't translate well across eras (or positions for WAR).