Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[packs]

Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.

When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.

The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles (it's the first thing listed on his plaque). He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.

When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.

The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles. He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.

So you can't identify a single year to support your claim. No, they didn't have FIP, but it's a quick and handy way to break out the prime years without copying in 30 different stats and taking 2 hours. I gave the source link, you can see for yourself. Vance's prime overlaps with Grove, every year except 1924. They both dominated the late 1920's to 1930, and then Vance washes out, like Koufax.

Vance is older because his career begins at age 31. His overlap with Grove is the SAME as Marichal's with Koufax (actually, Vance and Grove have more career overlap years than Koufax and Marichal or Koufax and Gibson). Grove and Vance were in different leagues, so obviously they did not draw MVP votes against each other. I am sure you are aware that that is terrible argument to make.

Again, different standards for Koufax than everyone else, because we need to show that Koufax had strong competition and Grove pitched against a bunch of nobody pitchers. These arguments are growing increasingly absurd, rather than actually making a reasoned case for the Koufax claims.

[packs]

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

[packs]

I give in.

[Touch'EmAll]

Just looking at ERA - Home vs Away, Koufax' peak years significantly (over .50) better at Home. Career totals for Grove...Home ERA 3.04, Away ERA 3.05

Then I looked at Bob Gibson, Career ERA Home 3.08, Away 2.76

And Gibson's historic year 1968 Home ERA 1.41, Away 0.81

Wonder what Gibby's numbers would look like if he pitched where Koufax did - Dodger Stadium.

Just a note - mid 1930's NL league batting average about .275 and mid 1960's NL league batting average about .251

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

Looking up his 1968 again, some stuff:

- Gibson had a 2.14 ERA in his losses. I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he had 9 losses in 1968.

- He had a four-game losing streak. He had a 1.87 ERA during that streak.

- His ERA after the Sept 2nd game was 0.99.

- His shortest starts were 7 IP, in each of his first two starts. After that, 8 IP minimum in every start, including 11 twice, and 12 once.

- Never once lifted in the middle of an inning. So never once knocked out of a game.

- Tied the record for fewest appearances (34) while throwing 300+ innings.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

I never said he was competing against Vance for league leads. Read it again, it even credits them for winning crows in the same exact year. Vance’s peak directly and absolutely overlaps Grove’s. The claim was that it did not, which is 100% false, as we can see who did what in what year. Grove was starting his run as the best in the AL as Vance had his brief peak as the best NL pitcher.

I am amazed that the year well-documented events happened is so controversial.

[Touch'EmAll]

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.