Poll - Greatest Living Player

[aro13]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, he was factually not "very good" until 1961 - he performed literally at the league average until 1961. I have said not a single word about divine intervention or a backup catcher, I corrected a demonstrably false claim about his career through 1960 that stats after 1960 are utterly irrelevant too.

Huh? You're using ERA+ without understanding that Koufax had a huge disadvantage pitching in the Coliseum. Take out his coliseum numbers and his ERA+ changes to 30% above average. That's a very good pitcher. His road numbers were literally no different from 1960 to 1966. He was a very good pitcher in 1960 and 1961.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by aro13

Huh? You're using ERA+ without understanding that Koufax had a huge disadvantage pitching in the Coliseum. Take out his coliseum numbers and his ERA+ changes to 30% above average. That's a very good pitcher. His road numbers were literally no different from 1960 to 1966. He was a very good pitcher in 1960 and 1961.

ERA+ accounts for park. You made the claim that Koufax was very good through 1960. Your new argument now is that was very good in 1960 and 1961. Your original claim as quoted was and is demonstrably false. Your new version may not be.

[aro13]

Originally Posted by G1911

ERA+ accounts for park. You made the claim that Koufax was very good through 1960. Your new argument now is that was very good in 1960 and 1961. Your original claim as quoted was and is demonstrably false. Your new version may not be.

All I said was Koufax was very good up until 1961 and then starting in 1962 he was great. ERA + accounts for park, but not for the extreme differences in parks for various pitchers. The same way OPS+ doesn't account for the huge advantage some players had playing in Fenway Park or Coors Field.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by aro13

All I said was Koufax was very good up until 1961 and then starting in 1962 he was great. ERA + accounts for park, but not for the extreme differences in parks for various pitchers. The same way OPS+ doesn't account for the huge advantage some players had playing in Fenway Park or Coors Field.

He performed at the league average level until 1961. That is not “very good.”

[aro13]

Originally Posted by G1911

He performed at the league average level until 1961. That is not “very good.”

You're using one statistic that doesn't accurately reflect how well he pitched. But if you think he was average until 1962 and then suddenly became the best pitcher ever, that's fine.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by aro13

You're using one statistic that doesn't accurately reflect how well he pitched. But if you think he was average until 1962 and then suddenly became the best pitcher ever, that's fine.

You know what, mea culpa. All of the players people like are just better than objectivity suggests despite the math. Koufax was very good even as he gave up league average runs and did a definably average performance at his job.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

You know what, mea culpa. All of the players people like are just better than objectivity suggests despite the math. Koufax was very good even as he gave up league average runs and did a definably average performance at his job.

If he was arguing that Spahn was the greater player over Koufax methinks suddenly Koufax’s peak stats would be more important to you out of a desire to be contrarian.

[packs]

A-Rod did win two MVPs in New York and he came up big in the postseason in 2009, but my memories of his time on the team were mostly of a guy who seemed to be very good when it didn't always matter and had a tendency to disappear when it did.

I wouldn't say Jeter was better than A-Rod when you're talking about stats or even natural ability, but he is someone most Yankees fans have always seen as a guy you could count on to come up in a big spot. He also won a WS MVP to back it up. I think that counts for something even if it's hard to show with stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

A-Rod did win two MVPs in New York and he came up big in the postseason in 2009, but my memories of his time on the team were mostly of a guy who seemed to be very good when it didn't always matter and had a tendency to disappear when it did.

I wouldn't say Jeter was better than A-Rod when you're talking about stats or even natural ability, but he is someone most Yankees fans have always seen as a guy you could count on to come up in a big spot. He also won a WS MVP to back it up. I think that counts for something even if it's hard to show with stats.

I have the same recollection of Boggs in Boston, as I've posted, but it's probably not accurate.

[aro13]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have the same recollection of Boggs in Boston, as I've posted, but it's probably not accurate.

Watching Boggs play in Boston for his entire career I tend to agree with you by the eye test. However, with Boggs he never deviated from his plan regardless of the situation. He would virtually always take the first pitch, he didn't venture out of the strike zone, he hit mostly everything to center and left-center. His career stats indicated he wasn't nearly as good with 2 outs and runners in scoring position (.306 to .335) and late and close situations (.309 to .335). And because he didn't ever deviate he didn't drive in as many runs. The Red Sox were a slow base running team to begin with, but a majority of Boggs two out singles were hit to left field and particularly at Fenway that is not going to score a runner from second. His value is enormous because of his OBP but objectively and subjectively he wasn't nearly as good when it counted.