Greatest of all time

[brewing]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'm not saying he was on the juice, but with the standard of evidence we're applying to all the other guys who have been condemned in this thread, the case against Nolan Ryan is vastly greater than it is against Pedro.

I agree. I think it's an attempt to discount Martinez to justify the reputed greatness of Koufax.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by brewing

I agree. I think it's an attempt to discount Martinez to justify the reputed greatness of Koufax.

There was nothing "reputed" about the greatness of Koufax--I saw it as it occurred--other than the length of time it took him to get to that point, and its premature end. He routinely threw an upper '90's fastball that would hop at the end (due to backspin exerting its full effect when the ball's forward impetus began to decline sufficiently, much like the drives some golfers hit), like the one DeGrom of the Mets threw to Vogt in the All-Star Game, starting at the waist and ending up at shoulder level, and a 12 to 6 curve that he always telegraphed, but few could still hit at all. Agree wholeheartedly that Pedro was fantastic!

Great thread,

Larry

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brewing

I agree. I think it's an attempt to discount Martinez to justify the reputed greatness of Koufax.

What pitcher has won 3 unanimous Cy Youngs in 4 years?
What pitcher won a MVP and was runner up twice in a 4 year period?
What pitcher won 3 pitching triple crowns in 4 years?
What pitcher won 2 World Series MVPs in that same 4 year period?
What pitcher threw 2 shutouts in 3 days to clich a world championship?
What pitcher threw a perfect game and 3 no hitters in 4 years?
Reputed is the wrong word, unparalleled is the word you were looking for.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

Reputed is the wrong word, unparalleled is the word you were looking for.

No it's the word I meant. Don't get me wrong, I think Koufax was great. I don't dispute he was the best pitcher on earth for 4 years either.

I don't believe he belongs in the discussion for greatest ever (living or dead) though. Not when considering the ballpark he pitched half his games in and the era he pitched.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brewing

No it's the word I meant. Don't get me wrong, I think Koufax was great. I don't dispute he was the best pitcher on earth for 4 years either.

I don't believe he belongs in the discussion for greatest ever (living or dead) though. Not when considering the ballpark he pitched half his games in and the era he pitched.

Koufax pitched against
Roberto Clemente
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Stan Musisl
Eddie Mathews
Willie Stargell
Willie McCovey
Orlando Cepeda
Frank Robinson
Pete Rose
Lou Brock
Ernie Banks
Ron Santo
Billy Williams
Richie Allen
Richie Ashburn
Nellie Fox
Yogi Berra
Duke Snider
Mickey Mantle
Roger Maris
Harmon Killebrew

I guess the NL really sucked, no talent. There's no excuse for not pitching multiple no hitters every season, an ERA under 1 (He did it in the WS, why not the regular season)., 400 Ks, 30 wins. I guess the Dodgers should have stayed in the Colasium with a 250 ft left field fence. After all, you think that had no impact on his era or other stats. Moving into a real major league park was an unfair advantage for Koufax, as was pitching against no talent in the NL or WS. Striking out 15 Yankees was meaningless, cause that team sucked too. Go on and continue hating the best left handed pitcher of all time.

[darwinbulldog]

Judging a pitcher's historical greatness based on his best four-year run was never a thing before Koufax. It's just something that was created to retrofit the data to make a case for putting him at or near the top of the best pitchers list. Ex post facto analyses like that don't stand up to peer review in fields whose experts have studied statistics. Maybe that's condescending, but it's also true.

The best career is Walter Johnson, Cy Young, or Roger Clemens.

The best season is Tim Keefe, Pud Galvin, Hoss Radbourn, Walter Johnson (1913), Bob Gibson, Dwight Gooden, or Pedro Martinez (2000).

The best game is Kerry Wood, but that could be surpassed today if, for example, someone pitches a perfect game without a ball put in play and strikes out 21 batters.

The best 4 (or 7 or 16.3 or π or .123) year run can be calculated, but I don't really see the point. Even if you choose 4 years (completely by accident of course), it's still not at all clear that Koufax should be #1.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, because the people who think Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever (or even in the top 5) didn't get there by caring about the statistics that empirically do a better job of quantifying a player's contributions to his team's chances of winning games, but hopefully they can at least understand the perspective of those they are arguing against.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, because the people who think Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever (or even in the top 5) didn't get there by caring about the statistics that empirically do a better job of quantifying a player's contributions to his team's chances of winning games, but hopefully they can at least understand the perspective of those they are arguing against.

Probably because the people who argue those stats choose to ignore the serious flaws and errors in their models. For example ERA+. Using a stat like that assumes a uniformity of pitching talent because it measures you against your peers. Comparing across generations can give a seriously flawed result. We just went through a period from Bert Blyleven to Greg Maddux when not a single starting pitcher who entered mlb made the hof. Comparing a pitcher who pitched during this time vs. one who pitched with a high number of hof pitchers is not a valid comparrison.

Above, it was poorly arguement that Koufax unfairly benefited from his home park when historically it has been pretty close to neutral. The fact that during that time, the Dodgers had the lowest staff era in the NL every year, while having one of the worst offenses (8th, 8th, 8th & 6th ) should leave anyone with an ounce of common sense to realize scoring would be abnormally low. It is not that people don't care about those advanced metrics. It is that they are often misused and result in erroneous arguements.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

Above, it was poorly arguement that Koufax unfairly benefited from his home park when historically it has been pretty close to neutral. The fact that during that time, the Dodgers had the lowest staff era in the NL every year, while having one of the worst offenses (8th, 8th, 8th & 6th ) should leave anyone with an ounce of common sense to realize scoring would be abnormally low. It is not that people don't care about those advanced metrics. It is that they are often misused and result in erroneous arguements.

The fact is that Dodger stadium has benefited pitchers since 1962.

It's also fact that each year Koufax pitched there he performed better at home vs the road. It's a very pronounced difference.

1962-1966 Koufax
Home
Faced 2,714 batters, gave up 34 HR
1.37 ERA

Away
Faced 2,681 batters, gave up 55 HR
2.57 ERA

Those are substantial home/road splits.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

We just went through a period from Bert Blyleven to Greg Maddux when not a single starting pitcher who entered mlb made the hof. Comparing a pitcher who pitched during this time vs. one who pitched with a high number of hof pitchers is not a valid comparrison.

Because it just so happens that all the humans who were born between 1951 and 1966 were unable to pitch well? Surely we can agree that's not the most parsimonious explanation for why offensive numbers were up in the 1980s and 1990s.

No one is arguing that Dave Stieb (who put up the best numbers in the 1980s per se) was as good as Tom Seaver (who put up the best numbers in the 1970s per se) or Bob Gibson (1960s), but to ignore park factors and the systematic changes in the game across generations as related to anything other than the pitchers' abilities in doing these comparisons is to conclude that Ed Reulbach was a better pitcher than Felix Hernandez. And that, I argue, is more egregious than putting Dave Stieb in the Hall of Fame would be.

[Joshchisox08]

1. Tyler Flowers
2. Shelly Duncan
3. Ben Grieve
4. Travis Lee
5. Michael Jordan
6. Billy Beane
7. Mario Mendoza
8. Bull Durham
9. Pete Rose JR
10. Tony Gwynn JR

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by brewing

No it's the word I meant. Don't get me wrong, I think Koufax was great. I don't dispute he was the best pitcher on earth for 4 years either.

I don't believe he belongs in the discussion for greatest ever (living or dead) though. Not when considering the ballpark he pitched half his games in and the era he pitched.

It is true that Koufax clearly benefited from both the park he pitched in and the second most friendly era to pitchers of all time (large strike zone; high mound). That said, if you plug Lefty Grove's stats into the same era as Koufax, in Dodger Stadium, using the neutralization factors on www.baseballreference.com, what you get is a whole series of years that are pretty much identical to the best years of Koufax. Grove, however, was great for a much longer period of time, which is why his ERA+ (nearly 50% below league average) is better than Koufax's (about 31%, going by memory). And there is little objective room for dispute that Lefty Grove has to be in any rational discussion of the greatest pitchers of all time (he and Walter Johnson were each right around 50% below league ERA for their careers). Grove was handicapped in win totals because his minor league owner didn't want to sell him until the price was to his liking, and Connie Mack finally anted up.

Terrific thread and discussion!

Larry