Greatest of all time

[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.

[aro13]

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.

Dodger Stadium was an unbelievable pitcher's park. It affected all of their numbers. In 1963 they posted virtually the same record at home (50-31) as on the road (49-32). At home they scored 296 runs and allowed 248 on the road they scored 344 runs and allowed 302. That is a constant between 1962 and 1966. Dodger Stadium inflated their pitchers numbers and hurt their offensive players.

The notion that the Dodgers had a bad offense is not true. The 1962 Dodgers scored more runs then the 1961 Yankees. They had good offensive players whose numbers suffered in Dodger Stadium.

[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.