Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[jgannon]

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

Not saying pitchers had it easy in any era, but that 10-year stretch that coincided with Koufax' dominance is known as the "second deadball era" pretty much universally.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Not saying pitchers had it easy in any era, but that 10-year stretch that coincided with Koufax' dominance is known as the "second deadball era" pretty much universally.

Really? Well, that's news to me. Maybe I've been out of the loop. The way I've always seen it, is that that ball was of course much livelier than the dead ball of "The Dead Ball Era". Today's ball is just hopped up. Boring home runs, and the game almost looks like a video game. The only thing that might be exciting about it, to me, is there can sometimes be some excellent infield play.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

Many other lefties were formidable. Many other lefties were champions. Many others had batters of their era in awe of them. It was a deadball era, look at the league ERA. It is frequently referred to as the "second deadball era".

It is not revisionist history to say he is not the greatest lefty of all time. He has never been the consensus pick (there isn't a consensus pick at all, really).

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many other lefties were formidable. Many other lefties were champions. Many others had batters of their era in awe of them. It was a deadball era, look at the league ERA. It is frequently referred to as the "second deadball era".

It is not revisionist history to say he is not the greatest lefty of all time. He has never been the consensus pick (there isn't a consensus pick at all, really).

Low E.R.A. doesn't mean the ball was dead. If you miss the ball completely, it doesn't matter how live or dead it is! But as pointed out earlier by rats60, there were a lot of great hitters in the N.L. who hit a lot of home runs, and hit for high averages. And if the league E.R.A. was low during that time, I'd like to see how some of today's hitters would have fared against the likes of Koufax, Gibson, etc. Maybe the the E.R.A. would have been even lower!

Again, my original advocating for Koufax was not to definitively say he was the greatest lefty of all time. It's really impossible to say who was "the best". Why do we have to have a "best" anyway? At any rate, you have the different eras and so many different factors affecting how the players performed. I just think there was a bit of disparagement toward Koufax on the thread, and that Koufax wasn't getting his due.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Low E.R.A. doesn't mean the ball was dead If you miss the ball completely, it doesn't matter how live or dead it is! But as pointed out earlier by rats60, there were a lot of great hitters in the N.L. who hit a lot of home runs, and hit for high averages. And if the league E.R.A. was low during that time, I'd like to see how some of today's hitters would have fared against the likes of Koufax, Gibson, etc. Maybe they the E.R.A. would have been even lower!

Again, my original advocating for Koufax was not to definitively say he was the greatest lefty of all time. It's really impossible to say who was "the best". Why do we have to have a "best" anyway? At any rate, you have the different eras and so many different factors affecting how the players performed. I just there was a bit of disparagement toward Koufax on the thread, and that Koufax wasn't getting his due.

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

I've heard guys say, and I quote, "I think Mickey Mantle might have even been able to play today". Maybe i'm a little out of step with modern thinking. But to me, pitcher dominated doesn't mean a dead ball. I'd say it was a fair ball. And it was a better game when the runs were actually earned, instead of given out like Hostess Twinkies via the hopped up ball. Today's small parks and players wearing enough protective equipment to make a football player blush also favor the batter. Brushing back batters is not a part of the game the way it was. You do make a good point a couple posts back, that if a pitcher does well in this environment, that is to his credit. But today's pitchers only go 6 or 7 innings. Koufax went out there and pitched complete games through pain. You say there were other formidable pitchers. Not many like Koufax. He was one of baseball's greatest pitchers. That's why he was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his brief peak. His greatness was undisputed and universally recognized. There was enough of a consensus then.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were one and two in the NL (2 and 3 in the majors behind Killebrew) for HR's in the 1960's with 375 and 350 respectively. Those totals would have led the majors in the 1940's, 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. They would have been second in the majors in the 1920's, and 1930's.

The 1960's were the first decade to produce 5 300 home run hitters adding Frank Robinson and Willie McCovey. So you get 3 exclusive NL players hitting over 300 in the decade and one who played half the decade in the NL.

If you look for 250 Home run hitters you add Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard, and Ron Santo (Billy Williams hit 249) to the ranks of NL players (Howard about half his total as a teammate of Koufax's but making the argument that the league wasn't weak) All of the aforementioned players would have finished top 6 in the 1950's and top 5 in the 1970's in all of MLB.

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

The average home runs hit by a player in the Majors (approximations since I had to read them off a graph that didn't label it's data points)

1920's 6.8, 1930's 9, 1940's 8.5, 1950's 15.5, 1960's 16.1, 1970's 14.2, 1980's 14.5

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by G1911

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

Ignoring context completely. All the best pitchers are in the deadball eras, or context matters. Do we really believe the top 30 or so pitchers were in just two short periods of baseball history? You have to completely ignore longevity, and completely ignore context and era in order to come out with Koufax on top. That you are citing that Grove played in an offensive era as a negative is strange. If we are ignoring context and longevity, whichever left had the single greatest season in the deadball era is the permanent best lefty ever. 5 years of Koufax or 9 of Grove? I'm taking 9 of Grove without even having to stop and think. Koufax pitched in an environment perfectly suited for pitchers and was great for 5 years. Grove was great for more than twice as long in a context NOT friendly at all to pitchers.

Kershaw > Koufax. Spahn > Koufax. Johnson > Koufax.

ERA+
Grove 148
Koufax 131

ERA crowns
Grove 9
Koufax 5

FIP crowns
Grove 8
Koufax 6

WHIP crowns
Grove 5
Koufax 4

Strikeout Crowns
Grove 7
Koufax 4

Innings Pitched
Grove 3,940
Koufax 2,324

WAR
Grove 106.7
Koufax 48.9

[BlueDevil89]

You'd be hard pressed to find a pitcher lefty or righty who had as good a season as this man did in 1972...and with a team that won only 59 games no less.

Steve Carlton 1972 Topps #751 BVG 7 NM.jpg

[timn1]

Give me a break. This type of comparison is just plain silly if you don’t take the eras into account. ERAs in the two pitchers’ eras are so different it’s almost like a different game. And there never was a pitcher’s park like Dodger Stadium in the 1960s.

The clincher for me is the nine ERA titles Grove won. I think that’s the most amazing pitching record in baseball history.
Maybe you can explain how all the great hitters on Grove’s teams enabled him to do that.


Oh yeah, one more thought about those strikeout totals. All Grove did was lead thie league in Ks seven straight years.

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

[packs]

On a purely talent level I still think Waddell was the best lefty to ever pitch. He needed nothing but his arm to propel himself into the HOF. He lacked the mental capabilities to really pitch, but it ultimately didn't matter.

When you put it all together, I don't see how anyone could argue against Randy Johnson. He pitched at the height of the steriod era and against players who were by and large cheating, yet it didn't matter. Imagine him in a clean game. There wouldn't have even been a game.

All due respect to Koufax, but he was no Randy.

[Touch'EmAll]

If there had been the Cy Young Award when Grove pitched, how many would he have won? Somewhere between minimum 5 to as many as 7 , perhaps ?

[Jason19th]

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

I see three more seasons for Pettite and Sabathia, I wonder how close this is now? (I'm too lazy to research.)

Cool stat!!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was.

Well, sure. But they're ignoring all the places and times he wasn't great. They're ignoring all the factors that helped make him great - the unique deadness of Chavez Ravine, the gigantic strike zone that coincided with his best run, the height of the mound, and so on. Yeah, it was basically impossible to hit against him under those conditions. But the numbers show he was good - not great, but good - everywhere else.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Well, sure. But they're ignoring all the places and times he wasn't great. They're ignoring all the factors that helped make him great - the unique deadness of Chavez Ravine, the gigantic strike zone that coincided with his best run, the height of the mound, and so on. Yeah, it was basically impossible to hit against him under those conditions. But the numbers show he was good - not great, but good - everywhere else.

I wonder why all Dodgers pitchers didn't have his numbers...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I wonder why all Dodgers pitchers didn't have his numbers...

Why didn't Sandy put up a 1.37 ERA anywhere he pitched more than twice except Dodger Stadium? Of all the ballparks he pitched in 5 or more times, why did he have an ERA over 3.50 in almost half of them (6 of 13)? Did he just not try as hard at Crosley Field?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Why didn't Sandy put up a 1.37 ERA anywhere he pitched more than twice except Dodger Stadium? Of all the ballparks he pitched in 5 or more times, why did he have an ERA over 3.50 in almost half of them (6 of 13)? Did he just not try as hard at Crosley Field?

I agree. Another thing is that Koufax' best 5 years were right after expansion, when 4 new teams were frankensteined together with guys who otherwise wouldn't have been in the Big Leagues.

From 1962-1966, Sandy was 17-2 against the Mets, and 14-2 against the Colts/Astros, for example. He was aided elsewhere by the general watered-down talent level the expansions had across the leagues.

I'll go with Grove as the best all-time. But if I was a team owner and could have any lefty for his entire career, I'd take Spahn and sleep well at night.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Well, sure. But they're ignoring all the places and times he wasn't great. They're ignoring all the factors that helped make him great - the unique deadness of Chavez Ravine, the gigantic strike zone that coincided with his best run, the height of the mound, and so on. Yeah, it was basically impossible to hit against him under those conditions. But the numbers show he was good - not great, but good - everywhere else.

gg

Hahaha. Koufax was good not great. What a joke. Evidently you never saw him pitch.

[cardsagain74]

You can't assume all those extra wins from the missed military service for Spahn though.

He still ended up logging about 5200 innings. Without the military service, his arm could've easily worn down a few years earlier.

[oldjudge]

Whitey Ford had a better career ERA than Koufax, better WAR, and better win loss differential.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

gg

Hahaha. Koufax was good not great. What a joke. Evidently you never saw him pitch.

He's saying he was good, not great, on the road. Looking at his road statistics, if Koufax was great on the road, there are a LOT of great pitchers. His numbers outside of LA are not particularly impressive, in the context of league averages.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's saying he was good, not great, on the road. Looking at his road statistics, if Koufax was great on the road, there are a LOT of great pitchers. His numbers outside of LA are not particularly impressive, in the context of league averages.

Name another pitcher who retired with 27 wins and 27 complete games in his last year. He decided not to risk any more injuries to his left arm. The guy was getting better every year. You guys get carried away with those crazy stats. By the way since he was ONLY a GOOD pitcher, name five other pitchers who you deem better. Be careful.

[Robbie]

Question: What's it like trying to hit off of Sandy Koufax?

Answer: "Ever try drinking coffee with a fork?"
--- Willie Stargell

Besides believing Koufax was the best lefty ever (with Grove an extremely close 2nd ), if I could choose to see only one pitcher, out of all those mentioned pitch a ballgame, Koufax would be the clear and easy choice.

[Powell]

Mickey Lolich deserves honorable mention. He was the American League all time left handed strikeout king for decades until CC Sabathia took over. His 1968 World Series performance is legendary with 3 complete game wins, 2 hits including the only homer of his career and he beat Bob Gibson on the road in game 7 with a complete game on 2 days rest!!! In the bottom of the 6th with the score tied 0-0 he picked Lou Brock and Curt Flood off first base. Incredible performance!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Question: What's it like trying to hit off of Sandy Koufax?

Answer: "Ever try drinking coffee with a fork?"
--- Willie Stargell

Besides believing Koufax was the best lefty ever (with Grove an extremely close 2nd ), if I could choose to see only one pitcher, out of all those mentioned pitch a ballgame, Koufax would be the clear and easy choice.

Yogi Berra, when informed that Koufax was 25-5 during the regular season in 1963: "How the hell did he lose five?"

Gene Mauch when asked if Koufax was the best lefty he ever saw: "The best righty too".

Hank Aaron: "You talk about the Gibsons the Drysdales and the Spahns. And as good as those guys were, Koufax was just a step ahead of them.

John Roseboro: "I think God came down and tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'Boy, I'm gonna make you a pitcher.' God only made one of him."

Andy Etchebarren: "See, you need a certain amount of time for the eye to see what it sees and what it needs to tell the brain what it needs to be told, and then your hands gotta move. And that is all taking place in less than a second. With Koufax, your eyes couldn't tell your brain to react in time."

On Koufax's fastball seeming to rise and accelerate just before it got to the plate, umpire Doug Harvey: "I don't know why or how. In thirty-one years, I've never seen anybody else who could do that...Nobody's ball did what Koufax's ball did."

Stan Musial: "Rose up just before it got to the plate."

Carl Erskine: "It reaccelerated. It came again."

On Koufax's curve ball, Jim Wynn: "A mystic waterfall."

Orlando Cepeda: "It sounded like a little tornado. Bzzzzzzz. And it looked like a high fastball. Then it dropped ---BOOM---in front of you. So fast and noisy, it scared you."

These quotes are from Jane Leavy's book on Koufax.

I just don't buy the idea that his road record disqualified him from being considered great. The way some people are talking, it seems like it was a moral outrage that his E.R.A wasn't below 0.00 on the road.

In 1962, his season ended early. Yeah, his home E.R.A was significantly lower at at 1.75 compared to his road E.R.A at 3.53. But he only played half a season.

In 1963 the split was 1.38 at home and 2.31 away. 2.31 is an E.R.A most pitchers would kill for.

1964: 0.84 (astounding) to 2.93. With that 2.93 I guess they should have shipped him down to the minors.

1965: 1.38 to 2.72. Another horrible year.

1966: 1.52 to 1.96. His arthritic elbow was what probably got the away number down below 2.00. Let's face it, Koufax probably knew someone in management who let him hang on to his job.

Just to reiterate, there were other great lefties who you could make a case for as being the all-time best lefty. I'm just arguing against the idea that Koufax was just good. He was great. He was recognized as such by his peers, and his record speaks for itself.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cammb

Name another pitcher who retired with 27 wins and 27 complete games in his last year. He decided not to risk any more injuries to his left arm. The guy was getting better every year. You guys get carried away with those crazy stats. By the way since he was ONLY a GOOD pitcher, name five other pitchers who you deem better. Be careful.

If the Dodgers had any kind of offense, Koufax would have won ~35 games in 1966. He only gave up 4 earned runs twice in 41 starts, in a loss and a no decision. In 3 other no decisions, he gave up 1, 1 and 2 earned runs. In his 8 other losses, the Dodgers scored a total of 6 runs, less than one run per game. He was pretty good on the road, with a sub 2 ERA and sub 1 WHIP. No other lefty has had a season like that. 1963 was another season Koufax should have won 30 games. He went 25-5 and he had 5 no decision where he gave up 0 or 1 runs, but got no support. I can only name one pitcher better than Sandy Koufax, his name is Walter Johnson.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

Name another pitcher who retired with 27 wins and 27 complete games in his last year. He decided not to risk any more injuries to his left arm. The guy was getting better every year. You guys get carried away with those crazy stats. By the way since he was ONLY a GOOD pitcher, name five other pitchers who you deem better. Be careful.

You obviously did not read the post you are replying too. I clarified another poster had quite explicitly said he was only good, not great, on the road. The statistics bear that judgement out. Road splits are crazy stats? We are supposed to only judge off a players last season? My list of 5 better lefties is the first reply to this thread.

Be careful? Why do I need to be careful? What’s the threat here exactly?

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

You obviously did not read the post you are replying too. I clarified another poster had quite explicitly said he was only good, not great, on the road. The statistics bear that judgement out. Road splits are crazy stats? We are supposed to only judge off a players last season? My list of 5 better lefties is the first reply to this thread.

Be careful? Why do I need to be careful? What’s the threat here exactly?

Be careful who you say is better because you don't want to look like a fool. I rest my case with the players you named.

[thecomebacker]

Big Unit, no question. Regular season dominance aside, He put the Diamondbacks on his back and carried them to a World Title against the early 2000’s Yankees. The freakin Diamondbacks!
.....and he basically did what he did his entire career against Juicers.

[Vintageclout]

1. Grove
2. Kershaw
3. Johnson
4. Carlton
5. Koufax
6. Spahn

Grove - 9 ERA titles is sheer dominance over an extended period of time - no questions asked.

Kershaw - possibly on pace to be the best ever but still falls somewhat short to Grove. His WHIP; K/BB & ERA numbers are incredible.

Johnson - took him a while to figure it out, but when he did, his peak value numbers are top 5-10 of all-time for ALL pitchers

Carlton - great longevity & peak value but a few inexplicable very poor seasons (including 20 losses) place him a notch below Johnson

Koufax - best peak value lefty of all-time but 5 dominating seasons just doesn’t cut it with regard to being the best ever. You can say all you want IF he had longevity he would be the best ever.....true. But, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. “IFs” simply don’t cut it in the world of rankings.

Spahn - VERY underrated. Most southpaw wins of all-time. Issue with Spahn is he could not dominate a lineup at the level of the 5 pitchers above him.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

1. Grove
2. Kershaw
3. Johnson
4. Carlton
5. Koufax
6. Spahn

Grove - 9 ERA titles is sheer dominance over an extended period of time - no questions asked.

Kershaw - possibly on pace to be the best ever but still falls somewhat short to Grove. His WHIP; K/BB & ERA numbers are incredible.

Johnson - took him a while to figure it out, but when he did, his peak value numbers are top 5-10 of all-time for ALL pitchers

Carlton - great longevity & peak value but a few inexplicable very poor seasons (including 20 losses) place him a notch below Johnson

Koufax - best peak value lefty of all-time but 5 dominating seasons just doesn’t cut it with regard to being the best ever. You can say all you want IF he had longevity he would be the best ever.....true. But, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. “IFs” simply don’t cut it in the world of rankings.

Spahn - VERY underrated. Most southpaw wins of all-time. Issue with Spahn is he could not dominate a lineup at the level of the 5 pitchers above him.

No offense, but for you to place Sandy Koufax below Steve Carlton is laughable....

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

No offense, but for you to place Sandy Koufax below Steve Carlton is laughable....

Carlton’s best years of 1972, 1969, 1977 and 1980 are just a bit below Koufax’s 4 year run, though I think Carlton in 72 is probably the best single year either of them had. Carlton pitched over 2x as many innings, which is massive value, and was effective until age 40. Koufax’s bit better peak, or double the amount of good seasons? I can see it either way, but would take Carlton’s large number of good seasons + a peak not that far below, though oddly spaced out and no consecutive (which surely gives Koufax a bit wider gap on the peak).

[Fred]

Kind of difficult to decide on any single lefty pitcher given the different eras in which they played ball. Koufax supporters have a good case for Sandy but something that plays into this should be longevity and dominance. For Koufax, he pitched in 12 seasons but in only less than half of his career could he be considered totally dominant. So, why not pull out the best 5 years of any pitcher and see how it all shakes out. Koufax, an ace? Yes! The best lefty? Debatable.

[999Tony]

As others gave said, Grove’s four year peak is equal or better than koufax, and his peak and career about twice the length of koufax. Koufax had some great years but Grove was just as dominant and for much longer. Les the league in strikeouts seven straight years, wins several years, complete games three years in a row, even led the league in saves one year. More than twice the war and even bigger individual seasons.

Didn’t just lead in era, also in era plus and fip so he really was that dominant.

[packs]

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

[packs]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of season as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher. Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

Isn't the Koufax argument that WAR is useless though because it rewards longevity? I think Drysdale was an excellent pitcher and is not an undeserving Hall of Famers, but this argument does contradict the Koufax arguments.

Vance won the ERA crown at 39 and is most famous for being a late bloomer, and 1931 is pretty deep into Grove's career. At age 40, Vance led the league in FIP still.

Vance: 1915, 1918, 1922-1935
Grove: 1925-1941

Vance's real first full year in the majors was 1922 (he pitched 30 innings in 1915, 2 in 1918), Grove's was 1925, 3 years later.

If these are not contemporaries, then Babe Ruth wasn't Lou Gehrig's contemporary either. Mike Trout is not Miguel Cabrera's.

[packs]

Contemporaries in the sense that they were in their primes at the same time. I would not say Gehrig and DiMaggio are contemporaries just because some seasons overlapped. And like I said, Drysdale and Gomez pitched the same number of seasons.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by packs

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

Sorry, got you and Rats mixed up. He's arguing Koufax because WAR is garbage. If you want to argue WAR for Drysdale vs Gomez, then you must support Grove over Koufax, because Grove's WAR is higher no matter how you want to look at it: career, peak, top season.

[earlywynnfan]

Googled "best left handed pitchers of all time" to see what others were writing. Sites I heard of like yardbarker and ESPN, some I've never heard of. Clicked the first 8-10, several chose Grove, several chose Koufax. Saw a Spahn and an RJ, but no love for Hubbell, Carlton, or Plank, at least not as their #1.

[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!!)

[1952boyntoncollector]

Billy Wagner

[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.

[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.