Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Take a look at Koufax numbers in 1961, his first really good year and the Dodgers last year at LA Memorial Coliseum. He was pretty bad at home and very good on the road. Then look at his home/road splits the next five years. He was very good on the road but put up video game numbers at Dodger Stadium. To be fair the numbers in 1966 were pretty even. But the other four years he was a border line HOF pitcher on the roadand the best ever at home.

Larry Walker syndrome. Still a very good player on the road but freakish at home. That doesn't get enough play with Koufax for some reason. The numbers don't lie

Koufax’s road ERA was 2.81 those 4 seasons. If that is borderline HOF, then what does that say about guys with higher ERAs like Grove, Spahn, Randy Johnson, Carlton etc.? Are they not Hofers? Should we kick out everyone above your borderline? That would leave us with Koufax and Ford as the only post 1920 HOF starting pitchers and Kershaw and maybe deGrom as the only future HOF pitchers. Koufax was still one of the greatest pitchers of all time on the road those seasons and that is with you excluding his best season.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Koufax’s road ERA was 2.81 those 4 seasons. If that is borderline HOF, then what does that say about guys with higher ERAs like Grove, Spahn, Randy Johnson, Carlton etc.? Are they not Hofers? Should we kick out everyone above your borderline? That would leave us with Koufax and Ford as the only post 1920 HOF starting pitchers and Kershaw and maybe deGrom as the only future HOF pitchers. Koufax was still one of the greatest pitchers of all time on the road those seasons and that is with you excluding his best season.

An ERA of 2.81 (over a piddly four year period no less) is equal to the greatest who ever pitched? 2.81? Really? For starters, ERA? Holy crap. But let's get past that. His road ERA of 2.81 over that four year period on its own is so impressive that he would be one of the greatest of all time had that been his career number. Really? Ok.

Any idea who had a 2.58 ERA over that same four year period? And if you include 1966 to add a fifth year this person had an ERA of 2.34 .

Any idea?

Gary Peters.

But sure. Koufax road ERA of 2.81 from 1962-1965 makes him super special.

Larry.

Walker.

[btcarfagno]

Koufax home ERA 1962-1965............... 1.32

Koufax road ERA 1962-1965................ 2.75


Nothing to see here obviously.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax home ERA 1962-1965............... 1.32

Koufax road ERA 1962-1965................ 2.75


Nothing to see here obviously.

According to baseball reference, Koufax’s road ERA from 1962-1966 was 2.59. For pitchers with 400 or more innings pitched, the minimum to qualify for the ERA title, that was the best in Major League Baseball. Gibson and Marichal tied for second best at 2.69.

There is nothing to see. Koufax was great on the road and even greater at home. Any advantage Koufax gained from pitching in Dodger Stadium for 5 years is more than offset by pitching 4 years in the LA Coliseum with its 250 foot left field fence and 320 foot power alley in left-center.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

According to baseball reference, Koufax’s road ERA from 1962-1966 was 2.59. For pitchers with 400 or more innings pitched, the minimum to qualify for the ERA title, that was the best in Major League Baseball. Gibson and Marichal tied for second best at 2.69.

There is nothing to see. Koufax was great on the road and even greater at home. Any advantage Koufax gained from pitching in Dodger Stadium for 5 years is more than offset by pitching 4 years in the LA Coliseum with its 250 foot left field fence and 320 foot power alley in left-center.

If Koufax is the same pitcher at home as he was on the road he isn't close to a Hall Of Famer. That's a fact. He would have been a really good pitcher for five years. Not the insane pitcher that his stats show. He was able to turn his video game numbers at home over a five year period into the Hall Of Fame. That's not that much of a knock on him. I think Larry Walker should have been in the Hall a while ago. I think Koufax is an obvious Hall Of Famer and one of the best who ever threw a baseball. We all missed out on a lot when he was physically unable to perform.

It just mystifies me why nobody seems to want to admit that he was a creature of his home park during his prime. As you say, even if you take into account his road numbers and just double them, he is likely the best pitcher in the game over those five years. But he's not "Koufax!!!!!!!". He's just Koufax.

And yes, from 1958 to 1961 his home park hurt his numbers. Actually he had an anomalous 1959 season where he was much better at home, but the rest he was much better on the road. He wasn't the same pitcher he would become after 1961 during this time however. Doubling his road numbers to replace his home numbers he was still fairly ordinary over that period, save for a lot more strikeouts than the ordinary pitcher. It is what he did from 1962-1966 that got him immortal status, and that was largely a home field driven event. That's just a fact. His home field over that period is why his numbers are so insane.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

If Koufax is the same pitcher at home as he was on the road he isn't close to a Hall Of Famer. That's a fact. He would have been a really good pitcher for five years. Not the insane pitcher that his stats show. He was able to turn his video game numbers at home over a five year period into the Hall Of Fame. That's not that much of a knock on him. I think Larry Walker should have been in the Hall a while ago. I think Koufax is an obvious Hall Of Famer and one of the best who ever threw a baseball. We all missed out on a lot when he was physically unable to perform.

It just mystifies me why nobody seems to want to admit that he was a creature of his home park during his prime. As you say, even if you take into account his road numbers and just double them, he is likely the best pitcher in the game over those five years. But he's not "Koufax!!!!!!!". He's just Koufax.

And yes, from 1958 to 1961 his home park hurt his numbers. Actually he had an anomalous 1959 season where he was much better at home, but the rest he was much better on the road. He wasn't the same pitcher he would become after 1961 during this time however. Doubling his road numbers to replace his home numbers he was still fairly ordinary over that period, save for a lot more strikeouts than the ordinary pitcher. It is what he did from 1962-1966 that got him immortal status, and that was largely a home field driven event. That's just a fact. His home field over that period is why his numbers are so insane.

Koufax still has a better ERA, WHIP, FIP, K/9 than Grove. So you still want to kick out of the HOF Grove, Spahn, Carlton, Randy Johnson, Feller, Ryan, Maddox, etc. Your new standard has gone from 1 to 8 live ball pitchers, Ford, Palmer, Seaver, Marichal, Gibson, Martinez, Drysdale and Hubbell. Or are you not letting other pitchers who had worse road ERAs in too because Drysdale also benefits from Dodger Stadium? Then he has to go along with Palmer, Martinez and Hubbell. That leaves you with only 4 modern pitchers in your HOF, Ford, Seaver, Gibson and Marichal. What a coincidence that they are all from the same time period as Koufax. Should we kick them out too because the hitters were too weak? Any standard you apply to Koufax, he is still a first ballot Hofer, he was that good, even on the road.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Koufax still has a better ERA, WHIP, FIP, K/9 than Grove. So you still want to kick out of the HOF Grove, Spahn, Carlton, Randy Johnson, Feller, Ryan, Maddox, etc. Your new standard has gone from 1 to 8 live ball pitchers, Ford, Palmer, Seaver, Marichal, Gibson, Martinez, Drysdale and Hubbell. Or are you not letting other pitchers who had worse road ERAs in too because Drysdale also benefits from Dodger Stadium? Then he has to go along with Palmer, Martinez and Hubbell. That leaves you with only 4 modern pitchers in your HOF, Ford, Seaver, Gibson and Marichal. What a coincidence that they are all from the same time period as Koufax. Should we kick them out too because the hitters were too weak? Any standard you apply to Koufax, he is still a first ballot Hofer, he was that good, even on the road.

Koufax video game numbers were a product of his home park.

Period.

If he was "the best in baseball" over a five year period, he doesn't get into the Hall. He just doesn't and I don't see how that is debatable. Take away his home numbers from 1962-1966 and just double his road numbers and there is no way that career gets him into the Hall. I don't even see how that can be questioned. He would have been Gary Peters but with a lot more strikeouts from 1962-1966.

If Peters isn't a Hall of Famer...

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

If Koufax is the same pitcher at home as he was on the road he isn't close to a Hall Of Famer. That's a fact. He would have been a really good pitcher for five years. Not the insane pitcher that his stats show. He was able to turn his video game numbers at home over a five year period into the Hall Of Fame. That's not that much of a knock on him. I think Larry Walker should have been in the Hall a while ago. I think Koufax is an obvious Hall Of Famer and one of the best who ever threw a baseball. We all missed out on a lot when he was physically unable to perform.

It just mystifies me why nobody seems to want to admit that he was a creature of his home park during his prime. As you say, even if you take into account his road numbers and just double them, he is likely the best pitcher in the game over those five years. But he's not "Koufax!!!!!!!". He's just Koufax.

And yes, from 1958 to 1961 his home park hurt his numbers. Actually he had an anomalous 1959 season where he was much better at home, but the rest he was much better on the road. He wasn't the same pitcher he would become after 1961 during this time however. Doubling his road numbers to replace his home numbers he was still fairly ordinary over that period, save for a lot more strikeouts than the ordinary pitcher. It is what he did from 1962-1966 that got him immortal status, and that was largely a home field driven event. That's just a fact. His home field over that period is why his numbers are so insane.

Tom- this is laughable. Why not ask or read comments from former players batting against Koufax.. 3 Cy Youngs in 4 years?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Tom- this is laughable. Why not ask or read comments from former players batting against Koufax.. 3 Cy Youngs in 4 years?

Mathematics is much more instructive than heavily biased accounts of players who did not face the other great left handers. Verifiable facts > anecdotal opinions.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Tom- this is laughable. Why not ask or read comments from former players batting against Koufax.. 3 Cy Youngs in 4 years?

HOME. FIELD.

Larry Walker was a similar player with similar video game numbers at home for 6 of his 8 years in Colorado. Yet noone looks at him as one of the greatest left handed hitters of all time. Why? Everyone talks about how his home park affected his numbers. NOONE talks about that with Koufax, but it is just as true.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

An ERA of 2.81 (over a piddly four year period no less) is equal to the greatest who ever pitched? 2.81? Really? For starters, ERA? Holy crap. But let's get past that. His road ERA of 2.81 over that four year period on its own is so impressive that he would be one of the greatest of all time had that been his career number. Really? Ok.

Any idea who had a 2.58 ERA over that same four year period? And if you include 1966 to add a fifth year this person had an ERA of 2.34 .

Any idea?

Gary Peters.

But sure. Koufax road ERA of 2.81 from 1962-1965 makes him super special.

Larry.

Walker.

Not a lefty, but 1964-68, Joe Horlen had a 2.32 ERA for the White Sox. There are lots of examples of guys having amazing 5-year runs.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Not a lefty, but 1964-68, Joe Horlen had a 2.32 ERA for the White Sox. There are lots of examples of guys having amazing 5-year runs.

Joe Horlen was a good pitcher, but not in the class of Koufax.

Look at Horlen's innings pitched, complete games, and strikeout totals from 1964 - 1968.

IP:

210.2
219
211
258
223.2

CG:

9
7
4
13
4

SO:

138
125
124
103
102


Compare these totals to Koufax's stats from 1962 - 1966:

IP:

184
311
223
335
323


CG:

11
20
15
27
27


SO:

216
306
223
382
317


And Horlen's W-L record for 1964 - 1968 was:

13-8
13-13
10-13
19-7
12-14


Koufax's from 1962 - 1966:

14-7
25-5
19-5
26-8
27-9


The clubs Horlen was on were largely good too. The White Sox position in the standings from 1964 - 1968 were:

2nd
2nd
4th
4th
9th

All first division clubs except for 1968, and they finished one game behind the Yankees in 1964 and only 3 behind the Red Sox in 1967.

Horlen's E.R.A.'s were great for that 5 year run, but his other stats don't come near challenging what Koufax achieved - by a long shot.

Also if you're looking at lifetime statistics, it's no contest between the two, with Koufax coming out way on top.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Joe Horlen was a good pitcher, but not in the class of Koufax.

...

Horlen's E.R.A.'s were great for that 5 year run, but his other stats don't come near challenging what Koufax achieved - by a long shot.

Also if you're looking at lifetime statistics, it's no contest between the two, with Koufax coming out way on top.

Yeah, no kidding. The discussion was about ERA and how 2.81 over 5 years was so amazing.

[G1911]

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

No, there isn't, and I think that is your point.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims like the pitching was as good in Grove's era as Koufax's and the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yeah, no kidding. The discussion was about ERA and how 2.81 over 5 years was so amazing.

Both you and the other poster were trying to diminish Koufax's overall performance by concentrating on road E.R.A.

"There are lots of guys who had amazing 5-year runs". Horlen's 2.34 E.R.A in and of itself was great, but it wasn't an amazing run compared to Koufax.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Both you and the other poster were trying to diminish Koufax's overall performance by concentrating on road E.R.A.

The response we got was that Koufax's five-year run of 2.81 road ERA would make him an all-time great. Point is, a lefty with a 5-year run of 2.81 ERA is not all THAT special.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Joe Horlen was a good pitcher, but not in the class of Koufax.

Look at Horlen's innings pitched, complete games, and strikeout totals from 1964 - 1968.

IP:

210.2
219
211
258
223.2

CG:

9
7
4
13
4

SO:

138
125
124
103
102


Compare these totals to Koufax's stats from 1962 - 1966:

IP:

184
311
223
335
323


CG:

11
20
15
27
27


SO:

216
306
223
382
317


And Horlen's W-L record for 1964 - 1968 was:

13-8
13-13
10-13
19-7
12-14


Koufax's from 1962 - 1966:

14-7
25-5
19-5
26-8
27-9


The clubs Horlen was on were largely good too. The White Sox position in the standings from 1964 - 1968 were:

2nd
2nd
4th
4th
9th

All first division clubs except for 1968, and they finished one game behind the Yankees in 1964 and only 3 behind the Red Sox in 1967.

Horlen's E.R.A.'s were great for that 5 year run, but his other stats don't come near challenging what Koufax achieved - by a long shot.

Also if you're looking at lifetime statistics, it's no contest between the two, with Koufax coming out way on top.

Again, Koufax best years were the result of his home park. He was still a great pitcher on the road, but he wasn't "KOUFAX!!!!!". He only was "KOUFAX!!!!!" because of his video game numbers in his home park from 1962-1966.