Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

Low run environment is irrelevant when caused by superior pitching. Same for park affect when you choose to ignore Koufax's 4 years in the LA Coliseum.

The only sensible way to look at ERA is to compare a pitcher to his peers. That accounts for general trends in ballparks, juiced baseballs, mound height, league expansion, etc.

Koufax led the league in ERA 5 times. Pretty impressive. Grove led the league in ERA 9 times. More impressive.

You can't win these arguments, Koufax vs Grove:
Best season - Grove's 1931 is insane. The 3 guys to win 30 games since 1920 are Grove (31 in 1931), Dean (30 in 1934), and McLain (31 in 1968.) Despite Grove and Dean doing it in a 154 game season, and players since 1961 having 8 more games, it hasn't been done in the last 50+ years.

Best run of 6 consecutive seasons: Grove, see above.

Career:
ERA titles: Koufax 5, Grove 9
Wins: Koufax 165, Grove 300
Win percentage: Koufax 65%, Grove 68% (highest among 300 game winners and eighth best overall).

Short term (one season), Grove.
Best years (6 season run), Grove.
Career, Grove.

We remember Koufax. Many of us saw him in his prime. He is a very popular player and fellow.

Grove was better, period.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only sensible way to look at ERA is to compare a pitcher to his peers. That accounts for general trends in ballparks, juiced baseballs, mound height, league expansion, etc.

Koufax led the league in ERA 5 times. Pretty impressive. Grove led the league in ERA 9 times. More impressive.

You can't win these arguments, Koufax vs Grove:
Best season - Grove's 1931 is insane. The 3 guys to win 30 games since 1920 are Grove (31 in 1931), Dean (30 in 1934), and McLain (31 in 1968.) Despite Grove and Dean doing it in a 154 game season, and players since 1961 having 8 more games, it hasn't been done in the last 50+ years.

Best run of 6 consecutive seasons: Grove, see above.

Career:
ERA titles: Koufax 5, Grove 9
Wins: Koufax 165, Grove 300
Win percentage: Koufax 65%, Grove 68% (highest among 300 game winners and eighth best overall).

Short term (one season), Grove.
Best years (6 season run), Grove.
Career, Grove.

We remember Koufax. Many of us saw him in his prime. He is a very popular player and fellow.

Grove was better, period.

This is your opinion and I disagree with it. Dominating a weak pitching era doesn't make someone better than a pitcher who dominates one of the strongest pitching eras. Wins are not a good metric to use to compare pitchers. I have presented evidence in this thread that Koufax lacked the run support that Grove received. Koufax should have won 30+ games both in 1963 and 1966. Grove's 31 wins were a matter of luck. He won 4 games where he gave up 4+ runs. That is a poor pitching performance under any circumstance, but the A's powerful offense bailed him out. He also won 4 in relief including a 3 inning relief appearance where the A's gave him the lead in the tenth and Grove blew it only to have the A's to score twice in eleventh.

Koufax had 2 or 3 seasons better than Grove's best. Koufax's 6 year run from 1961-1966 was better than Grove's, ERA, WHIP, FIP, K/9, no hitters, etc. Even Koufax's career numbers are better including counting stats like shutouts and strikeouts despite Koufax retiring at 30. Grove just pitched for stronger offensive team over a long period of time resulting in more wins. These are just opinions, but I don't judge a pitcher by wins.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

Dominating a weak pitching era doesn't make someone better than a pitcher who dominates one of the strongest pitching eras.

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66,.

That’s crazy! If it wasn’t for the expansion teams he wouldn’t even be close to 22nd best lefty pitching WAR.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

That’s crazy! If it wasn’t for the expansion teams he wouldn’t even be close to 22nd best lefty pitching WAR.

Correction: since WAR mathematics takes into consideration the results of peers within the same seasons, it is likely that expansion team domination is already included. So 22nd best lefty is probably accurate.

Really dilutes the narrative of a good 4-year run though.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Correction: since WAR mathematics takes into consideration the results of peers within the same seasons, it is likely that expansion team domination is already included. So 22nd best lefty is probably accurate.

Really dilutes the narrative of a good 4-year run though.

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

Since it is "the best lefty of all time" and not "the best 4 year consecutive peak of all time", using lifetime totals hardly seems unfair as a metric.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

Alright, let's go with that. Warren Spahn has a 92.5 career WAR. That's an average of 4.40 over 21 years. And his WAR was actually negative his rookie year. He had a 93 WAR over his last 20 seasons - 4.65.

Sandy's WAR per is 4.42.

So...12 years of 4.42 or 21 years of 4.40 (20 of 4.65)? Easy choice.

Also, FWIW, WAR says that Steve Carlton's 1972 was the best year for any lefty in the live ball era.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

You keep repeating this highly inaccurate "simply the 22nd best lefty" representation of the WAR numbers. It's a lifetime cumulative total, so obviously Koufax's WAR is far less than many other lefties (since he pitched half many innings as most other all-time greats).

Look at ERA+ and WAR per season. Those represent how effective someone was

If you're only comparing peak, Grove wins ERA+ and WAR by fairly significant margins. Hence, vehement Koufax supporters saying WAR is a "garbage stat." I'm sure they'll consider ERA+ to be useless, also. They only want to count specific counting stats in a vacuum, with no allowances for differences in era, defenses, parks, or anything else. Kinda like the people who say Pete Rose is a better hitter than Ty Cobb because he got more hits.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

Jack Morris had the most wins in the 1980s. That argument was used to get him elected to the HOF. Does that make Jack Morris one of the greatest pitchers of all time because he was considered the best of a weak era? Of course not and feel free to insert Dave Stieb or some other mediocre pitcher from that era, it doesn't change anything.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

Jack Morris had the most wins in the 1980s. That argument was used to get him elected to the HOF. Does that make Jack Morris one of the greatest pitchers of all time because he was considered the best of a weak era? Of course not and feel free to insert Dave Stieb or some other mediocre pitcher from that era, it doesn't change anything.