Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Looking at this whole thread, I think there are a couple of debates going on. I can see the argument that longevity should be a factor in considering who is the greatest of all time. My arguments have been directed at the posters who claim that Koufax was only a great pitcher for the period in which he excelled, due to external circumstances. It is not anecdotal to cite Koufax's own quote about his change in his approach to pitching in 1961. He is a first-hand historical source. Hey, maybe it's possible he has some insight into what we're talking about here. To dismiss his input as irrelevant is ludicrous as it is arrogant. Koufax gained his control after he stopped trying to overpower the hitters. If he hadn't done this, it wouldn't have mattered how many expansion teams came into existence and if they raised the mound to 30". Without the change in his approach, he would not have become the great pitcher he became.

Also, the arrogance toward the quotes by the great players who played against Koufax is pretty incredible. If it comes down to listening to the informed, professional opinions of some of the greatest who have played the game, and those who dismiss what they had to say here, I know who I am listening to. Also, the players quoted don't say that Koufax was the greatest of all-time, but go out of their way to recognize that there was something special about him, with Aaron going as far to say he was a step ahead of other greats of the era.

I could see people choosing other lefty pitchers as the GOAT due to the longevity factor. But the fact that Koufax IS included in the conversation after only having the brief, brilliant run that he did have, says a lot about how great he was.

I feel, we can argue over who is the greatest of all-time. But you can't argue that Sandy Koufax wasn't one of baseball's all-time great pitchers.

Many anecdotes are first-hand. That does not make them not anecdotes.

Why do you only want to listen to the "informed, professional opinions" of the greats who faced Koufax? The ruleset for judging Koufax is different from that for everyone else. Unless you want to rank Ewell Blackwell as one of the greatest due to anecdotes mentioned earlier.
'
Again, if Koufax had discovered some pitching secret, it wouldn't be only his home numbers that greatly improved. His away stats remained pretty flat most years after his alleged discovery. This claim does not mesh with verifiable fact; just like most anecdotes.

Finally, still no one has argued that Koufax was not great during his peak. One poster said he was merely 'good' on the road, which appears to be true looking at his numbers on the road compared to the league averages. His exceptional home park performance and 5 ERA crowns is still a great peak. Nobody in this thread has alleged it was not.

I would love to hear an argument for Koufax based in verifiable fact, in the same standards everyone else is judged too. There must be one that could reasonably be made instead of attempting to replace fact with anecdote, ignore half Koufax's career, ignore anyone else with short term success, ignore highly unusual road/home splits, ignore era/ballpark/league factors etc.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many anecdotes are first-hand. That does not make them not anecdotes.

Why do you only want to listen to the "informed, professional opinions" of the greats who faced Koufax? The ruleset for judging Koufax is different from that for everyone else. Unless you want to rank Ewell Blackwell as one of the greatest due to anecdotes mentioned earlier.
'
Again, if Koufax had discovered some pitching secret, it wouldn't be only his home numbers that greatly improved. His away stats remained pretty flat most years after his alleged discovery. This claim does not mesh with verifiable fact; just like most anecdotes.

Finally, still no one has argued that Koufax was not great during his peak. One poster said he was merely 'good' on the road, which appears to be true looking at his numbers on the road compared to the league averages. His exceptional home park performance and 5 ERA crowns is still a great peak. Nobody in this thread has alleged it was not.

I would love to hear an argument for Koufax based in verifiable fact, in the same standards everyone else is judged too. There must be one that could reasonably be made instead of attempting to replace fact with anecdote, ignore half Koufax's career, ignore anyone else with short term success, ignore highly unusual road/home splits, ignore era/ballpark/league factors etc.

Here we are back at the beginning again. I put up a post on page three where I discuss that Koufax began his turn the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine. Koufax's last road E.R.A. was 1.96. You can ignore or dismiss that the man himself said he began pitching differently. You can ignore a 1.96 E.R.A.

Anyway, maybe we should all start debating that Mantle and Ruth weren't really great home run hitters because they had the short right field porch at Yankee Stadium. And Whitey Ford wasn't really that good a pitcher because of death valley there. A lot of Mays' home runs were cheap, because he began hitting them the opposite way at Candlestick so that the wind would help carry them. Can't work with the conditions in the ballpark you play in, or use it's uniqueness to your advantage. The thing is, that's how baseball is. And one of the things that makes it so interesting and fun. The point is, Koufax was a great pitcher anyway you slice it.

Edit: And yes, I know that the wind was a hindrance at Candlestick Park and was making potential home runs into fly outs. Mays of course, compensated.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Here we are back at the beginning again. I put up a post on page three where I discuss that Koufax began his turn the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine. Koufax's last road E.R.A. was 1.96. You can ignore or dismiss that the man himself said he began pitching differently. You can ignore a 1.96 E.R.A.

Anyway, maybe we should all start debating that Mantle and Ruth weren't really great home run hitters because they had the short right field porch at Yankee Stadium. And Whitey Ford wasn't really that good a pitcher because of death valley there. A lot of Mays' home runs were cheap, because he began hitting them the opposite way at Candlestick so that the wind would help carry them. Can't work with the conditions in the ballpark you play in, or use it's uniqueness to your advantage. The thing is, that's how baseball is. And one of the things that makes it so interesting and fun. The point is, Koufax was a great pitcher anyway you slice it.

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

And I've never said that Chavez didn't help Koufax. But you ignore that he became a better pitcher outside of that. And none of his teammates achieved what he did at home.

People are arguing that Koufax's greatness was due largely to external factors, saying he had a great run soley because of those factors, and that he was just so-so on the road. His road E.R.A.'s were better than in the early part of his career. And 1.96 his last year.

[Bram99]

my gosh the thread is dominated by arguments for Koufax. Lefty Grove was the greatest. Then Spahn. And to the poster who brought up park conditions relative to Mantle and Ruth, the Mick hit over 160 as a righty, and many more to center and left field. The Babe hit more on the road than at home. So never try to besmirch a Yankee to support an argument for a Dodger!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Bram99

my gosh the thread is dominated by arguments for Koufax. Lefty Grove was the greatest. Then Spahn. And to the poster who brought up park conditions relative to Mantle and Ruth, the Mick hit over 160 as a righty, and many more to center and left field. The Babe hit more on the road than at home. So never try to besmirch a Yankee to support an argument for a Dodger!

Ha ha, I'm actually a Yankee fan! I wouldn't dream of besmirching them! I was just kidding around! I didn't crunch those numbers, lol.

At any rate, I still say Koufax was a great pitcher, whose own personal growth was a major reason he was one. And all of these other pitchers are great too!!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Bram99

The Babe hit more on the road than at home.

So did Mickey!

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by jgannon

And I've never said that Chavez didn't help Koufax. But you ignore that he became a better pitcher outside of that. And none of his teammates achieved what he did at home.

People are arguing that Koufax's greatness was due largely to external factors, saying he had a great run soley because of those factors, and that he was just so-so on the road. His road E.R.A.'s were better than in the early part of his career. And 1.96 his last year.

For ANYONE trying to minimize Koufax’s fantastic dominance over a 4/5 year period due to compiling a sensational W/L record vs. weak teams such as the Mets, etc, I totally beg to differ. Virtually all great pitchers have elevated their career statistics by throttling weaker opposition. Nature of the beast and it makes perfect sense. BTW, maybe we should look at the powerful 1963 Yankees....Koufax turned their bats into complete sawdust in the 2 games he won by embarrassing their hitters including a then record setting 15 strikeout performance!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

And I've never said that Chavez didn't help Koufax. But you ignore that he became a better pitcher outside of that. And none of his teammates achieved what he did at home.

People are arguing that Koufax's greatness was due largely to external factors, saying he had a great run soley because of those factors, and that he was just so-so on the road. His road E.R.A.'s were better than in the early part of his career. And 1.96 his last year.

Again, ignoring every other year, and again, the evidence does not support the conclusion that when the strike zone was expanded, he moved into a pitcher friendly home park and his road stats stayed flat, he learned some new mechanic and that was responsible for the change instead.

Nobody is arguing his teammates were better, as discussed before, so that is irrelevant to the question of the thread.

The math shows his home road splits are extremely unusual with one of the most extreme home park heavy splits of all baseball history. There is no reason to think that so many favorable factors aligning are not the primary cause of his success only when circumstances heavily favored him. It was not until Expansion, a heavy pitcher park and an expanded strike zone he improved at home. The argument this is random chance and not the cause is disproven by the huge gap in his splits.

A logical, fact-based or statistical case for Koufax that does not pretend inconvenient facts simply do not exist would be interesting to undertake.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, ignoring every other year, and again, the evidence does not support the conclusion that when the strike zone was expanded, he moved into a pitcher friendly home park and his road stats stayed flat, he learned some new mechanic and that was responsible for the change instead.

Nobody is arguing his teammates were better, as discussed before, so that is irrelevant to the question of the thread.

The math shows his home road splits are extremely unusual with one of the most extreme home park heavy splits of all baseball history. There is no reason to think that so many favorable factors aligning are not the primary cause of his success only when circumstances heavily favored him. It was not until Expansion, a heavy pitcher park and an expanded strike zone he improved at home. The argument this is random chance and not the cause is disproven by the huge gap in his splits.

A logical, fact-based or statistical case for Koufax that does not pretend inconvenient facts simply do not exist would be interesting to undertake.

Below, is something I wrote in a post on page 3 after posting Koufax's stats. I think it's important to consider. Again, I am not saying that Chavez wasn't a factor. My argument is that Koufax began to improve prior to the move to Chavez, and if he hadn't, we wouldn't be discussing him right now.

What I said on page 3:

If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

''I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koufax's E.R.A. improved on the road, as compared to the early part of his career. The downward trend began before the expansion of the strike zone and before the move to Chavez.

We're not disagreeing on there being outside factors that coincided with Koufax's great run. We're just disagreeing on your saying that those factors were the only thing that made the pitcher. I say, without the change Koufax made in his approach to pitching, he would not have made his push to greatness.

And I think there are other factors beyond the numbers that factor into greatness. Koufax pitched through pain much of the time during the height of his career, pitching complete games. Add to this, his rising to the moment in the 1963 and 1965 World Series.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Below, is something I wrote in a post on page 3 after posting Koufax's stats. I think it's important to consider. Again, I am not saying that Chavez wasn't a factor. My argument is that Koufax began to improve prior to the move to Chavez, and if he hadn't, we wouldn't be discussing him right now.

What I said on page 3:

If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

''I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Koufax's E.R.A. improved on the road, as compared to the early part of his career. The downward trend began before the expansion of the strike zone and before the move to Chavez.

We're not disagreeing on there being outside factors that coincided with Koufax's great run. We're just disagreeing on your saying that those factors were the only thing that made the pitcher. I say, without the change Koufax made in his approach to pitching, he would not have made his push to greatness.

And I think there are other factors beyond the numbers that factor into greatness. Koufax pitched through pain much of the time during the height of his career, pitching complete games. Add to this, his rising to the moment in the 1963 and 1965 World Series.

The above was addressed several pages ago with full year by year breakdowns. The numbers do not support that Sandy was such a legend on the road. His ERA scaled down as the leagues did when he wasn’t pitching in Chavez. It was very good in 1966, but you have to ignore the other years. Again, no amount of mythologizing nostalgia is going to overcome verifiable facts for those looking for a logical case.

If his 1962 away ERA is “misleading” due to injury, then so are his home ERA’s. Or was he injured only for road games and a single inning in which he gave up 2 runs (based on your 18 ERA in a single inning outing statement) solely responsible? How could he possibly have such a gap off this single performance amidst a year he pitched 182 innings? This makes no sense. It obviously makes no sense.

How about a couple years later when his road ERA is 300% of his home ERA? I guess the huge, abnormal gap in his splits and for all the other Dodger pitches is just random chance or the key must still be this change that does not align with the figures.

By this point, it seems clear that no argument based in math and verifiable fact will be made for Koufax, as all there is myth making and denying verifiable facts. If there is such a case for Koufax rooted in facts and not myth, it will not be made.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

To basically prove your point, here are Drysdale's splits. They also show a huge Chavez Ravine advantage:

Drysdale splits 1962-1968

1962 Home: 2.16 Away: 3.68
1963 Home: 2.45 Away: 2.81
1964 Home: 2.02 Away: 2.33
1965 Home: 2.45 Away: 3.09
1966 Home: 2.25 Away: 4.65
1967 Home: 2.17 Away: 3.44
1968 Home: 1.39 Away: 3.25

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

To basically prove your point, here are Drysdale's splits. They also show a huge Chavez Ravine advantage:

Drysdale splits 1962-1968

1962 Home: 2.16 Away: 3.68
1963 Home: 2.45 Away: 2.81
1964 Home: 2.02 Away: 2.33
1965 Home: 2.45 Away: 3.09
1966 Home: 2.25 Away: 4.65
1967 Home: 2.17 Away: 3.44
1968 Home: 1.39 Away: 3.25

And the #3 and #4 Dodgers pitchers in 1962, everyone in the rotation who pitched over 100 innings:

Johnny Podres
1962:
Home: 3.08
Away: 4.60

1963
Home: 3.49
Away: 3.60

1964:
Pitched 2.2. innings, not a relevant sample size

1965:
Home: 2.90
Away: 4.22

1966
Recorded 1.2 innings before going to Detroit



Stan Williams:
1962:
Home: 3.68
Away: 5.54

Traded to Yankees at end of 1962 season



It's the exact same story, which is of course expected. Extremely friendly pitching park + expansion + widened strike zone = some impressive numbers and better performances at first glance than is actually the case in context. However, no mountain of evidence that Sandy's home park produces highly abnormal home statistics for everyone (him most of all, because he was the best on the Dodgers) and that on the road 2 of these 3 factors were still producing a very low run environment across the entire league will be ignored in favor of nostalgia, anecdote, and gaps in logic big enough to plow a small moon through.