Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Statistically Marichal was better in 1965. 63 and 66 were no brainers though. And the only reason he didn't win in 1964 was...wait for it...his road ERA that year was 2.93.

While his home ERA was 0.85.

That is not a typo.

2.93 vs 0.85sssz

But sure. Nothing to see here.

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

You must have missed my earlier post, please explain why bWAR is "made up" but you use fWAR to make a point. Also, why would you use ERA+ in a comparison when it helps Koufax, but say it doesn't count when it doesn't have him come out ahead? You keep saying that Grove is obviously better than Koufax because of all the strikeouts and shutouts, but when someone has more strikeouts, you want to look at other stats?

[howard38]

/

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by howard38

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road.

That makes sense as Chance pitched in the same home park as Koufax from 1962 to 1965. In 1965 his home ERA edge was even bigger than in 1964, 2.33/4.15. When the Angels moved into their own park in 1966 Chance, for the first time, had a higher ERA at home than on the road, 3.30/2.87.

Funny that.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Billy Wagner..

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Billy Wagner..

2nd among all pitchers for ERA in the live ball era with at least 900 IP (behind Mariano Rivera - 2.21 & 2.31). 14 out of his 15 seasons, he had an ERA under 3.00. He had an incredible career.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by howard38

That makes sense as Chance pitched in the same home park as Koufax from 1962 to 1965. In 1965 his home ERA edge was even bigger than in 1964, 2.33/4.15. When the Angels moved into their own park in 1966 Chance, for the first time, had a higher ERA at home than on the road, 3.30/2.87.

Yeah, Chance had a great year, and really at this point, I don't think anyone's arguing that Chavez wasn't a pitcher's park. And throughout this thread I haven't been saying Koufax, or anyone else was "the best". Ultimately it's really impossible to compare eras. I think Johnson, Grove, and Spahn are all excellent candidates for the title. While Koufax, may not have the years to qualify for everyone's all-time great list, I do think his incredible run, and his artistry on the mound occurred because he was truly a great pitcher and not merely a creature of the home park he pitched in. His 1963 - 1966 run stirs the imagination.

It has been noted that Drysdale and Podres' pitching splits show that they enjoyed better home E.R.A.'s. However, neither pitcher's E.R.A. were consistently as low as Koufax's. Drysdale posted great home E.R.A.'s, and his amazing run of six shutouts in 1968, four of which were at home, really lowered his home E.R.A. that year. But with the exception of that year, his home E.R.A.'s were all in the 2.00's. Not too shabby, but not challenging what Koufax's were.

Podres, while also posting better E.R.A.'s at home in 1962 and 1963, his 1963 E.R.A. split was 3.49/3.60 (home/away).

The numbers show that Koufax was one hell of a pitcher, as no Dodger pitcher achieved what he did at Chavez Ravine. You have to be great to pitch as well as he did at Chavez. No other Dodger was posting 0.85.

Dean Chance had his great year there in 1964, for sure. Chance's E.R.A.'s at Chavez were always better than on the road. His home E.R.A. pitching split in 1962 was 2.76/3.22. 1963 was 2.96/3.45. And 1965 again, and here it really is significant, his home E.R.A. was 2.33/4/15. Chavez factor duly acknowledged. The Angels move out of Chavez for 1966, and for the first time, his away E.R.A. is higher.

So Chavez is a factor. But I argue that Koufax's numbers show that he was great even if there is that factor. No one consistently posted stronger E.R.A.'s at Chavez than Koufax. His strikeout totals also speak to his dominance. And the idea that Koufax was less than stellar on the road, takes a significant hit when you go out with a 1.96 away E.R.A. Koufax was a great pitcher in Chavez Ravine, but not because of Chavez Ravine.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Yeah, Chance had a great year, and really at this point, I don't think anyone's arguing that Chavez wasn't a pitcher's park. And throughout this thread I haven't been saying Koufax, or anyone else was "the best". Ultimately it's really impossible to compare eras. I think Johnson, Grove, and Spahn are all excellent candidates for the title. While Koufax, may not have the years to qualify for everyone's all-time great list, I do think his incredible run, and his artistry on the mound occurred because he was truly a great pitcher and not merely a creature of the home park he pitched in. His 1963 - 1966 run stirs the imagination.

It has been noted that Drysdale and Podres' pitching splits show that they enjoyed better home E.R.A.'s. However, neither pitcher's E.R.A. were consistently as low as Koufax's. Drysdale posted great home E.R.A.'s, and his amazing run of six shutouts in 1968, four of which were at home, really lowered his home E.R.A. that year. But with the exception of that year, his home E.R.A.'s were all in the 2.00's. Not too shabby, but not challenging what Koufax's were.

Podres, while also posting better E.R.A.'s at home in 1962 and 1963, his 1963 E.R.A. split was 3.49/3.60 (home/away).

The numbers show that Koufax was one hell of a pitcher, as no Dodger pitcher achieved what he did at Chavez Ravine. You have to be great to pitch as well as he did at Chavez. No other Dodger was posting 0.85.

Dean Chance had his great year there in 1964, for sure. Chance's E.R.A.'s at Chavez were always better than on the road. His home E.R.A. pitching split in 1962 was 2.76/3.22. 1963 was 2.96/3.45. And 1965 again, and here it really is significant, his home E.R.A. was 2.33/4/15. Chavez factor duly acknowledged. The Angels move out of Chavez for 1966, and for the first time, his away E.R.A. is higher.

So Chavez is a factor. But I argue that Koufax's numbers show that he was great even if there is that factor. No one consistently posted stronger E.R.A.'s at Chavez than Koufax. His strikeout totals also speak to his dominance. And the idea that Koufax was less than stellar on the road, takes a significant hit when you go out with a 1.96 away E.R.A. Koufax was a great pitcher in Chavez Ravine, but not because of Chavez Ravine.

Noone is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher outside of Chavez Ravine either though. I have gone to great pains to make it clear that Koufax was most likely the best pitcher in baseball from 1962-1966 if you just double his road numbers. And that fact, along with the corresponding insane strikeout numbers, likely gets him into the HOF under the "Kirby Puckett what if rule" even if you just double the road numbers and forget all about his performance at Chavez Ravine.

And also nobody is arguing about Koufax vs Drysdale or Podres and that isn't the standard of this thread anyway. This is about best ever.

All I am saying is that Koufax was a great pitcher, likely a Hall of Famer simply for his road performance, but that he was GREATLY helped by his home park. Those years you speak of, that legendary five year performance, was a perfect storm of immense talent meeting a way to harness and control said talent coupled with the opening of one of the best pitchers parks in the history of baseball. All three were the reason for those unbelievable seasons but only the first two are ever mentioned.

[brian1961]

Ya know, Tom, I get what you are saying in regard to Sandy Koufax being greatly helped by his home stadium. However, the way you're stressing the issue, you would think Walter O'Malley designed his beautiful ball field with Don and Sandy in mind. Following your line of belief, ANY opposing pitcher would have been greatly helped by pitching in Chavez Ravine. How much do we throw away players' careers then?

Guys have whined that Roger Maris would not have broken Babe Ruth's record if Mickey Mantle was not looming in the on-deck circle. For that matter, Yankee Stadium WAS designed to benefit Babe Ruth. So, do we throw out Babe Ruth too?

Ernie Banks had the benefit of batting in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. So, do we throw him out of the HOF because he had it too easy?

All those spitball pitchers that relied on their humid ball when it was perfectly legal----do we throw them out of the HOF because they should not have done such dastardly pitching. The nerve of them!!!!!

You guys can isolate all the baseball dope isotope you want, ad nauseam. I fully realize the OP insisted he believes Sandy Koufax was the greatest left-handed pitcher of all time. Well, I seem to remember the eloquent words of the late Vin Skully as he reminesced about Mr. Koufax in Ken Burns history of baseball. Vin convinced me; Koufax was the greatest lefty, period. Maybe he only had six seasons of greatness, but that was enough for Skully, and that's enough for me.

--- Brian Powell

P.S. I well remember upon the announcement in the spring of 1969 that Mickey Mantle was retiring, the esteemed Chicago Tribune sports editor, Dave Condon, penned a glowing tribute to Mickey, and said he believed that Mantle was the greatest Yankee of all time. It wasn't as if Mr. Condon had only seen Mick play a few times. How much he had seen the Babe play in his prime, I don't know; however, he was fully aware of what he was writing, putting Mick above the Babe.

I suppose, in the end, on Net54baseball we have a hot stove league going on 365 days a year!

[btcarfagno]

Not saying anything gets "tossed out". It's all about context. Larry Walker is now a HOFer. What is the first thing you hear when that gets brought up?

"Yeah but....".

And it's true. Context matters.

What I am asking is...where's the "yeah but" for Koufax? Statistically speaking, his home/road splits over that five year period might be even more extreme than those of Walker. But there never is a "Yeah but" with him. And there should be.

Great talent. Unbelievable pitcher for five years. Obvious HOFer. Strikeout numbers that make your head spin.

Yeah but...

[brian1961]

It's ok, Tom. Let's face it, bro, if you put each HOFer under the hot lamp of scrutiny, the far majority of them would have a context that shadows their career.

I remember being so furious when the powers that be elected Chicago Cub great Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame about a year after the poor man died. Ron had so wanted to be elected while he was still alive to enjoy it. I penned a strong piece about the matter, as well as my rich memories of Ron, that Sports Collectors Digest ran. The crux of my article was that Ron Santo should have been a first ballot unanimous Hall of Famer due to the fact he played his entire career with Type I blood sugar diabetes. Before I got to see a photo of Santo's HOF plaque, I wrote that his plaque should say loud and clear he played at the all-star level even though he was afflicted with diabetes that required his constant attention and care. Months after I wrote my Santo article, I saw his plaque. They did him right in expressing his "context" in the first sentence. Well done. "YEAH, BUT" ya should've elected Ron Santo when he was alive, stupid!

Happy collecting, fellas. Try to keep cool in these dog days of summer.

--- Brian Powell

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Ya know, Tom, I get what you are saying in regard to Sandy Koufax being greatly helped by his home stadium. However, the way you're stressing the issue, you would think Walter O'Malley designed his beautiful ball field with Don and Sandy in mind. Following your line of belief, ANY opposing pitcher would have been greatly helped by pitching in Chavez Ravine. How much do we throw away players' careers then?

Guys have whined that Roger Maris would not have broken Babe Ruth's record if Mickey Mantle was not looming in the on-deck circle. For that matter, Yankee Stadium WAS designed to benefit Babe Ruth. So, do we throw out Babe Ruth too?

Ernie Banks had the benefit of batting in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. So, do we throw him out of the HOF because he had it too easy?

All those spitball pitchers that relied on their humid ball when it was perfectly legal----do we throw them out of the HOF because they should not have done such dastardly pitching. The nerve of them!!!!!

You guys can isolate all the baseball dope isotope you want, ad nauseam. I fully realize the OP insisted he believes Sandy Koufax was the greatest left-handed pitcher of all time. Well, I seem to remember the eloquent words of the late Vin Skully as he reminesced about Mr. Koufax in Ken Burns history of baseball. Vin convinced me; Koufax was the greatest lefty, period. Maybe he only had six seasons of greatness, but that was enough for Skully, and that's enough for me.

--- Brian Powell

P.S. I well remember upon the announcement in the spring of 1969 that Mickey Mantle was retiring, the esteemed Chicago Tribune sports editor, Dave Condon, penned a glowing tribute to Mickey, and said he believed that Mantle was the greatest Yankee of all time. It wasn't as if Mr. Condon had only seen Mick play a few times. How much he had seen the Babe play in his prime, I don't know; however, he was fully aware of what he was writing, putting Mick above the Babe.

I suppose, in the end, on Net54baseball we have a hot stove league going on 365 days a year!

We need to throw out Hank Aaron too. The first half of his career he played in a stadium that for all but 1 year was in the top half of the NL in HRs allowed. From 1966-1974 Aaron played in the easiest stadium to hit HRs in. And in 1969 the Braves moved the fences in to make it easier for Aaron to hit home runs, moving the fences back in 1974 when his career was pretty much over and he was about to break Ruth's HR record. Why isn't there an asterisk by Aaron?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Noone is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher outside of Chavez Ravine either though. I have gone to great pains to make it clear that Koufax was most likely the best pitcher in baseball from 1962-1966 if you just double his road numbers. And that fact, along with the corresponding insane strikeout numbers, likely gets him into the HOF under the "Kirby Puckett what if rule" even if you just double the road numbers and forget all about his performance at Chavez Ravine.

And also nobody is arguing about Koufax vs Drysdale or Podres and that isn't the standard of this thread anyway. This is about best ever.

All I am saying is that Koufax was a great pitcher, likely a Hall of Famer simply for his road performance, but that he was GREATLY helped by his home park. Those years you speak of, that legendary five year performance, was a perfect storm of immense talent meeting a way to harness and control said talent coupled with the opening of one of the best pitchers parks in the history of baseball. All three were the reason for those unbelievable seasons but only the first two are ever mentioned.

Where I am disagreeing with you and some of the others is about how much his home park had an effect on his numbers. By citing Drysdale and Podres, I wasn't going off topic, but wanted to illustrate how much more brilliant Koufax was at home than they were. The park is only going to do so much for you.

As far as the Kirby Puckett allusion, we don't need to know "what if" with Koufax. Yes, it would have been great if he had been able to compete longer. But he established himself as a Hall-of-Famer in the time he played. Given how much better he was at home than his Dodger contemporaries at the time, doubling Koufax's road numbers is unnecessary to justify his induction into the Hall.

[jgannon]

I'll just add to all my other statements on this thread, that while the topic is "Who Was The Greatest Lefty?", during the discussion, I felt Koufax's greatness was being made into a caricature, which is to do this legendary pitcher a disservice.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Where I am disagreeing with you and some of the others is about how much his home park had an effect on his numbers. By citing Drysdale and Podres, I wasn't going off topic, but wanted to illustrate how much more brilliant Koufax was at home than they were. The park is only going to do so much for you.

As far as the Kirby Puckett allusion, we don't need to know "what if" with Koufax. Yes, it would have been great if he had been able to compete longer. But he established himself as a Hall-of-Famer in the time he played. Given how much better he was at home than his Dodger contemporaries at the time, doubling Koufax's road numbers is unnecessary to justify his induction into the Hall.

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

[G1911]

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

What is the Puckett rule?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

If Chavez Ravine was a factor, no one was able to capitalize on the conditions there like Koufax. That had to do with Koufax's amazing ability. I don't think the doubling of his away numbers is useful, and I don't think the Larry Walker analogy is fair, as Walker played in an environment with no gravity or atmosphere, lol. I think Coors Field was a much more extreme thing. And Koufax's road E.R.A.'s were still great.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.

BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.

Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.

Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.

Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.

BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.

Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.

Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.

Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.

But did it really? In 1961 Candlestick had a park factor of 94. The Giants played 40 years in Candlestick and it had a park factor under 100 30 of those seasons. Candlestick was always known as a pitchers park. So was Marichal really hurt or was 1965-1966 an anomaly? Those just happened to be two of the worst six seasons for pitchers in Candlestick history.

Even if you go by ERA+, Marichal is only ahead 9%.Does that really out weigh a better WHIP and FIP? 40 more innings pitched? And the real deciding factor, Koufax setting a MLB record with 382 strike outs? This is my problem with bWAR, it doesn’t add up. Even if you mainly rely on ERA+, the difference should be .5 or less. There has to be some value to pitching more innings and allowing fewer base runners. I think today, even with advanced metrics, Koufax still wins. Remember he led Marichal by 3.2 in fWAR, which is just as ridiculous as bWAR in 1965.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

There is also a fair argument that Kershaw is not even the best pitcher on his current team!!