Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Jim65

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but there isn't one stat that backs up Whitey being better than Randy Johnson.

Whitey was very good but he wasn't even a first ballot HOFer, 2nd greatest lefty of all time? No way.

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

Also, Mr. Ford was a yankee on teams that had temendous hitting. So if we are going to nitpick about a pitcher on where he pitched, how high the mound was, how wide was the strike zone and expansion teams, this should also be pointed out. In addition, M. Ford had Arroyo cleaning up

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

This might be the worst argument in this thread. Then I looked where you are from....London! This isn't cricket pal!!

RJ blows Whitey off the map. Go back to your tea and crumpets!

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This might be the worst argument in this thread. Then I looked where you are from....London! This isn't cricket pal!!

RJ blows Whitey off the map. Go back to your tea and crumpets!

Wow! I'm not sure whether to be hurt or laugh. For the record, I grew up in NY and Texas during the 70s where my childhood was all baseball. I like to think that I've seen some great pitchers play.

Whether I've been corrupted by tea and crumpets or simply suffered long term damage from too many fully loaded hot dogs and pretzels at Yankee Stadium - I can't say.

Ford, Koufax and Spahn were just before my time but I was well schooled by my father and uncles. I really love Sandy Koufax but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for Whitey. I think he's hugely under-rated (clearly not everyone agrees).

FrankWakefield, I've heard similar stories about Whitey. Based on recordings of old games that I've watched, stats and interviews - my dream team lefty pitching rota would start with Grove, Koufax Ford, Spahn and Carlton long before I'd go to Johnson.

[G1911]

I don't think Whitey is the greatest, or the second greatest, but he deserves more consideration than he usually gets.

I think his .690 winning percentage is a poor argument, because it is largely a reflection that he played on a team that was, by several miles, the best in the league for most of his career.

However, Ford's 2.75 ERA, a 133 ERA+ over 3,100 innings is quite impressive and has nothing to do with his team. In fact, if the stories are true that Stengel really did tend to save Ford to face the better teams in the league (I haven't done an in depth check of the game logs), his ERA is hurt by this and still exceptional. 133 ERA+ is 29th all time, and many of those ahead are relief pitchers that I would argue should be considered in a separate category.

Even in his waning years, his ERA is fantastic. He posts a 3.24 in his last full season, his poorest showing as this looks excellent but was only 5% better than the league that year, and then his last 2 partial seasons he posts 135 and 192 ERA+'s.

His peak years are great, though his famous 1961 is actually one of his worst seasons, 25-4 is amazing but his percentages are not. Again, pitching for a team that annihilated the league with ease makes his record highly misleading.

3,170 innings is not very many in the context of all-time rankings and hurts him greatly, I think. At his best, he is equal to Spahn and his averages are a good deal better in many ways, but Spahn must rank over him for pitching 2,000 more innings and doing so very effectively. Johnson should rank better, Plank is probably ahead on innings. Grove and Hubbell are ahead, I think. I'm not sure I'd take Carlton over Ford with Carlton's inconsistency and Ford's clocklike consistency.

I have a very difficult time seeing why he barely squeaked into the Hall. He is not the best ever, but he has always appeared as an obvious hall of famer to me. Easy top 10 lefty, I think.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Wow! I'm not sure whether to be hurt or laugh. For the record, I grew up in NY and Texas during the 70s where my childhood was all baseball. I like to think that I've seen some great pitchers play.

Whether I've been corrupted by tea and crumpets or simply suffered long term damage from too many fully loaded hot dogs and pretzels at Yankee Stadium - I can't say.

Ford, Koufax and Spahn were just before my time but I was well schooled by my father and uncles. I really love Sandy Koufax but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for Whitey. I think he's hugely under-rated (clearly not everyone agrees).

FrankWakefield, I've heard similar stories about Whitey. Based on recordings of old games that I've watched, stats and interviews - my dream team lefty pitching rota would start with Grove, Koufax Ford, Spahn and Carlton long before I'd go to Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlcpDVlsJjg

40 years old.....97 mph.....Perfect! Tally Ho!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlcpDVlsJjg

40 years old.....97 mph.....Perfect! Tally Ho!

In the NINTH inning!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

Whitey's raw ERA looks better until you take context into, well, context.

ERA+:

Johnson - 135
Ford - 133

I don't much care about winning % since it's a team stat and Ford pitched for loaded teams. I mean, his winning % went down from 65-67...

The "Casey held him back for big games" also doesn't hold much water to me. If anything, that's a negative against Ford. That's Stengel saying "yeah, this guy isn't durable enough to pitch regularly." The "he was saving Ford" argument also loses weight when you realize that Ford had multiple relief appearances almost every season until Houk came along.

Johnson pitched 1000 more innings than Ford, while simultaneously maintaining a higher ERA+. He led his league in ERA+ 6 times, Ford just once. Johnson also won 4 ERA titles to 2 for Ford. If you like WAR - I'm not exactly a fan - then Ford's BEST season would be Randy's EIGHTH best. Ford's postseason heroics are often cited but he had an ERA over 4.00 in over half (6 of 11) his postseasons. Randy was over 4.00 in 5 of his 11. Randy also had a lower FIP (3.19) than Ford (3.26), while leading the league 6 times to Ford's 1.

I honestly don't see much of a case for Ford over Johnson. Randy had a higher peak, pitched 1000 innings more, dominated more, and had a higher ERA+.

[howard38]

"If anything, that's a negative against Ford. That's Stengel saying "yeah, this guy isn't durable enough to pitch regularly."

This is a reach. Ford proved his durability as soon as the Yankees let Stengel go. In Ford's first & third seasons w/o Stengel as his manager he led the league in IP & over his last five seasons he led in total IP.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by howard38

"If anything, that's a negative against Ford. That's Stengel saying "yeah, this guy isn't durable enough to pitch regularly."

This is a reach. Ford proved his durability as soon as the Yankees let Stengel go. In Ford's first & third seasons w/o Stengel as his manager he led the league in IP & over his last five seasons he led in total IP.

If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

[G1911]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

I've read this in many books, including by teammates. The claim is frequently made in the literature on the 50's Yankees. After taking a look at the statistics and his innings by opponent, lifetime and during the individual systems in the mid-late 50's when Ford was established, and Stengel was the manager, the claim is not really true.

He DID start inordinately against the White Sox, but there's not much else in the individual team matchups to support this.

He pitched 1,707 innings against teams greater than .500, 1,463 against teams under. The discrepancy actually mostly comes from the 60's, after Stengel had been fired. He did pitch better against successful teams than poor ones, 2.68 against winnings clubs, 2.83 against.

The specific claim, that Stengel's saved Ford to face the good teams, checks out as generally false (I would be shocked if this did not occasionally happen, as it does with many pitchers), BUT this does reflect well on Ford. He did pitch a bit more against good teams than bad, and, unusually, he performed better against winning teams over his career than bad ones.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

Well, in 1958, for example, Ford had 5 starts against KC out of only 29 all year. In 1959, he had 4 starts out of 29. In other words, exactly the number you'd expect him to have when facing 7 different opponents all season. Other years, he had less. A review of his career starts against various opponents shows the quantity to be pretty bunched together other than the White Sox (his most-frequent opponent).

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

I'm sure Stengel was trying his best to win but that doesn't mean he was always right.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.

Ford was an amazing pitcher, but he readily admits to becoming Harris from Major League with the baseball in his later years.

There was someone above who considered Clemens to be the antichrist because he cheated. Well, obviously some of the old-timers did too. Most of it was just accepted back then (and ignored by anyone looking back today.)

That's why it's never made any sense to just forget what guys like Ford did when it comes to the subject, and focus only on Clemens, Bonds, etc. As far as HOF credentials or otherwise

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Ford was an amazing pitcher, but he readily admits to becoming Harris from Major League with the baseball in his later years.

There was someone above who considered Clemens to be the antichrist because he cheated. Well, obviously some of the old-timers did too. Most of it was just accepted back then (and ignored by anyone looking back today.)

That's why it's never made any sense to just forget what guys like Ford did when it comes to the subject, and focus only on Clemens, Bonds, etc. As far as HOF credentials or otherwise

This is a good point against Ford. At the end of his career he had a ring that he used to cut baseballs with to give his pitches extra movement. Ford was cutting balls in the 1963 World Series and Koufax still beat him twice.