Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The reason I cited the other Dodger pitchers, specifically Drysdale was to show that while their E.R.A.'s were also lower at Dodger Stadium, Koufax,'s were MUCH lower than theirs. In other words, he was down in the 1.00's and even below 1.00 while Drysdale was doing very well in the 2.00's. The point is, while the stadium may have been a factor, that Koufax did so well there also had to be due to his ABILITY.

And I want to reiterate that while yes, the 1960's favored the pitcher, this dismissing of the 1960's as being weak on hitting or a second deadball era, is unfair. It gives short shrift to the many great hitters who played back then, and doesn't take into account the more rugged and aggressive style of the game. Hitters had to face brush back pitches and the threat of being knocked down without all the protective gear of today. Calling it a second deadball era is such an inaccurate term. It reminds me of placing Mantle's record of 18 World Series home runs, down the list under the heading of "post-season home runs". The cheapness of the more modern statistics in ballparks that are smaller, with a much livelier ball, doesn't make the ball that was used in Koufax's day dead, nor the hitting weak. The modern outlook doesn't acknowledge the great hitters who had to play a truer game and face some of the greatest pitchers who ever played, under much more arduous circumstances. Guys like Koufax didn't dominate because the hitters were weak, but because the pitchers were good.

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

I agree 150%. Here’s what certain people are missing. A “high mound” is an advantage to a pitcher, BUT any hurler requires the world-class tools to capitalize on the mound’s higher plane. In Koufax’s case, it was his incredible “12 to 6” curveball that bottomed out right at the hitting zone. In those 5 years of sheer dominance, Koufax’s curveball was as good as any pitcher who ever toed an MLB rubber, combining the curve with an upper 90s riding fastball to dominate hitters as good or better than any all-time great in a 5-year span. The greatest lefty of all-time - NO - just not enough years of dominance to stake that claim. However, from a “peak-value” perspective, he stands at or near the top right alongside any lefty or righty.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

You are still arguing against things not said, instead of what it is said. I have acknowledged Koufax had a great streak for five seasons and used numerous superlatives in describing them as "astounding", etc. He is still a product of time and place, a time and place that are very, very favorable to him, historically so, as they were not for pitchers who had much better careers.

Nobody has said he wasn't great these years. Nobody has said other Dodgers of the period were better. Not a single post has said this.

The same handful of strawmans, arguing against points nobody has actually made, again and again and again and again while ignoring the points actually made.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

Nice strawman.