Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by G1911

That bum Grove was still winning ERA crowns at the age Sandy made the hall, he sure was terrible (and his league leading ERA’s were made up by jock sniffers! But Sandy’s ERA’s are evidence of his greatness). Cap Anson didn’t make it until he had been dead for 17 years, I can’t believe I used to think he was pretty good too.

OK, I have refrained from comment thus far. But this has devolved into idiocy IMO. As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is true. You can skew them however you want, depending on the point you want to prove. Depending on how they are used, stats are opinion-based. They are not necessarily objective. Junk in, junk out. Not saying that they are useless, because they represent the current best effort. But they are certainly not gospel, as some here seem to believe.

Ten years from now, all the stats that are now being spouted as gospel will be denigrated as old, stupid, and misplaced. There will be newer and better stats that prove whatever point someone wants to make. That's how it works. Also, people who think Koufax was the best will continue to think that. People who don't will continue not to believe that. And both will continue to cite whatever stats they contrive that they think prove their point. This discussion is completely pointless.

Koufax was a great pitcher. Grove was a great pitcher. Spahn, Carlton, Plank, Waddell and arguably certain others were great too. Whether one of them is the greatest is completely viewpoint dependent. Is the "greatest" the best peak, the best during his time, the best over his career, the most wins, or something else? I can see each point of view. This whole debate is stupid because there are no parameters.

BTW, the Anson analogy is wholly misplaced because: 1) there was no HOF until way after he played, so the length of time between his death and his election is totally irrelevant; and 2) the first vote was, to say the least confused because none of the voters seemed to understand that there were supposed to be TWO categories of players elected, 10 from the 20th century and 5 from the 19th century. Cy Young split that vote. Anson did too, as I understand it. The claim that the length of time between Anson's death and his election somehow means something is so off base that it doesn't even deserve further comment.

Koufax was the greatest pitcher I have seen in my lifetime. He was also the first pitcher I ever saw in a live game, so I can fairly be accused of some hero worship. I saw Gibson, Marichal, Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Drysdale, and many others too. None blew me away like Koufax. I didn't see Grove, Plank, or the others, so I can't comment on them. Maybe they were better. It doesn't matter. The person who you actually saw that blew you away is likely to be your pick as the best ever I would think. I'm good with that because all of this statistical "comparison" stuff only tells part of the story IMO. Shoot away.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

OK, I have refrained from comment thus far. But this has devolved into idiocy IMO. As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is true. You can skew them however you want, depending on the point you want to prove. Depending on how they are used, stats are opinion-based. They are not necessarily objective. Junk in, junk out. Not saying that they are useless, because they represent the current best effort. But they are certainly not gospel, as some here seem to believe.

Ten years from now, all the stats that are now being spouted as gospel will be denigrated as old, stupid, and misplaced. There will be newer and better stats that prove whatever point someone wants to make. That's how it works. Also, people who think Koufax was the best will continue to think that. People who don't will continue not to believe that. And both will continue to cite whatever stats they contrive that they think prove their point. This discussion is completely pointless.

Koufax was a great pitcher. Grove was a great pitcher. Spahn, Carlton, Plank, Waddell and arguably certain others were great too. Whether one of them is the greatest is completely viewpoint dependent. Is the "greatest" the best peak, the best during his time, the best over his career, the most wins, or something else? I can see each point of view. This whole debate is stupid because there are no parameters.

BTW, the Anson analogy is wholly misplaced because: 1) there was no HOF until way after he played, so the length of time between his death and his election is totally irrelevant; and 2) the first vote was, to say the least confused because none of the voters seemed to understand that there were supposed to be TWO categories of players elected, 10 from the 20th century and 5 from the 19th century. Cy Young split that vote. Anson did too, as I understand it. The claim that the length of time between Anson's death and his election somehow means something is so off base that it doesn't even deserve further comment.

Koufax was the greatest pitcher I have seen in my lifetime. He was also the first pitcher I ever saw in a live game, so I can fairly be accused of some hero worship. I saw Gibson, Marichal, Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Drysdale, and many others too. None blew me away like Koufax. I didn't see Grove, Plank, or the others, so I can't comment on them. Maybe they were better. It doesn't matter. The person who you actually saw that blew you away is likely to be your pick as the best ever I would think. I'm good with that because all of this statistical "comparison" stuff only tells part of the story IMO. Shoot away.

I don't know how you could possibly read my post and take it literally. Obviously the Anson point is idiotic. Devolved into idiocy, you got that right...

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't know how you could possibly read my post and take it literally. Obviously the Anson point is idiotic. Devolved into idiocy, you got that right...

Well, at least e agree on something ...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Well, at least e agree on something ...

Yep, that I'm a jock sniffing idiot for using statistics in an all-time debate. Really opened my eyes. Thanks.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yep, that I'm a jock sniffing idiot for using statistics in an all-time debate. Really opened my eyes. Thanks.

LOL, completely missed the point, yet again. Not surprising. Have a nice day. Continue on with your bad self.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

LOL, completely missed the point, yet again. Not surprising. Have a nice day. Continue on with your bad self.

Any other Koufaxers got any more? "bad self", "idiotic", jock sniffer. Surely we can get 5 today. My block list is filling up fast.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by G1911

Any other Koufaxers got any more? "bad self", "idiotic", jock sniffer. Surely we can get 5 today. My block list is filling up fast.

Please do. Then I don't have to deal with your idiocy any more.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Randy Johnson is best lefty of all time and is in serious discussion for best pitcher of all time as well.

Had Johnson gone the Koufax route and put everything he had into a five year stretch, with no concern for his future, he would be putting up 420 strikeouts per year while pitching another 60+ innings a year. However, he didn't do that. He didn't need to do that...but still had a greater peak than Koufax.

Instead, Johnson was still able to throw a perfect game at age 40, win five Cy Young awards, and finish second three more times.

You know what is crazy?

If you remove those FIVE years where Johnson won the Cy Young award, he still has more career wins than Koufax; 204-165.


Best ERA+ seasons:
Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify


Johnson had unrivaled physical tools. No pitcher in MLB history can match his physical tools. He was six foot eleven and threw over 100 MPH with a ridiculous slider....WITH COMMAND(after a few year learning curve). Some pitchers had one or two of those tools, but nobody had ALL of those tools like he did.

Let me explain why the physical tools are of such importance. Why would you take another pitcher over Johnson if the other pitcher was ten inches shorter, threw three miles an hour slower, had lesser command, and similar or less breaking pitches? The only other factor would be mental make up. Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES.

Environments a player plays in severely muddles or hides statistical measurements, but the tools are concrete. The tools are a known. A lot of the statistical measurements are unknowns because environment muddles them. An environment can give false perceptions of ones true ability. Six foot eleven cannot be muddled. 100 MPH cannot be muddled. Nasty slider cannot be muddled. Command cannot be muddled. The only other obstacle is mental make up and thrive to succeed. He obviously passed that only unknown hurdle.

So when you are weighing all this, the physical tools play a vital role in solving the dilemma of cross era comparison.


He had the results to back it up.

He was umpire proof. He didn't need the inches off the plate like Maddux and Glavine often did to excel to the levels they did.

He was era proof. He didn't need lineups in the league where numbers six through nine were zero threats and hit basically zero power...like which occurred in other eras where scoring was depressed, or era's like the 30's where only the elite few were legit power threats.

In fact, he pitched in probably the toughest era to be a pitcher, with the live ball, DH, and steroids. Any pitcher that can handle the toughest environment to pitch in, surely would have no problem in the eras where it was pitcher friendly.

He didn't need a dead ball to excel or last a long time.

He was stadium proof. He didn't need to rely on a certain stadium to make him dominant.

He had peak dominance and longevity dominance.

He was the guy that if you lined all these historic pitchers up at a local baseball field standing shoulder to shoulder, then watched him unleash what he had, he would be the guy every single coach would pick. Coaches would be drooling.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

One could also imagine him pitching his entire career at Coors field in the live ball era, then he would never even have a thread dedicated to him...and only the people who recognize the importance of context, would see his value.


But really, what you said is the entire point. He would need five more elite years just to get into the discussion, because only then would he would begin to match the length of dominance of Unit or Grove.

Until he puts up those five more elite years...he doesn't belong in the conversation of all time best lefty.

Originally Posted by G1911

Yep, that I'm a jock sniffing idiot for using statistics in an all-time debate. Really opened my eyes. Thanks.

I never called any poster a jock sniffing idiot but if you insist on wearing that mantle go right ahead. Reread my post. I will repeat, I am not a Koufax fan but I have seen him pitch several times. His performance was jaw dropping total dominance. So yeah I have never saw a better pitcher than him. When you compare Pfeister to Koufax it’s time to leave the building

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cammb

I never called any poster a jock sniffing idiot but if you insist on wearing that mantle go right ahead. Reread my post. I will repeat, I am not a Koufax fan but I have seen him pitch several times. His performance was jaw dropping total dominance. So yeah I have never saw a better pitcher than him. When you compare Pfeister to Koufax it’s time to leave the building

Please identity which of Grove's stats are suspect.

[999Tony]

I’m not the first to compare koufax to Newhouser! This article even includes the allstar appearance similarity. Hopefully there is a more rigorous statistical comparison out there so I don’t have to try to do it. Ondeckcircle.wordpress.com

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yep, that I'm a jock sniffing idiot for using statistics in an all-time debate. Really opened my eyes. Thanks.

You haven't used any stats.