Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

I also want to point out that Randy Johnson injuries also forced him to miss most of two seasons in the middle of his prime when he won his FIVE CY Youngs and nearly FOUR more.

He also missed most of another season near the end of his career when he was averaging 11.4 K per nine innings.

He also had to retire earlier than his stuff dictated due to injury. He had more years left as he was averaging 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season...and pitching through pain costing him effectiveness as well.

SO if Koufax is getting credit for injuries...don't forget to give that to Randy Johnson as well.

It cost Johnson the all time strikeout record.

Eh, he was still 900 Ks short of the record after pitching to 45. He would have needed another 3 full seasons of top-flight effectiveness to get there and he didn't miss that much time.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Eh, he was still 900 Ks short of the record after pitching to 45. He would have needed another 3 full seasons of top-flight effectiveness to get there and he didn't miss that much time.

Point is, if you are going to assume with Koufax, you have to do the same with Randy Johnson. Johnson was averaging around 10 K's a game(it's ten for this exercise to make the math easy . He usually started 34 games a year. Just looking at the years where he missed significant time:


1994/95 missed 15 starts due to the strike......150 k's
1996 he only started 8 games................260 K's
2003 he only started 18 games.............160 K's
2007 he only started 10 games..............240 K's

That is 810 K's right there going into his last season.

2009 he only started 17 games.....?

2010 he retired even though he still had elite K ability having pitched through injury while still maintaining 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season.

So who knows how long he could have gone. A healthy Johnson easily had two or three years left after he retired.

Also, if he is within 100 strike outs when he decided to retire in 2010...seems to be a good chance he sticks it out for more seasons.

I personally don't see the need in adding the what if, but just being fair that if you apply it to one player, make sure you apply it to others as well.

[mdube16]

I always feel the complication with these arguments are you have different criteria for "best ever"

Is it the best overall career statically? (think Jerry Rice)
Is it the most accomplished career? (think Tom Brady)
Is it the best at his absolute peak? (Puts Gooden in the best pitcher argument)
Is it the best peak statistical seasons strung together?
Is it the most talented at peak? (Michael Vick was as scary as there was for a time, but is not in any sort of greatest conversation)

Probably most agree it is a combination I think career statistically combined with peak seasons is how we look at baseball players. Football and basketball have more emphasis on most accomplished which is why they count Rings in the arguments.

Based on this, Its very hard to argue against Randy Johnson as he checks all the boxes.

[cammb]

It is hard to argue for Koufax as "best ever" due to his short career. You can say greatest pitcher to dominate a sport during his time which he was. When you talk of legends of the game you can put Koufax in that category. I don't think anyone can consider Johnson a legend. Go to youtube and see for yourself the videos of Koufax , how he was held in high esteem, treated like a movie star. See f how other great players of his time spoke about him. You try to compare Johnson's mediocre injuries to Koufax. Are you kidding. Koufax ended his career. We will never know what kind of stats Koufax would have given if he pitched another five years. you can't play the "what if "game with Grove or Johnson because they played out their careers.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cammb

Go to youtube and see for yourself the videos of Koufax , how he was held in high esteem, treated like a movie star.

Sounds like you're talking about Bo Belinsky again.

All the things you say about Koufax above are true. What I say about Grove is true. So I think we've pretty much come around to agreeing, generally. Or if not, close. Koufax was dominant for a stretch; Grove was dominant for a full-length career.

[mdube16]

Originally Posted by cammb

It is hard to argue for Koufax as "best ever" due to his short career. You can say greatest pitcher to dominate a sport during his time which he was. When you talk of legends of the game you can put Koufax in that category. I don't think anyone can consider Johnson a legend. Go to youtube and see for yourself the videos of Koufax , how he was held in high esteem, treated like a movie star. See f how other great players of his time spoke about him. You try to compare Johnson's mediocre injuries to Koufax. Are you kidding. Koufax ended his career. We will never know what kind of stats Koufax would have given if he pitched another five years. you can't play the "what if "game with Grove or Johnson because they played out their careers.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ped-batter-box

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by cammb

It is hard to argue for Koufax as "best ever" due to his short career. You can say greatest pitcher to dominate a sport during his time which he was. When you talk of legends of the game you can put Koufax in that category. I don't think anyone can consider Johnson a legend. Go to youtube and see for yourself the videos of Koufax , how he was held in high esteem, treated like a movie star. See f how other great players of his time spoke about him. You try to compare Johnson's mediocre injuries to Koufax. Are you kidding. Koufax ended his career. We will never know what kind of stats Koufax would have given if he pitched another five years. you can't play the "what if "game with Grove or Johnson because they played out their careers.

If you open the 'what if' game, you can play it with anyone.

For instance, in a 12 year stretch, Johnson won five cy Young awards, finished second three other times, third, and 7th.

THat stretch itself is more dominating than anything Koufax every did.

However, if we play the 'what if' game....what if Johnson wasn't injured for two of those seasons during that stretch?

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

If you open the 'what if' game, you can play it with anyone.

For instance, in a 12 year stretch, Johnson won five cy Young awards, finished second three other times, third, and 7th.

THat stretch itself is more dominating than anything Koufax every did.

However, if we play the 'what if' game....what if Johnson wasn't injured for two of those seasons during that stretch?

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.

Randy Johnson stats from his 4 consecutive CY Young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

ERA Koufax 1.86 Johnson 2.48
WHIP Koufax .909 Johnson 1.044
FIP Koufax 1.97 Johnson 2.53

Now some counting stats
CG Koufax 89 Johnson 31
ShO Koufax 23 Johnson 11
Wins Koufax 97 Johnson 81
Ks Koufax 1228 Johnson 1417


They are clearly picking Koufax.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by rats60

randy johnson stats from his 4 consecutive cy young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

era koufax 1.86 johnson 2.48
whip koufax .909 johnson 1.044
fip koufax 1.97 johnson 2.53

now some counting stats
cg koufax 89 johnson 31
sho koufax 23 johnson 11
wins koufax 97 johnson 81
ks koufax 1228 johnson 1417


they are clearly picking koufax.

home run!!!!!!

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

Randy Johnson stats from his 4 consecutive CY Young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

ERA Koufax 1.86 Johnson 2.48
WHIP Koufax .909 Johnson 1.044
FIP Koufax 1.97 Johnson 2.53

Now some counting stats
CG Koufax 89 Johnson 31
ShO Koufax 23 Johnson 11
Wins Koufax 97 Johnson 81
Ks Koufax 1228 Johnson 1417


They are clearly picking Koufax.

Wrong because you are picking Koufax based on those statistics resulting from the low run scoring environment, not based on his abilities.

You also forget the key measurement from those years, ERA+
Johnson 187
Koufax 172

So again, Johnson had a better peak, a longer peak, and a vastly better career. Johnson was also better in every physical measurement and tool. Mentally better too because he didn't quit. Johnson was better. Period.

For example, the environment in the NL in 1965 created a league where the league average ERA was 3.54. Compared to 2001 where it was 4.36.

So what you are saying is that half the pitchers in the league in 1965 were better than every National League pitcher in 2001, except for the 12 in 2001 who who were able to have an ERA below 3.54(the league average of the NL in 1965)?

I guess Vern Law with his 2.15 ERA that year was ALSO better than Randy Johnson and his 2.49 ERA in 2001?

Also the dozens of pitchers with more complete games were better than Johnson too??

From 1964-1968 Joe Horlen had 2.32 ERA. Hmmm.

Seems like there are plenty of choices of low ERA's from that time to choose from, other than Koufax. Can't quite be that dominant if several other players offer similar output

Put Horlen in the HOF I guess.

It is the environment creating those statistics..

Also, Dodger Stadium was responsible for 15-20% of those numbers from Koufax. Again, the environment.




Just because the league was easy to pitch in in the 1960's doesn't make you better. If you flip that around and compare the hitters from the era's without understanding the context, then you are going to get a lot of Colorado players with better peaks than several Hall of Famers from the 1960's.

Vinny Castilla, Hall of Fame, here we come I guess.

Vinny Castilla 162 game average from 1996-1999

41 HR
120 RBI
.301 BA


Ellis Burks 162 game average from 1994-1997
39 HR
110 RBI
.311 BA

Todd Helton 2000-2003
40 HR
133 RBI
.349 BA

Dante Bichette 1995-1999
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Those guys are in a dead heat with Willie Mays from the 1960's. Mays and Aaron are the only ones from the 1960's that can compete with them.

Nobody else from the 1960's can match those peaks.


So if you are going to hold tight to looking at Koufax without the context of the league or stadium, that is fine.

Just don't forget to do the same with the Colorado group above.


If you are out there selecting a team, please let me know if you have two pitchers with equal mental capacity, and one is ten inches taller than the other, throws 5-7 MPH harder, has better command, better movement, and more physical mental toughness in pitching through pain.

I'll take the taller kid. You can have the other one.