Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Shoeless Moe]

and although its been mentioned, you can't mention it enough

Johnson pitched in the steroid era......and pitched in the Kingdome and Arizona's park, two very hitter friendly parks.

and still put up those numbers.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

and although its been mentioned, you can't mention it enough

Johnson pitched in the steroid era......and pitched in the Kingdome and Arizona's park, two very hitter friendly parks.

and still put up those numbers.

And more than half of his starts came in the DH league.

Johnson had a better peak than Koufax, 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.

[HistoricNewspapers]

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13

Pretty sure the argument for Koufax here will be the same as against Grove: Koufax was the supreme pitcher of his era (and in all honesty, I fully agree with that.) But he had an incredible amount of HOF pitchers he was competing with, making his accomplishments EVEN GREATER!! But Grove had Hubbell and a bunch of stumblebums. I'm not looking, but I'm sure RJ had no competition, that's why he was so much better than his league.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Pretty sure the argument for Koufax here will be the same as against Grove: Koufax was the supreme pitcher of his era (and in all honesty, I fully agree with that.) But he had an incredible amount of HOF pitchers he was competing with, making his accomplishments EVEN GREATER!! But Grove had Hubbell and a bunch of stumblebums. I'm not looking, but I'm sure RJ had no competition, that's why he was so much better than his league.

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a plan.

I'm waiting for the Koufax group to start the Dante Bichette for the Hall of Fame based on his dominant peak offensive years.

If we flip the switch on the peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

ERA+ measures the domiance vs their peers. That is not misused at all: However, no point beating a dead horse:

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a good plan.



If we flip the switch onto the hitters and peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.



PS The ONLY measurable across eras is:

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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

ERA+ measures the domiance vs their peers. That is not misused at all: However, no point beating a dead horse:

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a good plan.



If we flip the switch onto the hitters and peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.



PS The ONLY measurable across eras is:

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.

You cannot use ERA+ to compare pitchers between eras. Here are the Topps RCs of starting pitchers elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.

1955 Koufax
1957 Drysdale
1959 Gibson
1961 Marichal
1963 Perry
1964 Niekro
1965 Carlton
1965 Hunter
1966 Palmer
1966 Sutton
1966 Jenkins
1967 Seaver
1968 Ryan
1971 Blyleven
1987 Maddux

Between 1955 and 1967 13 starting pitchers elected by the BBWAA to the HOF made their MLB debut. From 1971-1985 zero. MLB talent is not the same from era to era.

I have already shown that why people discount stats of Rockies players, average park factors 118. So, you think picking a Rockies player makes a valid comparison? Lol.
It is not like Bichette faced anywhere near the pitching talent that Mays or Aaron did.

There is a simple reason for the above. MLB was integrated between 1947-1960 seeing an increase in talent in baseball. The rise of the NFL in the 70s and NBA in the 80s has diverted talent from MLB to the NBA and NFL. Jackie Robinson played pro football before baseball. If he was playing pro sports today, it would be in the NFL. Bob Gibson played with the Globetrotters before baseball. If Gibson were playing today, most likely it would be the NBA.

I will take Koufax over Johnson or any other lefty and win championships.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

You cannot use ERA+ to compare pitchers between eras. Here are the Topps RCs of starting pitchers elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.

1955 Koufax
1957 Drysdale
1959 Gibson
1961 Marichal
1963 Perry
1964 Niekro
1965 Carlton
1965 Hunter
1966 Palmer
1966 Sutton
1966 Jenkins
1967 Seaver
1968 Ryan
1971 Blyleven
1987 Maddux

Between 1955 and 1967 13 starting pitchers elected by the BBWAA to the HOF made their MLB debut. From 1971-1985 zero. MLB talent is not the same from era to era.

I have already shown that why people discount stats of Rockies players, average park factors 118. So, you think picking a Rockies player makes a valid comparison? Lol.
It is not like Bichette faced anywhere near the pitching talent that Mays or Aaron did.

There is a simple reason for the above. MLB was integrated between 1947-1960 seeing an increase in talent in baseball. The rise of the NFL in the 70s and NBA in the 80s has diverted talent from MLB to the NBA and NFL. Jackie Robinson played pro football before baseball. If he was playing pro sports today, it would be in the NFL. Bob Gibson played with the Globetrotters before baseball. If Gibson were playing today, most likely it would be the NBA.

I will take Koufax over Johnson or any other lefty and win championships.

Nice try, but wrong on every count.

So NOW you understand park factor when it pertains to the Rockies??? But ignore it when it pertains to Koufax? Hilarious. Superb. Nice try.

And if your criteria is Championships, then Whitey Ford or Madison Bumgarner are your pitchers.

And if winning is all that mattered, how do you pick a pitcher who only won 165 games over someone who won 304??

Population and talent is a whole other exercise I can take you through....but it is long and won't look pretty on your end of the debate. In short, African American participation declined in MLB, but Latino participation rose at a higher rate than that decline.

There were also many more people to draw from in general in the 1990's onward, compared to 1960's and previous.

Over time, players have continued to be bigger, faster, and stronger in every aspect. The athletes are getting better...not worse. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

When is the last time you worked with growing athletes to draw your conclusions from?? Athletes are better than ever right now. Period. Romantic viewpoints of yesteryear does not change that fact.

World Wild inclusion also became far more impactful. So instead of just drawing American born talent, it was from all over the world. You had millions upon millions more people to draw from, from other countries.

All that adds up to far more available MLB talent that any expansion or popularity of basketball or football.

Kids that can throw 98 MPH with success, play baseball regardless how good they are at other sports. So those other sports are not taking pitchers away from MLB. Sorry. The average MLB fastball has risen steadily over the years. Based on your premise, it should be declining...not rising. They are not only throwing harder, they are taller too. They can also place the ball better. They also have an array of pitches as well. Nasty ones.

Fielding percentages in baseball have risen steadily over time...another sign of the superior athlete. EVERY shortstop today makes throws from the hole with ease now...throws that only an elite few could make even as late as the 1970's. There is zero comparison between the arms of now compared to the arms of then. If basketball and football are taking athletes away from baseball...then how are the fielders continually getting better over time?? How are their arms getting stronger if athletes are being lost to other sports??? How are they running FASTER? If your premise that competition was better then, then the players should be running SLOWER now, NOT FASTER!

So the players now can catch the ball better, throw it better, and run faster. Yet they aren't as good??? Yeah that makes total sense...lol.

Please...football and basketball were both mainstays already in the 1960's. Basketball was actually the more popular high school sport even then.

In the meantime, you enjoy taking Joe Horlen and company over Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Max Scherzer, etc...and all those other pitchers from the 1960's who had better ERA's than superior pitchers.

You are picking it based on an illusion of the rules, not on the talent of the players.

Otherwise who would pick a pitcher who is ten inches shorter, throws seven MPH slower, has less command, and less MENTAL CAPACITY? NOBODY. Unless someone was fooled because the rules of the time dictated that his numbers 'looked' a tad better. You got fooled. NOt going to fault you for it, but you did.

Yes, Koufax had less mental attributes. Koufax quit...which makes him soft. I would use another word, but don't want to offend anyone. If he isn't soft, then he is unreliable. Neither are good attributes. If he isn't unreliable, then he is made of glass. Again, not a good attribute in an athlete when there are others who don't have those issues.


Lets go have a contest you and me.

We will play a baseball game against each other. When I am pitching, I will pitch off of a mound that is 15 inches high, will use a dead ball, and the strike zone will be strictly from the arm pits to the knees. We will play in the largest field at a local complex.

When you pitch, you will have to pitch off of flat ground, use the live ball from last MLB season, and the strike zone will be from the knees to my waist. For your pitching, we will move to the smallest field at the local complex(but you will still be pitching from 60 feet 6).

Put your money where your premise is. If you don't think those factors matter, then lets make a wager and have that contest.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

Told you, Brian!

[CMIZ5290]

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

If you get the 1955-1961 Koufax to show up, you've lost.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

I assume you mean circa 1965 Koufax, right? Versus RJ who has a lower mound, facing a DH, in the steroid era? I agree!

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

If you are picking that based on Koufax getting to pitch off a higher mound, with a bigger strike zone, with a less lively ball, and vs a lineup with less threats up and down....and Johnson having none of those advantages...then yes, not only do you pick Koufax:

Then you also pick all these guys from 1968 over Johnson too:
Bobby Bolin 1.99
Bob Veale 2.05
Stan Bahnsen 2.05
Steve Blass 2.12
Ray Washburn 2.26
Jim Nash 2.28
Joe Horlen 2.37
Etc..Etc...Etc..

"The regular changing of mound height was eventually prohibited. In 1950, teams settled on a height of 15 inches for the mound. Despite this regulation, some teams were accused of using a higher than regulation height mound; Dodger Stadium was particularly notorious for having a high mound. Following the incredibly low scoring in 1968, the rules were changed to reduce the mound to the contemporary 10 inch height. Some accusations of gamesmanship with mounds continue, usually with visiting teams complaining that the mounds in the visitor's bullpen don't match the mound of the field, so that relievers entering the game aren't properly adapted to the game mound." -Baseball reference.

I think everyone knows the advantage a higher mound gives a pitcher.

It is the same advantage, that nobody in their right mind is going to pass up on a pitcher(Johnson) who is ten inches taller, throws harder, has greater command...and also is superior in all the other pitching tools and mental capacities. Nobody takes the inferior(Koufax)pitcher there....unless a person is fooled because that inferior pitcher is being judged on extreme advantages that give him the ILLUSION of superior effectiveness.

No Brainer.

If that is anyone's rationale, great, your choice...but then:

Would you also be willing to partake in a home run hitting contest against me if I got to use the live ball from last season, and you had to use a ball from 1965...and I got to hit in Coors field and you had to hit in Dodger Stadium? Also, the pitcher you are facing is six foot ten inches tall and throwing 85MPH, and the pitcher I am facing is five foot eight and throwing 75MPH.

I'm willing to bet that people would immediately change their tune on the context once it was applied to them directly


PS If Aaron Judge is on this board, I'm changing the context in our home run contest, that I get to hit in the field they play the Little League World Series on, and you have to hit in Old(DiMaggio) Yankee Stadium.

Then I can walk around saying I am a better home run hitter than Aaron Judge...just like the people saying that Koufax is better than Randy Johnson.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Told you, Brian!

Good call