Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the logic of Travis' argument would also dictate that Jesse Owens was slow, Mark Spitz was mediocre, Bill Russell would be a bench player today, and so forth. It's a fair argument if you're consistent with it, but personally I think it is much more meaningful to evaluate athletes relative to their time than on an absolute scale.

[G1911]

Even if we dismiss everyone before a randomly selected year to include only ones arbitrarily favorite candidates, how does one possibly come to the conclusion that Spahn was “an above average pitcher, at best”. At best. 100 WAR, 365 wins, 3 ERA crowns, 5 WHIP titles, 119 ERA+ In over 5,000 innings. This is merely above average, *at best*.

Surely someone can come up with a hot take that isn’t utterly absurd and can stand up to even cursory logical examination.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Spahn does well by the Bill James/Baseball Reference metrics.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Pitching - 101 (6), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink
Pitching - 374 (3), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor
Pitching - 260 (8), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Pitching - 66 (10), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Starting Pitcher (13th):
100.1 career WAR | 51.4 7yr-peak WAR | 75.7 JAWS | 4.8 WAR/162
Average HOF P (out of 65):
73.3 career WAR | 50.0 7yr-peak WAR | 61.7 JAWS | 4.5 WAR/162

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Spahn does well by the Bill James/Baseball Reference metrics.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Pitching - 101 (6), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink
Pitching - 374 (3), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor
Pitching - 260 (8), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Pitching - 66 (10), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS
Starting Pitcher (13th):
100.1 career WAR | 51.4 7yr-peak WAR | 75.7 JAWS | 4.8 WAR/162
Average HOF P (out of 65):
73.3 career WAR | 50.0 7yr-peak WAR | 61.7 JAWS | 4.5 WAR/162

I’m hard pressed to find a standard by which Spahn isn’t excellent. That Hall Monitor number is nuts.


If we must dismiss Spahn for playing so long ago, how is Koufax eligible for consideration though? They are contemporaries. Spahn win the NL ERA crown the year before Koufax’s streak began, retired one season before Koufax. 11 of Sandy's 12 seasons were played with Spahn in the league.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I’m hard pressed to find a standard by which Spahn isn’t excellent. That Hall Monitor number is nuts.


If we must dismiss Spahn for playing so long ago, how is Koufax eligible for consideration though? They are contemporaries. Spahn win the NL ERA crown the year before Koufax’s streak began, retired one season before Koufax. 11 of Sandy's 12 seasons were played with Spahn in the league.

And in how many of those did Spahn have a better year? Perhaps half?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And in how many of those did Spahn have a better year? Perhaps half?

This should be pretty easy, as the winner is clear each year but 1:

1955 Spahn
1956 Spahn
1957 Spahn
1958 Spahn
1959 Spahn
1960 Spahn
1961 Spahn (wins ERA crown at 40)
1962 Debatable - WAR gives it to Spahn, Koufax won ERA title with far less IP.
1963 Koufax
1964 Koufax
1965 Koufax

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

This should be pretty easy, as the winner is clear each year but 1:

1955 Spahn
1956 Spahn
1957 Spahn
1958 Spahn
1959 Spahn
1960 Spahn
1961 Spahn (wins ERA crown at 40)
1962 Debatable - WAR gives it to Spahn, Koufax won ERA title with far less IP.
1963 Koufax
1964 Koufax
1965 Koufax

I guess we need an argument that the first half of Koufax' career somehow isn't relevant to the evaluation. You only take his great years. Maybe within those great years you disregard any mediocre to poor games. Then you compare the sliver that's left to everyone else. After all he is KOUFAX.

[cjedmonton]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the logic of Travis' argument would also dictate that Jesse Owens was slow, Mark Spitz was mediocre, Bill Russell would be a bench player today, and so forth. It's a fair argument if you're consistent with it, but personally I think it is much more meaningful to evaluate athletes relative to their time than on an absolute scale.

What a coincidence…JUST finished reading a chapter on Cool Papa Bell in Joe Posnanski’s truly awesome The Baseball 100 book.

It starts and ends with Owens’ apparent reluctance to race Cool Papa because he didn’t think he could beat him. More likely, they were two of the fastest humans on earth at the time, their legend so mighty, there was no point in racing, lest they risk tarnishing the loser’s legacy. Leave the world wondering who was truly faster forevermore.

Sorry, too coincidental not to mention. Back to southpaws…

*But seriously, The Baseball 100 is an absolute must read.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

What a coincidence…JUST finished reading a chapter on Cool Papa Bell in Joe Posnanski’s truly awesome The Baseball 100 book.

It starts and ends with Owens’ apparent reluctance to race Cool Papa because he didn’t think he could beat him. More likely, they were two of the fastest humans on earth at the time, their legend so mighty, there was no point in racing, lest they risk tarnishing the loser’s legacy. Leave the world wondering who was truly faster forevermore.

Sorry, too coincidental not to mention. Back to southpaws…

*But seriously, The Baseball 100 is an absolute must read.

I think it was Satchel who said, he once hit a line drive past my head and I turned around to see the ball hit him in the ass as he slid into second.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it was Satchel who said, he once hit a line drive past my head and I turned around to see the ball hit him in the ass as he slid into second.

Wasn't he also the guy who could turn off a light switch and hop into bed before the room got dark?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Wasn't he also the guy who could turn off a light switch and hop into bed before the room got dark?

Yes lol. I think Paige said that too actually.

Imagine the 1933 Pittsburgh Crawfords -- Bell, an aging but still great Oscar Charleston, a rookie named Josh Gibson, and a pitcher named Paige.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes lol. I think Paige said that too actually.

Imagine the 1933 Pittsburgh Crawfords -- Bell, an aging but still great Oscar Charleston, a rookie named Josh Gibson, and a pitcher named Paige.

From what I learned here, that Crawford team is about par with a 2021 little league team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=earlywynnfan;2162002]From what I learned here, that Crawford team is about par with a 2021 little league team.[/QUOTE

That's absurd. They were at least good enough for the office softball team.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the logic of Travis' argument would also dictate that Jesse Owens was slow, Mark Spitz was mediocre, Bill Russell would be a bench player today, and so forth. It's a fair argument if you're consistent with it, but personally I think it is much more meaningful to evaluate athletes relative to their time than on an absolute scale.

Spaeth --- +10.

This whole OP is certainly a case of evaluating Mr. Koufax's 6 peak years relative to his time. He killed 'em all, even in in breakout 1961 season, save for '62 when he got injured toward the season's pennant stretch. As Vin Skully remembered in Ken Burns The Story of Baseball, the Dodger fans used to rise in unison and applaud THUNDEROUSLY when Sandy would walk out to the mound to warm up. It was that kind of respect. --- Brian Powell