Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[earlywynnfan]

So greatest lefty of all time is about one WS Game? Then maybe we should discuss Harry Brecheen.
But I’ll play. WS Stats:
Koufax: 57 IP, ERA 0.95, WHIP .825 36H/6ER/2HR/11W/61K
Grove: 51+ IP, ERA 1.75 WHIP 1.013 46H/10ER/0HR/6W/36K

If you look at the two “best” WS for both, where they made multiple starts, Koufax faced the Yankees and the 1964 Minnesota Twins. Grove faced the Gas House Gang. Koufax faced teams that hit far more homers while having far smaller batting averages, and Grove the opposite. Logic tells me that Koufax would allow more homers and Grove more hits. And the statistics bear this out.
I’ve always been taught that statistics shouldn’t exist in a vacuum. The difference in WHIP is easily identified through the lens of the era. I haven’t looked closely, but I’ll assume half of these games were pitched at either Dodger Stadium or Shibe Park. One pitcher pitched off a higher mound.
Koufax had noticeably more strikeouts than Grove, but also noticeably more walks. I think it’s pretty clear that Koufax had better stats, if you don’t look at the competition they faced. But how is one of these “The Greatest Lefthander of All Time” and one of these “Barely better than your church softball player”??

Oh, and for the record, Grove DID blow his arm out. He was regularly listed in the conversation of “hardest thrower ever” between Johnson, Feller, and Ryan. And he came back from it to, among other things, lead the league in ERA several times. All before modern medicine.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

One pitcher pitched off a higher mound.

Same pitcher also got a larger strike zone that coincided with their best seasons.

[Carter08]

Minor point but Spahn hit 35 dingers. Joe Torre fondly recalled the manager pinch hitting Spahn for him on a few occasions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Minor point but Spahn hit 35 dingers. Joe Torre fondly recalled the manager pinch hitting Spahn for him on a few occasions.

But Koufax hit a HR off Spahn in a 1962 game.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But Koufax hit a HR off Spahn in a 1962 game.

Ha damn you!

[mrreality68]

The reality is there are a lot of great left handers and many can make a great argument for many of them being the best.

Regardless if you think that it is Koufax, Grove, Spahn, Johnson or others

Enjoy the banter we had here back and fourth.

Enjoy the cards of each of these greats

Enjoy what that gave to the Game of Baseball and the fans

[Snowman]

I never said WHIP was some advanced metric that was sufficient for settling the debate. I used it as an example of a basic statistic that isn't normalized by how strong or weak the rest of the pitchers in the league are. I chose it because I figured you guys could at least understand it and used it as a contrast to normalized statistics. Stop taking my words out of context.

My top 3 are Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw, and not necessarily in that order. Grove was great, but I discount his era. Spahn was very good for his time, but would be above average at best today. Those are my opinions. Take them or leave them. I don't care.

Modern pitching is far superior to pre-war pitching. It's not even remotely close. As I stated above, wins is one of the worst predictors of a pitcher's future success. ERA is highly subject to variance (aspects that a pitcher cannot control). WAR is great for comparing pitchers in a similar era, so long as you understand that it is a counting statistic (and what that implies). However, if you understand how WAR is calculated, then you'd know that in an effort to control for variations in league wide hitting talent from year to year, it's creators adjust for how well someone pitches relative to their peers. The problem with this adjustment from a statistical theory standpoint is that it simply trades one form of variance for another by trading the variance in league-wide hitting talent for the variance in league-wide pitching talent. They have solved one problem by creating another. The clue for this is even in the name (wins above "replacement"). This means their WAR calculations depend on how good or bad replacement level pitching was in that era (or for a rolling 3 year window). If you instead used a 2021 replacement level pitcher as the baseline for Warren Spahn's stats, his WAR value would drop significantly. These are not my opinions. These are all facts that can be easily proven. Again, as stated above, this is also why I said WAR and wins should not be used to determine who was "best". If you want to have a real discussion around who was best, then we'd need to dive into some of the more advanced sabermetrics (and no, I'm not talking about WHIP). But I have zero interest in discussing that with you guys because you don't even understand basic statistics, let alone the statistical theory needed to have this discussion, as evidenced by Peter's cute little ridiculing formula above. Just because you can't wrap your heads around some of the more advanced sabermetrics doesn't mean they don't matter.

Anyhow, I'm done here. I'll let the net54 intelligentsia committee settle this debate. It sounds like you guys are in great hands. After all, there are data analysts, CPAs, and financial planners in here! And they are "good with statistics". Lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

How does your analysis factor in Koufax' first 6 seasons (half his career, total WAR 6.8) or do you just disregard it? Since you haven't I don't think actually given us your analysis, but just talked down to us about how stupid we are, it seems a reasonable question.

One other aside, Koufax first pitched 66 years ago and last pitched 55 years ago. He's a lot closer in time to Grove (who pitched until 1941, just 14 years before Koufax started) than to today's pitchers. Why do you completely discount Grove because he pitched in prehistoric times, but apparently treat Koufax' numbers as legit?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How does your analysis factor in Koufax' first 6 seasons (half his career, total WAR 6.8) or do you just disregard it? Since you haven't I don't think actually given us your analysis, but just talked down to us about how stupid we are, it seems a reasonable question.

One other aside, Koufax first pitched 66 years ago and last pitched 55 years ago. He's a lot closer in time to Grove (who pitched until 1941, just 14 years before Koufax started) than to today's pitchers. Why do you completely discount Grove because he pitched in prehistoric times, but apparently treat Koufax' numbers as legit?

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

You're an idiot.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're an idiot.

I agree with this analysis frequently. I don't know a whole lot, but I do recognize an absurd, fallacious argument when it's really, really obvious.

[tiger8mush]

Best Career LHP = Grove.
Best in my lifetime = Randy Johnson, with Kershaw #2.

If we're discussing the hypothetical World Series game 7 - Whitey Ford's "peak" was his 33 & 2/3 consecutive scoreless World Series innings between 1960-1962. So unless this game goes 34+ innings he's my guy

[Bigdaddy]

I once had a guy that worked for me. After writing a conference paper but before turning it in for publication, he said "There is no one in the organization that is qualified to review my work." Strange thing is, no one in the organization would work with him. He had burned all the bridges and left scorched earth in his path. I'm getting that same feeling here.

Boys, this was a simple question from the OP. If there was a single definitive answer, then there would be no debate. But we each define 'best' by our own standards; some may regard longevity and consistency as key factors, others may regard a five or eight or ten year peak as the key metric. Or still others may revere strikeouts as king, or wins, or WAR or ERA+ or whatever you want. But I will wager this - If you asked 25 major league managers and GMs who they would choose for their top left handed pitcher for their expansion team, there will definitely be more than one answer. That, is what is great about baseball - the thread that goes from Kershaw through Johnson through Koufax through Spahn and to Grove. We can have these discussions, debates even, and everyone gets their say.

Now, who is the 'best' looking actress in Hollywood? Remember, there is only one right answer.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're an idiot.

Couldn't even keep your promise, could you? Post #740 you said you were done here, but it is only Post #747 and you're already back. Oh joy! So you lied about that. Not surprising, goes well with also being a hypocrite.

And besides not answering people's questions, belittling other's knowledge and opinions, completely ignoring common sense and logic in making arguments that are based on completely out of context situations, with this latest post you've now stooped to unwarranted insults.......well done!!!

I'm beginning to understand how you could be asked to leave another forum like Blowout...urrr, I'm sorry, Blowhard as you call it. Additionally, makes me wonder if the people over on that forum would consider your comments as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

And no need to respond, would be happy to see you go back to keeping your promise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

I am waiting, in vain perhaps, for the affirmative showing why Koufax is the "best" and by what definition. In particular I would like to know how that argument accounts for the half of his career where he clearly was mediocre, the Dodger Stadium factor, and so forth. As stated, I also would like to understand why Grove is too prehistoric to consider but Koufax, only 14 years removed from Grove but 55 years removed from the present, is not. But I guess as John Updike put it, gods don't answer letters. Speaking of Updike and that quote, his famous piece on Ted's last game starts with a bit of statistical analysis of Ted's career. I am 100 percent sure, Updike being a non-statistician, and launch angles and BABIP not yet being in vogue (or even WAR), the analysis was pathetic.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I never said WHIP was some advanced metric that was sufficient for settling the debate. I used it as an example of a basic statistic that isn't normalized by how strong or weak the rest of the pitchers in the league are. I chose it because I figured you guys could at least understand it and used it as a contrast to normalized statistics. Stop taking my words out of context.

My top 3 are Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw, and not necessarily in that order. Grove was great, but I discount his era. Spahn was very good for his time, but would be above average at best today. Those are my opinions. Take them or leave them. I don't care.

Modern pitching is far superior to pre-war pitching. It's not even remotely close. As I stated above, wins is one of the worst predictors of a pitcher's future success. ERA is highly subject to variance (aspects that a pitcher cannot control). WAR is great for comparing pitchers in a similar era, so long as you understand that it is a counting statistic (and what that implies). However, if you understand how WAR is calculated, then you'd know that in an effort to control for variations in league wide hitting talent from year to year, it's creators adjust for how well someone pitches relative to their peers. The problem with this adjustment from a statistical theory standpoint is that it simply trades one form of variance for another by trading the variance in league-wide hitting talent for the variance in league-wide pitching talent. They have solved one problem by creating another. The clue for this is even in the name (wins above "replacement"). This means their WAR calculations depend on how good or bad replacement level pitching was in that era (or for a rolling 3 year window). If you instead used a 2021 replacement level pitcher as the baseline for Warren Spahn's stats, his WAR value would drop significantly. These are not my opinions. These are all facts that can be easily proven. Again, as stated above, this is also why I said WAR and wins should not be used to determine who was "best". If you want to have a real discussion around who was best, then we'd need to dive into some of the more advanced sabermetrics (and no, I'm not talking about WHIP). But I have zero interest in discussing that with you guys because you don't even understand basic statistics, let alone the statistical theory needed to have this discussion, as evidenced by Peter's cute little ridiculing formula above. Just because you can't wrap your heads around some of the more advanced sabermetrics doesn't mean they don't matter.

Anyhow, I'm done here. I'll let the net54 intelligentsia committee settle this debate. It sounds like you guys are in great hands. After all, there are data analysts, CPAs, and financial planners in here! And they are "good with statistics". Lol

I'm sorry, is Grove "great" or "probably wouldn't even make a major league roster today"? Why do you discount his era?