Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[BobC]

Gentlemen (and Ladies if any are watching along),

It is all well and good to keep debating the OP's question forever, but it seems none of you still realize this is a multi-part question. And apparently none of you have yet to really address one of those extremely important parts, making it virtually impossible to ever get even close to a consensus agreement on what typically ends up being the main focus of these (I'll put it politely) civil discussions.

Everyone keeps going back and forth about the "who" part of the question, without having first agreed on the "what" part of the question. And in this particular case, the "what" part of the question is, what is the exact definition that constutes someone being the "greatest" at something, like being a left handed MLB pitcher. Without everyone agreeing on the "what" first, it makes arguing about the "who" pretty senseless, and in some instances, downright stupid.

And with no agreement on "what" exactly constitutes someone being the greatest at something, the "who" part of the question will likely have multiple correct answers, all dependent on differing points of view as to what the correct definition of "greatest" is.

Think of it this way. Two guys sit down at a standard checker board, pull out their pieces and start playing. Problem is, one guy has regular checker pieces and starts playing checkers, the other guy has chess pieces and thinks that is the game being played. And at the end of whatever the heck they ended up doing, they both claimed they were right and they were the winner. Unfortunately, they never agreed on the actual game and rules they were going to play by first. See the problem boys........................?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

Gentlemen (and Ladies if any are watching along),

It is all well and good to keep debating the OP's question forever, but it seems none of you still realize this is a multi-part question. And apparently none of you have yet to really address one of those extremely important parts, making it virtually impossible to ever get even close to a consensus agreement on what typically ends up being the main focus of these (I'll put it politely) civil discussions.

Everyone keeps going back and forth about the "who" part of the question, without having first agreed on the "what" part of the question. And in this particular case, the "what" part of the question is, what is the exact definition that constutes someone being the "greatest" at something, like being a left handed MLB pitcher. Without everyone agreeing on the "what" first, it makes arguing about the "who" pretty senseless, and in some instances, downright stupid.

And with no agreement on "what" exactly constitutes someone being the greatest at something, the "who" part of the question will likely have multiple correct answers, all dependent on differing points of view as to what the correct definition of "greatest" is.

Think of it this way. Two guys sit down at a standard checker board, pull out their pieces and start playing. Problem is, one guy has regular checker pieces and starts playing checkers, the other guy has chess pieces and thinks that is the game being played. And at the end of whatever the heck they ended up doing, they both claimed they were right and they were the winner. Unfortunately, they never agreed on the actual game and rules they were going to play by first. See the problem boys........................?

Fair point. It’s the greatest left handed pitcher of all time. I think that opens arguments for longevity versus peak greatness to come into play. My personal view is we avoid the argument that any random left hander in the majors today might technically throw better than anyone else in history because of advanced training and development. It’s a fair argument but just not fun. In my view, the greatest lefty is clearly Spahn. But I am biased as hell. I just love that guy. Carlton, Grove and Koufax are certainly in the mix.

[G1911]

It’s been discussed several times, there isn’t a whole lot of genuine disagreement. We have a troll, people conflating personal favorite with best and doubling down and insisting they are the exact same thing, etc. There is not much actual disagreement on reasonable but differing standards of what greatness is. Some favor peak over longevity (Botha re very reasonable standards that not everyone is going to exactly agree on, nor should they) but the advanced stats lead to the same answer either way: Grove wins best 4 years, best 5 years, best 7 years, best 10 years, most total career value.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s been discussed several times, there isn’t a whole lot of genuine disagreement. We have a troll, people conflating personal favorite with best and doubling down and insisting they are the exact same thing, etc. There is not much actual disagreement on reasonable but differing standards of what greatness is. Some favor peak over longevity (Botha re very reasonable standards that not everyone is going to exactly agree on, nor should they) but the advanced stats lead to the same answer either way: Grove wins best 4 years, best 5 years, best 7 years, best 10 years, most total career value.

Agree with just about everything you said. But for career, just using WAR, Spahn and Grove are within 6 games of each other. Spahn gave up 3 seasons for WW2 - pretty close. Food for thought.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s been discussed several times, there isn’t a whole lot of genuine disagreement. We have a troll, people conflating personal favorite with best and doubling down and insisting they are the exact same thing, etc. There is not much actual disagreement on reasonable but differing standards of what greatness is. Some favor peak over longevity (Botha re very reasonable standards that not everyone is going to exactly agree on, nor should they) but the advanced stats lead to the same answer either way: Grove wins best 4 years, best 5 years, best 7 years, best 10 years, most total career value.

+1
Plus Grove had over 100 more wins while stuck in the minors the first 5 years of his career. That's just for extra credit.

[earlywynnfan]

I know the big debate here is peak vs career, and I think that's a fun debate. However, in my opinion backed by lots of pretty statistics, Koufax' peak doesn't beat Grove's, although he was one hell of a strikeout pitcher. So if Koufax' peak doesn't make him the best, I don't see how he can be in the same breath as Grove overall, unless someone wants to make idiotic claims like "the 30's sucked, the 60's-on was the only real baseball."

But the rejuvenation of this thread has made me really think about RJ...

[egri]

I guess it's fitting that Kevin started this thread, as it has dragged on and on with no resolution in sight.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by egri

I guess it's fitting that Kevin started this thread, as it has dragged on and on with no resolution in sight.

LOL But it isn't priced at $18,000 and it didn't originate in Honus Wagner's house.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s been discussed several times, there isn’t a whole lot of genuine disagreement. We have a troll, people conflating personal favorite with best and doubling down and insisting they are the exact same thing, etc. There is not much actual disagreement on reasonable but differing standards of what greatness is. Some favor peak over longevity (Botha re very reasonable standards that not everyone is going to exactly agree on, nor should they) but the advanced stats lead to the same answer either way: Grove wins best 4 years, best 5 years, best 7 years, best 10 years, most total career value.

Hey G1911,

Don't go getting mad at me, but here's another example of how different people's views and meanings directly influence and change their responses to certain questions. In your post, the very last word you ended with was "value". That word alone can spark a whole separate world of conjecture and debate.

For example, in an earlier response in this thread in rebuttal to someone's comment saying WINS is a totally meaningless statistic, it was then asked exactly what is the one sole thing all MLB players are paid and play the game for, or what is really the main reason most all fans buy a ticket to attend or turn on the tube to watch a game and see their team do? And let me add one more, what is the one single thing that ultimately ends up deciding who is considered the champion baseball team every year? There is only one simple response that completely and accurately answers all those questions..........WIN!

And though baseball is a team sport and games are not solely decided by a single player, isn't it arguable that the starting pitcher on each side at the start of every MLB game ever played has potentially the greatest impact and influence on whether or not their team will win?

So does this at all influence your definition of "value"?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey G1911,

Don't go getting mad at me, but here's another example of how different people's views and meanings directly influence and change their responses to certain questions. In your post, the very last word you ended with was "value". That word alone can spark a whole separate world of conjecture and debate.

For example, in an earlier response in this thread in rebuttal to someone's comment saying WINS is a totally meaningless statistic, it was then asked exactly what is the one sole thing all MLB players are paid and play the game for, or what is really the main reason most all fans buy a ticket to attend or turn on the tube to watch a game? And let me add one more, what is the one single thing that ultimately ends up deciding who is considered the champion baseball team every year? There is only one simple response that completely and accurately answers all those questions..........WINS!

And though baseball is a team sport and games are not solely decided by a single player, isn't it arguable that the starting pitcher on each side in every MLB game ever played has potentially the greatest impact and influence on whether or not their team will win?

So does this at all influence your definition of "value"?

If you’re going with wins, come onboard the Spahn train! It’s not even close.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

If you’re going with wins, come onboard the Spahn train! It’s not even close.

Just trying to point out how different people can have different views, opinions, and definitions of things. Yet all the talk and debate about it still won't get a consensus answer. Also trying to help people to realize there might be different ways to view things, and maybe point to such that they hadn't considered before. They have to be open minded and receptive though. Oftentimes the way people react and respond in situations and debates like this tell you an awful lot about a person, the good, and most definitely the bad. But no names please!

[Peter_Spaeth]

We need a metric that is independent of fielding, team strength, opposing team strength, stadium, and even result (not just of the game but of the pitch itself, after all you could throw a fabulous pitch and Hank Aaron might still hit it out). We need to focus solely on the pitch itself -- the quality of each pitch a pitcher threw during his career, with some appropriate mechanism to average or to assign relative weights to different ones. Any other metric has too many confounding variables.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey G1911,

Don't go getting mad at me, but here's another example of how different people's views and meanings directly influence and change their responses to certain questions. In your post, the very last word you ended with was "value". That word alone can spark a whole separate world of conjecture and debate.

For example, in an earlier response in this thread in rebuttal to someone's comment saying WINS is a totally meaningless statistic, it was then asked exactly what is the one sole thing all MLB players are paid and play the game for, or what is really the main reason most all fans buy a ticket to attend or turn on the tube to watch a game and see their team do? And let me add one more, what is the one single thing that ultimately ends up deciding who is considered the champion baseball team every year? There is only one simple response that completely and accurately answers all those questions..........WIN!

And though baseball is a team sport and games are not solely decided by a single player, isn't it arguable that the starting pitcher on each side at the start of every MLB game ever played has potentially the greatest impact and influence on whether or not their team will win?

So does this at all influence your definition of "value"?

I don’t know why I would get at mad at you? I don’t think wins is a useful metric in the 5 inning starter era. It’s a decent point in the complete game era, as the stat pitchers were pitching too and predominated then alongside ERA. I think ERA, adjusted for park and league via ERA+, is a much better stat. I’ve never completely dismissed wins, it just has flaws. A pitcher who gives up 1 run in 9 innings will often lose when on a terrible team. Bob Friend was not a below average pitcher, for example.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t know why I would get at mad at you? I don’t think wins is a useful metric in the 5 inning starter era. It’s a decent point in the complete game era, as the stat pitchers were pitching too and predominated then alongside ERA. I think ERA, adjusted for park and league via ERA+, is a much better stat. I’ve never completely dismissed wins, it just has flaws. A pitcher who gives up 1 run in 9 innings will often lose when on a terrible team. Bob Friend was not a below average pitcher, for example.

Don't disagree with you at all, just throwing out different ways to maybe look at and interpret things out there. And I just wanted to make sure you didn't take me the wrong way in making friendly banter and conversation. LOL

And I get the thinking about how the 5 inning games nowadays change the overall perspective of WINs. But, would you agree or disagree that even if a starting pitcher only goes 5 - 6 innings anymore, how well they pitched and the situation when they left will generally still have a dramatic impact on the outcome of that game, and the decisions and choices of their manager, coaches, and teammates in finally deciding who wins? I'm wondering if the impact of shortened appearances by starting pitchers in the modern game on the final outcomes of their games started isn't being discounted too greatly? Problem is, this is one of those types of questions that there are no statistics for.

Too often people who rely solely on things like statistics and numbers to explain everything forget they're often dealing with other humans, where every single one of us is different, and many other not easily measured or immeasurable factors. In such cases, those that tend to rely on these single dimensional, one-sided types of arguments often seem to declare themselves the victors as they opine about how their views are the only ones really supported and that matter. You know, the classic "I'm right and you're wrong!" argument. I wonder if in reality such people don't just not really win as they'd have you believe, but actually turn out to be the biggest losers of all!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree with you at all, just throwing out different ways to maybe look at and interpret things out there. And I just wanted to make sure you didn't take me the wrong way in making friendly banter and conversation. LOL

And I get the thinking about how the 5 inning games nowadays change the overall perspective of WINs. But, would you agree or disagree that even if a starting pitcher only goes 5 - 6 innings anymore, how well they pitched and the situation when they left will generally still have a dramatic impact on the outcome of that game, and the decisions and choices of their manager, coaches, and teammates in finally deciding who wins? I'm wondering if the impact of shortened appearances by starting pitchers in the modern game on the final outcomes of their games started isn't being discounted too greatly? Problem is, this is one of those types of questions that there are no statistics for.

Too often people who rely solely on things like statistics and numbers to explain everything forget they're often dealing with other humans, where every single one of us is different, and many other not easily measured or immeasurable factors. In such cases, those that tend to rely on these single dimensional, one-sided types of arguments often seem to declare themselves the victors as they opine about how their views are the only ones really supported and that matter. You know, the classic "I'm right and you're wrong!" argument. I wonder if in reality such people don't just not really win as they'd have you believe, but actually turn out to be the biggest losers of all!

A pitcher has great impact on his team's winning or losing if he pitches 5 innings. The problem, I think, is that like almost every other stat that is based on a short event or short sequence of events, the Win is based on a full 9 innings, and when a pitcher throws half that, while his impact is significant, he is being credited or debited for things he didn't control.

In single events and small samples, even on good teams, wins and losses don't balance out fairly. Bob Gibson in 1968 was much greater than his 22-9 record would suggest. Hugh Mulcahy went 13-22 on a bad team in 1940, but his ERA was 8% better than the league. There are many other examples. The discrepancies today are even larger, DeGrom's 10-9, 1.70 season for prime example.

Over the course of a career, luck will generally balance out for a pitcher on a good team. It won't so much for a pitcher on a bad team. Nobody who sucks gets to make 363 decisions. Nobody who wins 363 games is 'above average, at best', but sorting the stat fields by wins and using that to rank pitchers is, I think, not very effective. The further down that list you go, the less properly ordered it gets.

Winning and losing has far more variables than the pitchers performance, even in a complete game. A guy with a 1.00 ERA can lose all his games because his teams offense sucks, which he has no control over. A pitchers job is to give up as few runs as possible, to give his teams offense the best chance of creating a win by needing to score less runs to win. I think contextual ERA is the most significant single stat. I'd disagree with many and put IP right up there next to it; the balance of "how much better were they than the league at not giving up runs?" and "how much did they pitch to give their team that benefit?". Spahn ain't no slouch in these metrics either, or any reasonable metric.

There are many valid arguments to be made, for multiple pitchers. Kershaw, Johnson, Spahn all have reasoned cases that can be made. Personally, I am biased in favor of Johnson, not Grove, but we should let actual numbers guide us and not our emotional leanings. I think the argument for Grove using so many different statistics that are generally recognized as key by fans, historians, and statisticians (yes, guess who invented all the modern ones putting Grove at the top?) make Grove's case far stronger than anyone else's. I'd love to hear a rational argument for Koufax that isn't "I have fond memories of him", "context is irrelevant", "baseball sucked before Koufax debut and his exact contemporaries suck because they are from the old days" and "I am infallible", and use reasoned, logical, contextual arguments to support the claim.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree with you at all, just throwing out different ways to maybe look at and interpret things out there. And I just wanted to make sure you didn't take me the wrong way in making friendly banter and conversation. LOL

And I get the thinking about how the 5 inning games nowadays change the overall perspective of WINs. But, would you agree or disagree that even if a starting pitcher only goes 5 - 6 innings anymore, how well they pitched and the situation when they left will generally still have a dramatic impact on the outcome of that game, and the decisions and choices of their manager, coaches, and teammates in finally deciding who wins? I'm wondering if the impact of shortened appearances by starting pitchers in the modern game on the final outcomes of their games started isn't being discounted too greatly? Problem is, this is one of those types of questions that there are no statistics for.

Ignoring your personal attacks... I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that there ARE statistics that answer this question though. This is precisely what the entire field of statistics was developed for. The entire point of the mathematical discipline of statistics is to be able to make probabilistic estimates about the outcomes of future events using whatever data we have available. The more skilled you are as a statistician, the more accurate your predictions are. As far as your question goes about how much impact a SP has over final outcomes depending on how many innings he pitches, I assure you this exact problem is well understood. In fact it is extremely well understood. It is by far, the single most important factor in the models I build for betting on baseball games. It is also the single most important factor that the sports book handicappers use in their models when they set the betting lines. There are many other factors at play, but at the end of the day that entire industry is about predicting the outcomes of future events with data and statistical theory. And the casinos are pretty damn good at making predictions.

This is also how and why the entire field of sabermetrics was developed. People wanted to bet on baseball games but they quickly realized that the standard statistics that have been used for decades were not very useful for making predictions with because many of those stats are highly subject to luck. So they engineered new statistics that account for factors outside of an athlete's control and that focus in on what they actually have power over. The aspects of their game that are within an athlete's control are the only factors that have predictive power with respect to how well (or how poorly) they will perform in the future. Any statistic that cannot accurately predict future performance is a poor choice for evaluating one's skill level. Knowing that someone is hitting 0.375 at the all-star break tells us very little about how well he will hit for the rest of the season despite it being a seemingly large sample size of 350 at bats. A deceiving statistic like batting average is another great candidate for paving the way for another heated debate between a regular baseball fan and a statistician. One could ask "who is the best hitter this season?" and the casual fan will point to the guy with the 0.375 AVG, but the statistician looks deeper and points out that he benefited from having a 0.430 BABIP while player B is hitting 0.369 with a 0.300 BABIP. In this case, player B would be the clearly better hitter despite having the lower batting average since BABIP is useful for understanding how much of a role luck played in their performances.

People keep talking about wins here as ultimately being the only thing that matters. I agree. Winning games is what matters most. That's why we statisticians use Wins as the dependent (or target) variable in our predictive models. But the difference is that you guys seem to be conflating the "wins" statistic that is awarded to a pitcher with the actual wins and losses which can only be attributed to the teams. These are not the same thing. A pitcher cannot win a game. Assigning them "wins" and "losses" has always been a bad measure of performance. Not just in the modern era. And it turns out that a pitcher's win-loss record is actually an extremely poor predictor of a team's likelihood of winning a game. And furthermore that in the presence of other statistics, it is in fact not predictive at all of their likelihood of winning a game. This is why it is a poor measure of performance. It tells you nothing at all about how well they pitched or are likely to pitch in the next game. It only tells you what the outcome was of a set of prior games. If you want to know how "good" a pitcher (or hitter) is, then you have to look at statistics that only they can control. Otherwise, you're looking at how lucky or unlucky they got rather than how well they performed. This is the job of the statistician. To find the signal in the noise. To control for factors outside of their control. To remove elements of luck.

I find it humorous that when I posted in the thread about the role of artificial intelligence in grading cards that everyone praised and valued my inputs when it seemed to reinforce their views about grading. But when my views are shared here, where they are in conflict with the majority opinion, everyone shits on me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s been discussed several times, there isn’t a whole lot of genuine disagreement. We have a troll, people conflating personal favorite with best and doubling down and insisting they are the exact same thing, etc. There is not much actual disagreement on reasonable but differing standards of what greatness is. Some favor peak over longevity (Botha re very reasonable standards that not everyone is going to exactly agree on, nor should they) but the advanced stats lead to the same answer either way: Grove wins best 4 years, best 5 years, best 7 years, best 10 years, most total career value.

In what world does Grove win best 4 or 5 years?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

In what world does Grove win best 4 or 5 years?

The statistics and math are up above in this very thread. Your troll game is falling off.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by snowman

in what world does grove win best 4 or 5 years?

1928-1932