Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

55 points difference in SLG, over a career, seems to me (admittedly without research) to reflect more than just being better at keeping down HR. But even if that's a complete explainer, it still supports my thesis that some pitchers are more difficult to hit productively even if the aggregate amount of CONTACT tends to be the same across the spectrum.

I think it's plausible that he also might have fewer doubles and triples against. If so, it's likely a tradeoff against more singles. If you could compare his singles to doubles rate against his peers and see if that ratio is higher, it would tell you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it's plausible that he also might have fewer doubles and triples against. If so, it's likely a tradeoff against more singles. If you could compare his singles to doubles rate against his peers and see if that ratio is higher, it would tell you.

Assuming it is the case, would you agree that it's probably not just the result of luck/randomness but is attributable to his pitching skill?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming it is the case, would you agree that it's probably not just the result of luck/randomness but is attributable to his pitching skill?

Couldn't it also partly be because of outfield dimensions/layouts, who he has playing behind him in the outfield, the decision of the manger to often (or maybe not at all) use outfield shifts, and on an on? Luck can often, erroneously, be attributed to things that are otherwise not readily or easily measured, known, or ever recognized and acknowledged.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Couldn't it also partly be because of outfield dimensions/layouts, who he has playing behind him in the outfield, the decision of the manger to often (or maybe not at all) use outfield shifts, and on an on? Luck can often, erroneously, be attributed to things that are otherwise not readily or easily measured, known, or ever recognized and acknowledged.

Agree. The difference between a single and double is often simply where the batted ball lands - in front of an outfielder or between them. The difference between a double and triple is often a matter of the hitter's speed and outfielder's arm.

A line shot to center that reaches the outfielder on one bounce might be a single, while the batter who is fooled and hits one off the end of the bat and bloops it over the first baseman has himself extra bases.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Couldn't it also partly be because of outfield dimensions/layouts, who he has playing behind him in the outfield, the decision of the manger to often (or maybe not at all) use outfield shifts, and on an on? Luck can often, erroneously, be attributed to things that are otherwise not readily or easily measured, known, or ever recognized and acknowledged.

On almost any ball hit in fair territory there are doubtless multiple things happening at once that contribute to the outcome, but so what? Are you really trying to argue that Maddux was a great pitcher solely because his walks were low, and everything else was attributable to these other factors? To me, they don't explain at all Maddux' greatness RELATIVE to other pitchers for whom doubtless the same variables were at play on balls hit against them. To me, that greatness is of course due in part to his low walk totals, but based on both personal observation and the SLG stats I've discussed, much of it has to do with his serving up fewer balls that were good to hit.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On almost any ball hit in fair territory there are doubtless multiple things happening at once that contribute to the outcome, but so what? Are you really trying to argue that Maddux was a great pitcher solely because his walks were low, and everything else was attributable to these other factors? To me, they don't explain at all Maddux' greatness RELATIVE to other pitchers for whom doubtless the same variables were at play on balls hit against them. To me, that greatness is of course due in part to his low walk totals, but based on both personal observation and the SLG stats I've discussed, much of it has to do with his serving up fewer balls that were good to hit.

No, you misinterpret me, I'm actually supporting your point. Just maybe didn't get it to come across well. I added those as additional variables to counter the, "Oh it's just luck!", people out there. The ability of certain pitchers to seem to always be able to get batters to do more poorly against them than other pitchers when they do get the bat on the ball is not just primarily attributable to luck. Just like there are certain pitchers that become known as double play pitchers. They seem to have the uncanny ability to get batters to ground into double plays more often than it would seem by luck alone, and certainly more so than most other pitchers. They may change their pitching and style to induce more ground balls in those types of situations. Does anyone out there keep stats on what types of balls are put in play for pitchers when there's a man on first and less than two outs, whether it is a grounder, pop up, line drive, etc.? If so, that might be able to show at least some ability of certain pitchers to get batters to do what they want. While some pitchers might have a better chance/ability at striking out a batter to get to two outs in an inning, other pitchers may recognize they may not be able to overpower a hitter for that strikeout, so they opt to use finesse, location, and control to induce the batter to hit into a double play instead. In both instances, the pitcher's goal is to get batters out. And both types of pitchers (overpowering strikeout vs. finesse and control) have different ways of achieving those same goals. And it doesn't mean that one pitching type is necessarily better than the other, though some people/statistics seem to always skew towards the more dominant, strikeout pitcher as a better (greater) pitcher. If so, that is merely their opinion, and nothing else.

The bottom line is results. And I still ask, if the ultimate, final result in baseball is to win the games, how do you discount that factor so much in looking at pitchers? Despite all the other variables that go into determining who wins a ball game, the starting Pitcher IMO has a bigger impact on that final outcome than every other player on the field. And that is even more so when pitchers pitch mostly complete or near-complete games, like Grove and Spahn primarily did back in their days. Modern pitchers typically get pulled much earlier in games, resulting in them having less influence on their outcomes than ever before. So in arguing the greatest pitcher, why wouldn't pitchers who completed games, and thus had a greater impact on the outcomes of those games, actually get a leg up on modern pitchers who often have less to do with their team's winning. And if that's the case, then maybe none of of these modern pitchers should ever be considered as great, because none of them have as of yet truly shown they can come anywhere even close to consistently influence the positive outcomes of games, at anywhere near the level and influence, of pitchers like Grove and Spahn. To counter such thinking though, statisticians resort to declaring the players of earlier eras are flat out weaker and nowhere near as good as today's players, so they can then disparage pitcher's like Grove and Spahn, instead of recognizing and giving them credit for things they did that modern pitchers don't. Of course they can't point to any hard, actual statistics to prove it, and just suddenly fall back on their own logic and opinions to explain away whatever gets in the way of their own statistical analysis always being right. The ability of statisticians to seemingly ignore the importance and value of winning just blows my mind, especially when that is the only real reason the games are played.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OK I was confused because you seemed to be pointing to a bunch of things out of the control of the pitcher as reasons for some of their success, which seemed contrary to the thesis that yes the pitcher has a lot to do with it.

Be wary, bottom line for me, when a statistician tells you that your years of observation are not accurate. You wonder how many games some of these dudes have actually WATCHED.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming it is the case, would you agree that it's probably not just the result of luck/randomness but is attributable to his pitching skill?

I guess it depends on what you consider skill. Is it a skill to cause more ground balls than fly balls, or is it simply a preference? Some pitchers feel more comfortable throwing lower in the zone. As I said, there is a tradeoff between ground and fly ball pitchers. My understanding is that one isn't "better" than the other. Here's an article from fangraphs.com that discusses the topic.

https://library.fangraphs.com/which-...-ball-pitcher/

Along the lines of what I was talking about earlier; I mentioned that Maddux probably traded in a lower slugging percentage against for a higher batting average against. You could look up more pitchers than this of course, but a simple comparison of Maddux's numbers vs Randy's numbers certainly shows this tradeoff.

Randy Johnson
0.221 AVG, 0.353 SLG, 2.4% HR

Greg Maddux
0.250 AVG, 0.358 SLG, 1.7% HR

As you can see, they had very similar slugging percentages, with Randy's being 5 points lower despite him giving up 40% more HRs, but Maddux's batting average against is much higher than Randy's. There is a tradeoff happening here. It's a difference of approach. Throwing more ground ball pitches is going to net you more singles against than fly ball pitches, but fewer 2B, 3B, and HR.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I guess it depends on what you consider skill. Is it a skill to cause more ground balls than fly balls, or is it simply a preference? Some pitchers feel more comfortable throwing lower in the zone. As I said, there is a tradeoff between ground and fly ball pitchers. My understanding is that one isn't "better" than the other. Here's an article from fangraphs.com that discusses the topic.

https://library.fangraphs.com/which-...-ball-pitcher/

Along the lines of what I was talking about earlier; I mentioned that Maddux probably traded in a lower slugging percentage against for a higher batting average against. You could look up more pitchers than this of course, but a simple comparison of Maddux's numbers vs Randy's numbers certainly shows this tradeoff.

Randy Johnson
0.221 AVG, 0.353 SLG, 2.4% HR

Greg Maddux
0.250 AVG, 0.358 SLG, 1.7% HR

As you can see, they had very similar slugging percentages, with Randy's being 5 points lower despite him giving up 40% more HRs, but Maddux's batting average against is much higher than Randy's. There is a tradeoff happening here. It's a difference of approach. Throwing more ground ball pitches is going to net you more singles against than fly ball pitches, but fewer 2B, 3B, and HR.

It's a skill. It's a preference to do it but a skill to master it. Which they both did. So both had their own skill set which they mastered. The end result of them having a different style pitching and each pitching to their own strengths. Neither would have been nearly as successful of a pitcher had they tried to pitch in the style of the others strength.

As to the article, it is good in what it does, but it's comparing averages and really doesn't mean much when you are looking a pitchers on the elite end of the scale, as is the case with both Johnson and Maddux. They both were much more effective in what they do so you could probably ignore what any 'analysis' would say they should do.

[Carter08]

My thinking on Maddux without any stats to break it up is that like Gwynn knowing where in the field he would hit a pitch, Maddux probably said to himself things like I’m going to get this guy to ground out to third and was able to accomplish that much more than most could.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by tschock

It's a skill. It's a preference to do it but a skill to master it. Which they both did. So both had their own skill set which they mastered. The end result of them having a different style pitching and each pitching to their own strengths. Neither would have been nearly as successful of a pitcher had they tried to pitch in the style of the others strength.

As to the article, it is good in what it does, but it's comparing averages and really doesn't mean much when you are looking a pitchers on the elite end of the scale, as is the case with both Johnson and Maddux. They both were much more effective in what they do so you could probably ignore what any 'analysis' would say they should do.

That point has some merit.

Maddux and Johnson were extremely gifted at what they did and were on the extreme end of the scale.

What many forget about Maddux is that Maddux had an above average fastball in his prime. He sat in the low 90's on his fastball. League average was 88. Add in the elite movement and command, Maddux was something special and a power pitcher in his own right(in his prime).

Maddux ended up with 3,371 career strikeouts. I think many fans forget Maddux is a member of the 3,000 strikeout club.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

That point has some merit.

Maddux and Johnson were extremely gifted at what they did and were on the extreme end of the scale.

What many forget about Maddux is that Maddux had an above average fastball in his prime. He sat in the low 90's on his fastball. League average was 88. Add in the elite movement and command, Maddux was something special and a power pitcher in his own right(in his prime).

Maddux ended up with 3,371 career strikeouts. I think many fans forget Maddux is a member of the 3,000 strikeout club.

I bet half his Ks were getting batters to swing at pitches off the plate or that broke into the dirt.

[AndrewJerome]

The point has been made several times that humans are getting bigger, taller, and stronger as time goes on. This is undeniably true, but for me this has a much more pronounced impact on other sports like basketball, football, track and field, swimming etc. It’s undeniable in basketball. NBA players are simply taller, more athletic and more skilled now than 30 years ago. Guys who play like the Greek freak, near 7 feet tall, did not exist 30 years ago. There is no modern Spud Webb or modern Mugsy Bogues. Same in football. O linemen and D linemen are significantly bigger, stronger, and more athletic now than 30 years ago. And obviously track and field times get lower and lower. Swimming times get lower and lower. All of those athletes are bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic than the athletes that came before them in those sports. I’m not sure this exactly tracks in baseball. And that’s why I love baseball, and don’t enjoy track and field and swimming as much. It is true that some baseball players now are bigger, taller, stronger than ball players of previous times. Pitchers especially. However, this is not true across the board for elite baseball players. The best athletes simply don’t always make the best baseball players. Again, this is what makes baseball great. Michael Jordan was the best basketball player ever, and he was a pretty terrible baseball player relative to MLB stars. Bigger, taller, stronger, more athletic doesn’t always equate to better in baseball. As a hitter, you need elite hand eye coordination, eyesight, and wrist strength to create bat speed for any of the bigger, taller, stronger to matter. Little Jose Altuve at 5’ 4” has this ability as a hitter, which makes baseball great. As a pitcher, you need some semblance of control for a 100 MPH fastball to matter. You need to be skilled. You need to have control of the strike zone. The fact that modern pitchers overall throw harder does not make every single one of them all better pitchers than the pitchers who came before them. And I have no idea what more height and more weight has to do with being a good pitcher besides getting you more velocity (and giving you much more risk of blowing your arm). Anyway, you need to be able to locate the ball and get guys out for any of that to matter. Straight 98 MPH fastballs down the middle get crushed by good hitters. I have a ton of respect for Nolan Ryan. And Nolan Ryan threw really, really hard for his time. He also wasn’t nearly the best pitcher of his time. He never won a Cy Young in his 20+ years of pitching. There’s a lot more to pitching than just how hard you can throw.

Randy Johnson has freakish size for any era. He first pitched in 1988 at 6’ 10”. It’s 2021. If he’s the model of baseball evolution or whatever other phrase you want to call it, then there should be 7 foot guys now dominating the sport. It isn’t going to happen. Randy is an outlier. Once you get to about 6’ 3 or 6’ 4” that’s about it for being an elite baseball player. 6’ 8” and taller guys trying to field ground balls won’t work out so well. 6’ 8” and taller guys trying to swing at pitches at their knees won’t work out so well. It would be comedy gold though. There’s limit to how much height helps you as a baseball player.

Vlad Jr isn’t great because he’s bigger, taller, stronger and more athletic than previous ball players. He lost 40 pounds last year and he’s still squishy. He’s not some freak physical specimen. But he can smash a baseball.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I bet half his Ks were getting batters to swing at pitches off the plate or that broke into the dirt.

I would bet more Ks were from those called third strikes way outside the Braves staff were famous for getting.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

It's a skill. It's a preference to do it but a skill to master it. Which they both did. So both had their own skill set which they mastered. The end result of them having a different style pitching and each pitching to their own strengths. Neither would have been nearly as successful of a pitcher had they tried to pitch in the style of the others strength.

As to the article, it is good in what it does, but it's comparing averages and really doesn't mean much when you are looking a pitchers on the elite end of the scale, as is the case with both Johnson and Maddux. They both were much more effective in what they do so you could probably ignore what any 'analysis' would say they should do.

This particular analysis says that the tradeoff evens out in terms of run production, so there isn't really a "should" here in terms of ground balls vs fly falls preferences. However, in general, the mindset that you "could probably ignore" what the data says you should is a golden ticket to the bottom of the league. Try telling an NBA team to stop shooting 3s and see how that goes.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This particular analysis says that the tradeoff evens out in terms of run production, so there isn't really a "should" here in terms of ground balls vs fly falls preferences. However, in general, the mindset that you "could probably ignore" what the data says you should is a golden ticket to the bottom of the league. Try telling an NBA team to stop shooting 3s and see how that goes.

They are elite and at the upper end of the curve. They would not all of a sudden become worse for ignoring what is essentially an analysis for the average. While their preference on pitching started as such, they weren't elite because of their preference, but because of their skill they honed for their preference. You missed the point, whether purposely or not.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

They are elite and at the upper end of the curve. They would not all of a sudden become worse for ignoring what is essentially an analysis for the average. While their preference on pitching started as such, they weren't elite because of their preference, but because of their skill they honed for their preference. You missed the point, whether purposely or not.

It doesn't matter whether someone is already elite or not. If the data shows that doing X yields a 5% advantage or improvement, then you should do X. However, it may also turn out that you're not good a doing X, in which case you should revert back to not doing X. But that doesn't mean X is not advantageous. It just means that your peers who are good at X are going to start closing the gap on you.

This is precisely what has happened in the NBA with respect to 3 point shooting. So much so, in fact, that its effect can even be seen in the average player heights over the past 15 years. The mean player heights have dropped in recent years because teams are selecting for players who shoot 3s well and who are more capable wing defenders. The result has been a tradeoff of the taller, slower players who previously were selected for "protecting the paint" with their rebounding and shot blocking abilities. The vast majority of big men who remain in the league today have either learned how to shoot 3s as well, or are quick and capable wing defenders who are good at preventing them. Guys like Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic, Anthony Davis, and Kristaps Porzingis are all capable 3 point shooters. The days of guys like "Big Country" Reeves, Greg Ostertag, and Kevin Duckworth making the league are over. This is entirely the result of the data saying "you should do X" and front offices across the league respecting the data.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I guess it depends on what you consider skill. Is it a skill to cause more ground balls than fly balls, or is it simply a preference? Some pitchers feel more comfortable throwing lower in the zone. As I said, there is a tradeoff between ground and fly ball pitchers. My understanding is that one isn't "better" than the other. Here's an article from fangraphs.com that discusses the topic.

https://library.fangraphs.com/which-...-ball-pitcher/

Along the lines of what I was talking about earlier; I mentioned that Maddux probably traded in a lower slugging percentage against for a higher batting average against. You could look up more pitchers than this of course, but a simple comparison of Maddux's numbers vs Randy's numbers certainly shows this tradeoff.

Randy Johnson
0.221 AVG, 0.353 SLG, 2.4% HR

Greg Maddux
0.250 AVG, 0.358 SLG, 1.7% HR

As you can see, they had very similar slugging percentages, with Randy's being 5 points lower despite him giving up 40% more HRs, but Maddux's batting average against is much higher than Randy's. There is a tradeoff happening here. It's a difference of approach. Throwing more ground ball pitches is going to net you more singles against than fly ball pitches, but fewer 2B, 3B, and HR.

All things being equal, fewer extra base hits in turn is going to yield fewer runs, no? So if you're comparing Maddux to a similar pitcher who is striking out about 6 per game but yielding the average SLG, his results are going to be much better even if the BAPIPs are similar?