Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

HistoricNewspapers · #1 11-26-2021, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Am aware of that. Was speaking to arm strength, not overall body strength, that is often also referred to in relation to being able to throw harder. Of course they need leg/core strength to throw harder, but again, that alone will not get them to an elite pitching level velocity.

The main point I was trying to make, and which HistoricNewspapers didn't appear to grasp, is that the human body is basically a biomechanical machine. And when it comes to pitching, there would appear to be a specific makeup of the human body that optimizes that human biomechanical machine to throw baseballs faster and harder than anyone else. And that was the context I was referring to in regards to size not mattering so much. When most people refer to someone's size, it invariably always seems to go to height and weight for that measure. And that seemed to be the course a lot of people were pushing, that when it comes to pitching, bigger (in this case primarily height) is always better. My point is that despite the obvious physical advantage a much taller pitcher has over a shorter one (because the ball they throw has less distance to get it to the catcher's mitt), it seems that a pitcher can be too tall and thus the human biomechanical pitching machine falls out of that optimal condition for throwing harder and faster than anyone else. If not, then one would assume the best pitchers today would all be '7 foot or taller. Just look at all the taller basketball players out there in the world today, its not like we have a complete dearth of tall athletes. So why aren't there more Randy Johnson types (super tall) pitching in MLB then? Gee, maybe its because they get too tall and their biomechanical pitching machine, which is their body, no longer operates at that optimal level for pitching. And the drop off is apparently so drastic at some point that it even negates the physical pitching advantage their height otherwise brings them. That was why I referred to RJ as a possible super freak in terms of pitching, his body type (height) appears to be way outside the parameters of the optimal human pitching machine, yet he excelled, and endured, as an elite pitcher for a considerable period of time.

If size (height) is so big a deal in athletes as some have stated, here's maybe an even easier example to explain how a biomechanical human machine has an optimal area/range where size does indeed matter, but not in terms of the tallest or biggest. Take sprinters for example. It is obvious that a taller person has a longer stride than a shorter person, so when they go run a 100 yard dash, they can do so in fewer strides than a short person. So why aren't the fastest sprinters in the world all over '7 tall? C'mon size matters people, please explain that one to me! Could it be that the human biomechanical machine for sprinters has an optimal size range somewhere more towards the average, plus a few inches or so to also take into account the physical advantage a taller person also has? And how many really short, say '5"5, world class sprinters are out there? Could this be because the biomechanical bodies of shorter people, plus the shorter physical stride disadvantage, combine to make them slower than taller people? And if that is the case, it will be even rarer to find really short world class sprinters, just like I alluded to in an earlier post how it would likely be even rarer to find elite and successful '5"5 pitchers throwing even close to 100 in MLB. And HistoricNewspapers, that is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post that apparently you didn't understand. But you responded by asking me if size doesn't matter, then where are great are all the great '5"5 tall pitchers. Asked and previously answered counselor, move on. This sprinter example is similar to explaining how the human biomechanical machine works in pitchers, and there being an optimal sort of mid-range size and body type (plus a few inches to take into account the obvious physical advantage). Obviously there is more to being a great pitcher than just velocity, but I specifically picked sprinters for my biomechanical human comparison because unlike the more involved skill of pitching, sprinting (running) is a basic human activity we pretty much all have done at some time in our lives. And there are fewer variables in running than in pitching, as well as sprinters having a much more objective and easily measurable way to determine actually who was the best.

Endurance, which I previously brought up and feel is also an unbelievably important part in this debate, is something that others seem to brush aside. (The best ability is availability!) I refer to a pitcher as a biomechanical pitching machine, and IMO an important factor in how well any type of machine operates is how it doesn't break down from stress or use all the time, and continues to operate at, or near, its optimal level for a long and continuous period. As was alluded to in a recent post by AndrewJerome, it seems that some of these taller pitchers tend to have injury or endurance issues. For an elite few taller pitchers, their biomechanical machines may operate better than almost everyone elses in terms of velocity, but in regards to endurance, the human body/machine wasn't designed for what they're doing to it, and therefore it suffers breakdowns (injuries) or is unable to maintain that optimal operating level for long (lack of endurance). Even RJ was sidelined with injuries for a significant time, was he not? And HistoricNewspapers, I mentioned Grove's and Spahn's heights in that earlir post being '6"1 and '6"0 to show they were not real short, but more toward's average, or slightly above average, height so their biomechanical pitching machines operated at what appears to be a more optimal body size/type for them to be operating at a combined higher level for velocity and endurance. Their human bodies/machines were built to not just pitch faster than a normal human, but also to be able to do so longer and much more often than a typical human as well.

And to further point out how this pushing of a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine is indicative of them maybe not always being the best, isn't one method people use to not have a somewhat sensitive machine, like a human body, continually having issues and breaking down, is to use it less often and not run the machine as long and as hard as they otherwise could. Gee, kind of like how starting pitchers almost never pitch complete, or near complete, games anymore. Management today doesn't want to break the machines, er...pitchers. Yet pitchers like Grove and Spahn regularly started, and completed, games they pitched in, without a big, quick dropoff in their optimal performance or experiencing debilitating and career threatening injuries. I know, Grove had some issues in 1934, but came back afterward to still great performance levels, after taking into consideration other factors such as his ever advancing age, and did so without the benefit of modern medical advances.

What scares me is if you statisticians and other always talking up about how today's players are always bigger, stronger, faster (and thus always better) than yesterday's players are even remotely right, we're going to eventually end up with all MLB rosters having 8-9-10 pitchers on every staff that are all '6"11 or taller, and all able to throw over 100 MPH. So their managers will have a different pitcher come out every inning so they don't overwork and blow-out anyone's arm out, and a pitcher's wins truly will be meaningless. And if that does turn out to be the case, will this type of pitcher really turn out to be the future talent all these brilliant statisticians will then be pushing as their choice for greatest of all time?

Statisticians in their use of numbers and stats dehumanize MLB baseball and it's players by trying to look at only statistics to measure and compare the players, and how best to play the game itself. So I think it only fair then that I can equally push my point as to pitchers being dehumanized as biomechanical machines. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?) And so if you think about it in those terms, what if you went out to buy the greatest washing machine or car (both machines), to actually use, that you could. Would you really want to buy a car or wash machine that ran unbelievably great at some point, but broke down and needed repairs a lot, or that you couldn't use all the time and/or always count on when really needed it, and ended up having to replace after not too many years? Or would you rather buy something that ran pretty great from the start and you could count on to use pretty much whenever and for however as long as you needed it, with minimal repairs and maintenance, and you didn't need to replace it for 20+ years? If anyone reading this is actually being honest with themselves, I think we all know what the answer will be. And if you do recognize how statistics dehumanize players and try to turn them into nothing more than numbers, then considering them as nothing much more than biomechanical machines is a simple logical extension of that thinking. So to follow statistical reasoning alone and ignore the human factor so much, without giving equal consideration and credit to my points, would tend to make one a hypocrite!!!

I grasp and experience every single thing you said...and none of it refutes the facts and the basic common sense and reality.

First of all, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but John Rauch was six foot eleven, Eric Hillman six foot ten, Chris Young six foot ten. So Johnson is not a unique example in size and also being able to be a viable MLB pitcher. He just happens to be the best of them.

You are trying to hold onto a bias or legend of the bygone eras.

And again,you have still said nothing to refute the fact that size does matter(even though you say you are aware of that, but then later say it really doesn't matter).

As pointed out above, yes, the body make-up in a biomechanical nature does create a 95 MPH pitcher and many of those people are simply born with that ability. I have said that from the beginning, so why you keep trying to bring this to my attention is odd. In fact, it adds to what I am saying about the population. You know that it is a unique make up to throw 95, so...

When you have only 3 million people to choose from to find those 95 MPH players, and then another era has 67 million people to choose from to find those people, it becomes quite obvious that you will find many more among a larger pool of people. Then the chances also increase that you find a human that is six foot eleven AND have the ability to throw 100 MPH with control, becomes available. That is basic logic....and it actually happened, so there is it.

That does not mean that every player will eventually be six foot eleven throwing 100....but there will certainly be more that are closer to that standard, and indeed there are. Indeed there are. That is pure fact.

You ignored that when you made a false assumption that strength does not matter and that the optimal height for a pitcher was six feet tall(which is utterly false).

Then I pointed out all the guys that exist that show what I am talking about. They may not be six foot eleven, but six foot six, or six foot 8....are far different than the typical five ten or six foot pitcher of 1930, and the number of those very big and tall players has grown over time.

The bar has been raised and keeps rising. These six foot six giants throwing 98 MPH are indeed pushing out the six foot pitcher throwing 86 MPH, which were common in baseball at one time, but indeed are coming to extinction, if not already extinct.

Does that mean that everyone will be six eleven throwing 98?? No, but it keeps getting closer and closer to that number and farther and farthe away from the pre war era littered with five foot ten pitchers throwing 84 MPH. The population growth in the world will dictate that. Population is still growing as I type this, but it is slowing down...so I don't know what that future will be, or what the future of society will be in 200 years.

BTW, all this same stuff applies toward the hitters too.

PS: Snowman, I have read all your posts and have not responded because you have been nailing points without the need of further expounding. You have a strong grasp on the topic.

PS Bob C, its easier to pitch a complete game against hitters where the strike zone is bigger and 80% of the hitters pose no threat. Has nothing to do with size. Walter Johnson would not be pitching complete games at all against a lineup of modern hitters with modern umps. He would have to throw MORE pitches per batter and work harder on every batter because any mistake on a location or speed has a chance to be a home run at any given time. That simply was not the case. If Johnson was even good enough to be a starting pitcher on a modern staff.

And one of the reasons starters are not throwing complete game has to do with strategy and the fact that almost every pitcher in the bullpen is six foot four throwing 96 MPH+, so there is not a drop off in pitching ability compared to the starter, whereas in Lefty Grove era where the bullpen guy was garbage becasue the talent was not nearly as good, so it makes more sense strategically to let him pitch instead of a guy who would struggle to make a college team today.

BTW, Cy Young and WJ were big for their time. They were 'giants'. So back then some guy was probably saying "the optimal height for a pitcher is 5 foot 9 because that is the height of the best pitchers in 1867."

The bar keeps rising. How high it will rise we shall see.

PS Randy JOhnson, despite all the factors making it harder to throw a complete game in modern time, pitched just as many innings as Lefty Grove.

Carter08 · #2 11-26-2021, 01:46 PM

Warren Spahn

G1911 · #3 11-26-2021, 02:43 PM

If we ignore how they performed in their time and place, and count only modernity because of it’s advances both physical and non-physical, and drop Grove, Plank, etc. into modern times without the benefit of being raised in modern times, it still leaves a problem (as well as being an argument designed to twist “all-time” to effectively refer to a single time). It has merits and, in the scope of its narrow construct with a test designed to punish anybody who wasn’t very recent, is probably true in its example. As I’ve said before several times over the last year, if you had a time machine and picked up Grove to throw against Johnson in 2001 without any of the benefits of modernity available to him, of course Johnson will probably do better: the test is entirely designed so that he will win.

But how is Sandy Koufax, and evidently Sandy Koufax alone, immune from this effect and the only old pitcher allowed to rank near the top or as the #1? If Spahn, who last pitched in 1965, can only be mediocre due to his time, how is Koufax who last pitched in 1966 still at or near the very tip top? How is five seasons over 50 years ago about equal too or better than Johnson’s entire career, if we take the argument of modernity? This makes no sense whatsoever.

I would like to see folks embrace the argument of modernity or dismiss it. The all time team should only include players from the last 20-30 years if it is true. It is not an invalid argument, but it’s selective application is completely nonsensical.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 11-26-2021, 02:58 PM

I can't help you there, I'm just someone who twists words.

On that note, I still don't see how "best" objectively is an absolute, not relative, inquiry. It's a value judgment and everyone here can define it his own way. IMO a guy who shattered the world record in some track or field event decades ago and dominated the sport for a long time may still be the "best" of all time even if someone eventually shaved a fraction of a second or an inch off his record.

G1911 · #5 11-26-2021, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I can't help you there, I'm just someone who twists words.

Incidentally, on that note, inevitably people will obliterate all of Phelps' times. I would still say Phelps is the BEST (yep, say it again, BEST) swimmer of all time unless and until someone tops his record of RELATIVE success in the sport.

I agree, I don’t think the argument of modernity is invalid but I don’t think it’s the strongest one. Everything occurs in context, context is a key factor that must not be ignored (including time, place, home park, and a whole lot more). “All time” is clearly an indicator of more than one generation. The all time team should include all times, not in perfect proportion because of the random chance of greatness, but if long periods are absent from the top, one is probably not looking fairly at an era.

But the appeal to modernity, by simply looking at a timeline, quite obviously hurts Koufax who many of its adherents over the last year have tried to use it or a form of it to protect. And frankly, Johnson doesn’t need it to have an excellent argument for the top spot. Logical, fair, consistent arguments can be made for more than one candidate. Koufax is modern, Spahn is ancient isn’t one of them.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 11-26-2021, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree, I don�t think the argument of modernity is invalid but I don�t think it�s the strongest one. Everything occurs in context, context is a key factor that must not be ignored (including time, place, home park, and a whole lot more). �All time� is clearly an indicator of more than one generation. The all time team should include all times, not in perfect proportion because of the random chance of greatness, but if long periods are absent from the top, one is probably not looking fairly at an era.

But the appeal to modernity, by simply looking at a timeline, quite obviously hurts Koufax who many of its adherents over the last year have tried to use it or a form of it to protect. And frankly, Johnson doesn�t need it to have an excellent argument for the top spot. Logical, fair, consistent arguments can be made for more than one candidate. Koufax is modern, Spahn is ancient isn�t one of them.

Notwithstanding our resident genius, one can't help but notice that nearly every list ranking baseball all-time greats that's ever been put together, including by statisticians, has Ruth and Cobb and Mays in the top 5 hitters/fielders and WALTER Johnson as the top pitcher. They must be lawyers who twist words too.

G1911 · #7 11-26-2021, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Notwithstanding our resident genius, one can't help but notice that nearly every list ranking baseball all-time greats that's ever been put together, including by statisticians, has Ruth and Cobb and Mays in the top 5 hitters/fielders and WALTER Johnson as the top pitcher. They must be lawyers who twist words too.

And that�s why the appeal to authority never works - another authority can always be found and then the �logic� an appeal to authority works on, that of unquestionable expertise, completely falls apart.

Just to make sure we hit 2,000 posts here, contextual best team, using the conventional definition of an all time team that has been in use for many decades:

RHP Walter Johnson (though I think Cy Young is right there due to his insane amount of effective innings)

LHP Lefty Grove

Relief Pitcher - Mariano, Hoyt Wilhelmina second but the gap here is big.

C - Berra, for his consistency but this is hard to pick. Bench is close,

1B - Gehrig, Pujols and Anson are close.

2B Collins, Joe Morgan is right there.

3B Schmidt, pretty wide margin I think.

SS Wagner, pretty wide margin I think.

LF Bonds or Williams, entirely dependent on steroid philosophy.

CF Mays, but it hurts to leave off Cobb.

RF Ruth, it�s not even close.

The best team if we ignore everyone before current times:
RHP: Clemens

LHP Johnson (I don�t see Kershaw passing him)

RP: Mariano

C: Ivan Rodriguez, but boy Piazza could hit and peak Posey and Mauer were fantastic

1B: Pujols, Thomas second

2B: Biggio, but there�s several close

3B: Chipper

SS: A-Rod

LF: Bonds

CF: Griffey, probably today. Will end up as Trout soon

RF: Gwynn? Walker? Ichiro? Would have to look up the numbers instead of using memory.

Mark17 · #8 11-26-2021, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Notwithstanding our resident genius, one can't help but notice that nearly every list ranking baseball all-time greats that's ever been put together, including by statisticians, has Ruth and Cobb and Mays in the top 5 hitters/fielders and WALTER Johnson as the top pitcher. They must be lawyers who twist words too.

And Wagner competes with Ripken.

BobC · #9 11-26-2021, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

If we ignore how they performed in their time and place, and count only modernity because of it�s advances both physical and non-physical, and drop Grove, Plank, etc. into modern times without the benefit of being raised in modern times, it still leaves a problem (as well as being an argument designed to twist �all-time� to effectively refer to a single time). It has merits and, in the scope of its narrow construct with a test designed to punish anybody who wasn�t very recent, is probably true in its example. As I�ve said before several times over the last year, if you had a time machine and picked up Grove to throw against Johnson in 2001 without any of the benefits of modernity available to him, of course Johnson will probably do better: the test is entirely designed so that he will win.

But how is Sandy Koufax, and evidently Sandy Koufax alone, immune from this effect and the only old pitcher allowed to rank near the top or as the #1? If Spahn, who last pitched in 1965, can only be mediocre due to his time, how is Koufax who last pitched in 1966 still at or near the very tip top? How is five seasons over 50 years ago about equal too or better than Johnson�s entire career, if we take the argument of modernity? This makes no sense whatsoever.

I would like to see folks embrace the argument of modernity or dismiss it. The all time team should only include players from the last 20-30 years if it is true. It is not an invalid argument, but it�s selective application is completely nonsensical.

Exactly agree, it is along the same lines I've been arguing all along. Get accused of having an old-timer bias, but what about modern bias they flaunt?

Snowman · #10 11-26-2021, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

But how is Sandy Koufax, and evidently Sandy Koufax alone, immune from this effect and the only old pitcher allowed to rank near the top or as the #1? If Spahn, who last pitched in 1965, can only be mediocre due to his time, how is Koufax who last pitched in 1966 still at or near the very tip top? How is five seasons over 50 years ago about equal too or better than Johnson�s entire career, if we take the argument of modernity? This makes no sense whatsoever.

You keep jabbering on about Koufax vs Spahn, where you've conjured up this assumption that I only discredit Spahn's era but somehow magically give Koufax a pass. This is, of course, utter nonsense. I never said such a thing. In fact, I said precisely the opposite. I expressly stated that Koufax's numbers/value, taken in context, would go down in any model I build that would account for each of the various factors that have affected each era differently. What you keep ignoring is that the reason Koufax is in the conversation and Spahn is not is because regardless of whether or not you account for the differences in era, Koufax ABSOLUTELY SMOKES THE LIVING SHIT out of Spahn on every possible metric you could ever dream of other than total wins or some other such 'who cares' counting statistics that has to do with how long he pitched for. There is no argument you could ever put forward for Spahn over Koufax that doesn't use cumulative career value as the goal post. These guys are miles apart in terms of when they were at their best. The fact that both will have their numbers devalued when compared against the modern era isn't going to change that.

Carter08 · #11 11-26-2021, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

You keep jabbering on about Koufax vs Spahn, where you've conjured up this assumption that I only discredit Spahn's era but somehow magically give Koufax a pass. This is, of course, utter nonsense. I never said such a thing. In fact, I said precisely the opposite. I expressly stated that Koufax's numbers/value, taken in context, would go down in any model I build that would account for each of the various factors that have affected each era differently. What you keep ignoring is that the reason Koufax is in the conversation and Spahn is not is because regardless of whether or not you account for the differences in era, Koufax ABSOLUTELY SMOKES THE LIVING SHIT out of Spahn on every possible metric you could ever dream of other than total wins or some other such 'who cares' counting statistics that has to do with how long he pitched for. There is no argument you could ever put forward for Spahn over Koufax that doesn't use cumulative career value as the goal post. These guys are miles apart in terms of when they were at their best. The fact that both will have their numbers devalued when compared against the modern era isn't going to change that.

Why does the most recognized sabremetric statistician have Spahn miles ahead of Koufax? That�s reason enough to say there�s an argument to be made if not outright conclusive. Closed-minded on Spahn. Very sad.

Snowman · #12 11-26-2021, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Why does the most recognized sabremetric statistician have Spahn miles ahead of Koufax? That�s reason enough to say there�s an argument to be made if not outright conclusive. Closed-minded on Spahn. Very sad.

I have Spahn miles ahead of Koufax on my career WAR list too. So what? What does that have to do with who was a better better in the absolute sense?

G1911 · #13 11-26-2021, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

You keep jabbering on about Koufax vs Spahn, where you've conjured up this assumption that I only discredit Spahn's era but somehow magically give Koufax a pass. This is, of course, utter nonsense. I never said such a thing. In fact, I said precisely the opposite. I expressly stated that Koufax's numbers/value, taken in context, would go down in any model I build that would account for each of the various factors that have affected each era differently. What you keep ignoring is that the reason Koufax is in the conversation and Spahn is not is because regardless of whether or not you account for the differences in era, Koufax ABSOLUTELY SMOKES THE LIVING SHIT out of Spahn on every possible metric you could ever dream of other than total wins or some other such 'who cares' counting statistics that has to do with how long he pitched for. There is no argument you could ever put forward for Spahn over Koufax that doesn't use cumulative career value as the goal post. These guys are miles apart in terms of when they were at their best. The fact that both will have their numbers devalued when compared against the modern era isn't going to change that.

This is quite a contradiction to your earlier thesis. When you first claimed Spahn was �above average at best� you defended it with the appeal to modernity, that was fine in his own time but was �above average at best� if facing a modern lineup and this was why he can be dismissed. Which of course means that Koufax, his direct contemporary, has the same problem.

So Spahn was just �above average at best� in his own time too, and separate from that Sandy (5 years worth) is modern enough to pass as modernity without any huge discredit to his stats for being over 50 years old? Or is it your original defense? What year does modernity begin? We�re stretching awfully far back for your theory of modern dominance to place Koufax top 3 where you placed him with Johnson and Kershaw.

I�m amazed longevity is just ignored as irrelevant, nothing but �who cares� counting stats that every prominent baseball statistician has heavily valued in rankings. This standard never applies for any other candidate or position. If we want to ignore it the list of pitchers to have hurled perfect games for modern times must pass as the best. Also, Spahn in 1947 and 1953 was as good as Koufax�s peak of only four years.

You�ve posed some valid, good arguments lately but this doesn�t seem to mesh for your original thesis.

G1911 · #14 11-26-2021, 06:55 PM

I should have mentioned Hornsby, even after adjusting for his extremely friendly context he�s the best hitting 2B. I valued defense high enough to keep him from the top spot in favor of Collins and Morgan.

I pick Berra over Bench for his consistency. Bench largely had the Campanella pattern where he was great one season and then his bat fell off the next. Berra was consistently excellent offensively. A more modern player will probably end up taking this spot, C is one of the �weak� spots.

A-Rod has a fantastic argument for SS over Wagner. If he had done it without steroids, I�d probably take him. He played almost as many games at 3B but the better half of his career is at SS, so I rate him there. He�d top Schmidt if you ignore roids too. I think the cheating hurts, and so take Hans and Mike.

G1911 · #15 11-26-2021, 06:58 PM

I am very sympathetic to the argument that wins is irrelevant in evaluation and rewards a pitcher for his offense that he has no meaningful control over.

Spahn is, as every single prominent baseball statistician agrees (find me one who doesn�t rate him highly), quite evidently and obviously a great pitcher, deservingly one of the best, if you completely ignore his wins.

Mark17 · #16 11-26-2021, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I should have mentioned Hornsby, even after adjusting for his extremely friendly context he�s the best hitting 2B. I valued defense high enough to keep him from the top spot in favor of Collins and Morgan.

Not giving an opinion, just asking. Would old-timers, guys who actually saw both play, choose Collins over Lajoie?

BobC · #17 11-26-2021, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

I grasp and experience every single thing you said...and none of it refutes the facts and the basic common sense and reality.

First of all, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but John Rauch was six foot eleven, Eric Hillman six foot ten, Chris Young six foot ten. So Johnson is not a unique example in size and also being able to be a viable MLB pitcher. He just happens to be the best of them.

You are trying to hold onto a bias or legend of the bygone eras.

And again,you have still said nothing to refute the fact that size does matter(even though you say you are aware of that, but then later say it really doesn't matter).

As pointed out above, yes, the body make-up in a biomechanical nature does create a 95 MPH pitcher and many of those people are simply born with that ability. I have said that from the beginning, so why you keep trying to bring this to my attention is odd. In fact, it adds to what I am saying about the population. You know that it is a unique make up to throw 95, so...

When you have only 3 million people to choose from to find those 95 MPH players, and then another era has 67 million people to choose from to find those people, it becomes quite obvious that you will find many more among a larger pool of people. Then the chances also increase that you find a human that is six foot eleven AND have the ability to throw 100 MPH with control, becomes available. That is basic logic....and it actually happened, so there is it.

That does not mean that every player will eventually be six foot eleven throwing 100....but there will certainly be more that are closer to that standard, and indeed there are. Indeed there are. That is pure fact.

You ignored that when you made a false assumption that strength does not matter and that the optimal height for a pitcher was six feet tall(which is utterly false).

Then I pointed out all the guys that exist that show what I am talking about. They may not be six foot eleven, but six foot six, or six foot 8....are far different than the typical five ten or six foot pitcher of 1930, and the number of those very big and tall players has grown over time.

The bar has been raised and keeps rising. These six foot six giants throwing 98 MPH are indeed pushing out the six foot pitcher throwing 86 MPH, which were common in baseball at one time, but indeed are coming to extinction, if not already extinct.

Does that mean that everyone will be six eleven throwing 98?? No, but it keeps getting closer and closer to that number and farther and farthe away from the pre war era littered with five foot ten pitchers throwing 84 MPH. The population growth in the world will dictate that. Population is still growing as I type this, but it is slowing down...so I don't know what that future will be, or what the future of society will be in 200 years.

BTW, all this same stuff applies toward the hitters too.

PS: Snowman, I have read all your posts and have not responded because you have been nailing points without the need of further expounding. You have a strong grasp on the topic.

PS Bob C, its easier to pitch a complete game against hitters where the strike zone is bigger and 80% of the hitters pose no threat. Has nothing to do with size. Walter Johnson would not be pitching complete games at all against a lineup of modern hitters with modern umps. He would have to throw MORE pitches per batter and work harder on every batter because any mistake on a location or speed has a chance to be a home run at any given time. That simply was not the case. If Johnson was even good enough to be a starting pitcher on a modern staff.

And one of the reasons starters are not throwing complete game has to do with strategy and the fact that almost every pitcher in the bullpen is six foot four throwing 96 MPH+, so there is not a drop off in pitching ability compared to the starter, whereas in Lefty Grove era where the bullpen guy was garbage becasue the talent was not nearly as good, so it makes more sense strategically to let him pitch instead of a guy who would struggle to make a college team today.

BTW, Cy Young and WJ were big for their time. They were 'giants'. So back then some guy was probably saying "the optimal height for a pitcher is 5 foot 9 because that is the height of the best pitchers in 1867."

The bar keeps rising. How high it will rise we shall see.

PS Randy JOhnson, despite all the factors making it harder to throw a complete game in modern time, pitched just as many innings as Lefty Grove.

I do not, and never had, an old time bias. I've never said that Grove or Spahn were the best lefthander of all time either. Myself, and others, keep getting accused of such bias for commenting against other's remarks that elite, older players like those two are automatically only going to be no better than average, or slightly above, if they pitched today. I keep pointing out that to simply pull a player from one era and drop them into another era is not a fair way to compare them. Doing so ignores the different factors, variables, and context of the different eras. If you really wanted to see how a Grove or Spahn would fare in the modern game, let them be born only 20 or so years ago so you can see how they'd turn out given the modern context of training, knowledge, equipment, nutrition, medicine, economics, and on and on. What I'm also looking at and considering when talking about the greatest of all time is the player himself. The human factor, which statistics tend to ignore because they deal only in numbers. What about an athlete's heart, determination, their competetive fire, and so on? Exactly how do statistics measure that? I'd go on, but I've stated this lack of recognition of the human element in various posts now, and all with pretty much no true rebuttal from statisticians. How do any of them know that Grove or Spahn, due to that human element, wouldn't be able to adjust to, and excel, if they were pitching today? I'm not saying now, and never have said, they would excel, but I also can't say for certain that they wouldn't. Yet to listen to statisticians and others touting the always bigger, better, stronger, faster modern athletes of today, they summarily put down everyone from these earlier eras as being lesser players and athletes, and that they have no chance in hell of ever excelling in today's game. And how do they prove it? They can point to all the numbers and stats they want, bottom line is they can't actually prove a damn thing, so they just keep saying how they're right, and how you're stupid and wrong for not just blindly believing everything they say. The problem is, I can't definitively prove them wrong either. And in truth, I'm not trying to prove them wrong, I'm trying to get them to honestly admit they aren't infallible and aren't always right. But it seems too many people have sidled up to the bar and are drinking their Kool-Aid.

You mention three other very tall pitchers who, quite frankly, I've never heard of. Let's come back to them in say 5-10 years and see how they're doing, and if they're even still pitching. Maybe they're increased height puts a greater strain on their arms and bodies so that injuries start to affect their ability and possibly drive them out of baseball. Strain that maybe if they were a few inches shorter wouldn't effect them as badly and allow them to maybe pitch much more and far longer in their careers. I don't know, we'll have to wait and see if that happens.

And many of the things you say make no sense. Like your comment that Randy Johnson pitched as many innings as Grove. You say that like it was some kind of put down or counter to a point or argument I have made. What point or argument? I came right out and said RJ was a great, elite pitcher who excelled and endured as an elite pitcher over a long period. I certainally never said Grove was better or worse than Johnson. So what dig were you trying to throw at me with your last PS statement?

You are great at twisting words and meanings and taking things out of context, just like a statistician will cherry pick data to prove the point THEY want to make, not necessarily what is correct or accurate. For example, you stated that I never said anything to refute that size matters, but that I go on to say that I then acknowledge it does matter, and then turn around to say it really doesn't matter. Its the 4th paragraph in your quote above. To address the first part of your statement, I never refuted size mattering because it does to some extent. I thought I went into pretty good detail in spelling out how a taller pitcher does have certain physical advantages because of their height. And I assume my saying that taller pitchers have these physical advantages is why you made the second part of your statement. No problem so far. Ahhh, but then we get to the third part of that statement where you said I finally say it really doesn't matter (with "it" being size). I felt I was fairly thorough trying to explain how the biomechanical human body appears to have some optimal body type when it comes to pitching which makes the extremes in height (tall or short) less likely to be the optimal size for elite pitchers. And I specifically said that the human biomechanical machine was the context in which I was referring to size not mattering that much, with size in this case again referring to height, and the argument that is always being made about how taller, bigger, stronger, faster athletes of today are ALWAYS going to better than athletes from long ago. So if it turns out there is some biomechanical sweet spot for pitchers when it comes to body size/height, then my reference to size not mattering so much was solely in regards to the physical advantages a pitcher's taller height gives them. In other words, being tall like Randy Johnson does not mean a pitcher his height will automatically be much better than shorter pitchers, for if that were the case you would expect there would have been more elite pitchers of Randy's height now to support the theory that bigger (ie: taller) will ultimately always be better.

I don't keep referring to a pitcher's biomechanical machine to be odd, it is because you still don't get the point that when it comes to some athletic endeavors, like pitching, maybe a taller body isn't always the optimum, despite the otherwise physical advantage a taller pitcher seems to have. And I brought the sprinter example up to demonstrate how again, height may not always matter in terms of a human biomechanical machine. The sprinter example involves a human endeavor that has far fewer variables, and a very measurable and objective measure as to who is the best, unlike pitching. But since both pitching and sprinting involve the human biomechanical machine, it would seem to make sense that if one endeavor shows what appears be a sweet spot/range of height for optimal performance, that the same could be true for the other endeavor as well. Especially when looking at the elite performers in that other endeavor and how the sweet spot/range for their heights may looks somewhat similar if shown as a bell curve. And my mention of Grove's and Spahn's heights was to show they may actually be in that optimal sweet spot/range for pitchers after all. And thus work to at last maybe cast some doubt on the statement that they couldn't be good today because again, they just aren't according to some. I thought it odd that you didn't even acknowledge my example of sprinters in relation to pitchers. Don't know if you simply ignored it because you can't really refute it, or if you still don't understand the relevance. And please don't try telling me it doesn't matter just because it isn't a purely statistical measure, that just supports your narrative and isn't necessarily correct either.

You pointed to the three tall pitchers you named as examples of how we will eventually get more and more MLB pitchers closer to a '6"11 heighth, throwing 100 MPH standard in the future. You even stated that indeed there already are more pitchers closer to this standard and that it is a pure fact. First off, I thought we were talking great, elite pitchers, yet I've not heard of these three guys at all. You even described them as "viable pitchers" (your words, not mine), which doesn't exactly sound too great or elite to me. So when exactly is that jump in a taller MLB pitching standard going to happen, 10 - 30 - 50 - 100 years down the road? I don't know every MLB pitcher's height, and certainly am not going to go looking them up to waste my time (I'll leave that to you), but if you can only name three other super tall MLB pitchers, and there's what, 300 - 400 MLB pitchers at any given time, that's less than 1% of the total pitching population. That certainly isn't a significant percentage to hang one's hat on as to where we're heading with pitchers, now is it? And yet you'll still likely fall back on the common sense, logic, and reality triumvirate to argue how you're still probably correct.

You can go on believing and arguing what you want, but every point I've made in this thread is pretty much as believable and valid as anything any statistician has claimed. Its their own ignorance, arrogance, hypocritical, and narcissistic attitudes that are keeping from them from admitting that statistics alone can't really prove that all they do is provide talking points in an argument about the greatest lefty of all time, that their statistics are very easily subject to manipulation, and that at the end of the day, their statistical interpretation in regards to answering such subjective questions nothing more than their opinion, period.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lefty Grove = Lefty Groves... And Lefty's 1921 Tip Top Bread Card	leftygrove10	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	10-15-2019 01:55 AM
62 koufax ,59 mays,72 mays vg ends monday 8 est time sold ended	rjackson44	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	3	05-22-2017 06:00 PM
Final Poll!! Vote of the all time worst Topps produced set	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	22	07-28-2015 08:55 PM
Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig?	wheels56	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	05-17-2015 05:25 AM
It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time!	iggyman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	68	09-17-2013 01:42 AM