Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Depending on whether you put him at 3b or ss and his games played at each are very close, I think ARod could compete for the all time team at either position, if you overlook the PED and his personality. He had some SERIOUS numbers. His stature also suffered from being paired with the beloved Jeter even though Jeter was far inferior.

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Hornsby at second?

Regarding Koufax and Spahn, I don’t think it’s a case where Spahn is ancient and that’s why Koufax supporters denigrate him. They obviously overlapped. It’s that Koufax dominated and Spahn never did.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Ricky

Hornsby at second?

Regarding Koufax and Spahn, I don’t think it’s a case where Spahn is ancient and that’s why Koufax supporters denigrate him. They obviously overlapped. It’s that Koufax dominated and Spahn never did.

Depends on your definition of dominance though. Some may feel that having a winning record for as many years as Spahn did, leading his league in wins in 8 years (5 years in a row at one point), and having the most wins of any lefty all time (#6 all time overall), is a pretty dominant pitcher. Despite what many would say. And this with losing three prime years to WW II. Plus, he stayed around about 4 years too long, going 20-45 ove that time with an ERA in excess of 4.00. Just think if he somehow got the three early years back, and retired when he should have. Likely 400 wins (#3 all time overall), win Pct. well over .600, and an ERA under 3.00. He still won't get a lot of love though.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

I like Berra getting his due here. I’m a Gary Carter fan and understand why Bench is so highly respect but I feel like Berra gets overlooked too often as just a funnyman. Guy could rake. He also looked 40 years old when he was 20. Love those kind of guys.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I like Berra getting his due here. I’m a Gary Carter fan and understand why Bench is so highly respect but I feel like Berra gets overlooked too often as just a funnyman. Guy could rake. He also looked 40 years old when he was 20. Love those kind of guys.

Snider looked 60.

[Mark17]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

I don’t think you would get a unified answer. Lajoje was a sentimental favorite for long after his career. He’d probably do well in a poll of former players in 1930. Personally, I don’t think it a good standard for evaluation, players and fans alike tend to pick whoever the most popular was and use the word ‘best’. This helps players like Rose, Lajoie and Koufax and hurts players like Collins. I think the math is a better argument.

EDIT: I’d put Lajoie probably 4th.

[Carter08]

Joe Morgan is sneaky at 2B. Just before my time but the math on him is pretty insane.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Every argument for Koufax seems to depend on cherry picking his five best years. Years he happened to be pitching in a VERY favorable park. I am no sabermetrics scholar but when I look at 1956 through 1960 or even 1961 when both were pitching, Spahn sure looks like the much better pitcher. Do we just excise that out of the analysis?

Why is it that for KOUFAX we just ignore the mediocre half of his career? Why is that?