Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 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?

Helps me connect with a seller AND makes a great argument.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 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?

Yes. I ignore Koufax's early years. He was a teenager when he entered the league. When Spahn's career effectively started, he was already 25 years old. And while his military service during WW2 is admirable, it doesn't really tell us anything about his pitching abilities. Koufax was just a kid when his career began. I think it's more than fair to give him a pass while he tried to figure things out. Today, he would have been on a minor league team until he did. Look at their numbers from 25 years old and up (when Spahn's career effectively started) and compare them. If you do that, then it's like comparing my golf game to Jack Nicklaus (my handicap is probably at least 25 these days, though I wouldn't know).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes. I ignore Koufax's early years. He was a teenager when he entered the league. When Spahn's career effectively started, he was already 25 years old. And while his military service during WW2 is admirable, it doesn't really tell us anything about his pitching abilities. Koufax was just a kid when his career began. I think it's more than fair to give him a pass while he tried to figure things out. Today, he would have been on a minor league team until he did. Look at their numbers from 25 years old and up (when Spahn's career effectively started) and compare them. If you do that, then it's like comparing my golf game to Jack Nicklaus (my handicap is probably at least 25 these days, though I wouldn't know).

Dwight Gooden's best years were ages 19-24. And very good years they were. I am sure I could find other examples. You're cherry picking to get to a result IMO.

Herb Score dominated the AL at age 23.

Tom Seaver had excellent years at 22 and 23 and one of his best years if not his best at 24.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dwight Gooden's best years were ages 19-24. And very good years they were. I am sure I could find other examples.

That kid from Van Meter did pretty good as a youngster.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That kid from Van Meter did pretty good as a youngster.

I was avoiding pre-historic examples.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dwight Gooden's best years were ages 19-24. And very good years they were. I am sure I could find other examples. You're cherry picking to get to a result IMO.

Herb Score dominated the AL at age 23.

Tom Seaver had excellent years at 22 and 23 and one of his best years if not his best at 24.

Yes, some pitchers figure it out early, but most don't. Either way though, if I'm evaluating Gooden to determine how good he was, I'm also going to zoom in on his best 4 or 5 years (consecutive years that is, as you can't just cherry pick 4 random years).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, some pitchers figure it out early, but most don't. Either way though, if I'm evaluating Gooden to determine how good he was, I'm also going to zoom in on his best 4 or 5 years (consecutive years that is, as you can't just cherry pick 4 random years).

So you admit you just want to focus on the best years, and you're dropping your "learning curve" excuse now for Koufax. That's fine, I understand the theory although I don't agree with it, just don't justify it with a bogus justification. By the way I bet you have not put any analysis into your "most don't" assertion. Just like you asserted Maddux's BABIP against was precisely in line with the average before you even looked it up to see it wasn't. It seems almost every great pitcher I look up was very good very young.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Look at their numbers from 25 years old and up (when Spahn's career effectively started) and compare them. If you do that, then it's like comparing my golf game to Jack Nicklaus (my handicap is probably at least 25 these days, though I wouldn't know).

Compare their numbers from 31 and up. If you do that, then it's like comparing a quality pitcher to a tree toad.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by 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?

Koufax also benefitted from a 15 inch mound, which may have been even a tad higher at Dodger stadium. Great LHP, just not Randy Johnson.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 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?

You keep hammering this point about Koufax benefitting from pitching in Dodger Stadium for his final 5 years (but you ignore the fact that he was in two of the worst pitcher's parks in MLB history for his first 7 years). I've granted you that point and have mentioned multiple times that it should be accounted for and would definitely adjust his peak year numbers down. However, you continue to overlook or ignore the fact that Warren Spahn played in an even MORE favorable park than Koufax did. Are you aware that County Stadium was the friendliest pitcher's park in MLB history prior to Petco Park opening up in 2004? Per Baseball Reference's Park Factor stats, Warren Spahn threw in the #1 friendliest pitchers' park, not just of his era, but of any era prior to the 2000s, and in what still to this day remains as the 2nd friendliest pitcher's park of all time, just a fraction of a hair behind Petco Park in the mid to late 2000s.

So if you want to start making adjustments for Koufax's park, then you have to make them for Spahn and Randy as well. And given his tenure in County Stadium and other extremely friendly pitchers' parks, there is literally no other pitcher in history whose numbers would take a bigger park factor hit than Warren Spahn. His overall numbers would literally take the largest hit of every single major league pitcher who ever threw from the mound by adjusting for park factors. Don't believe me? Go look it up yourself.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/t...L/attend.shtml

Meanwhile, Randy Johnson pitched in one of the worst pitchers' parks in MLB history when he won his 4 consecutive CYAs in Arizona. I can't even imagine wanting or needing to IMPROVE his numbers from those 4 years, but the data tells us that we should. Pretty insane, if you ask me.

[G1911]

No one is denying Spahn benefited from his park. Like most pitchers, his home numbers are better, and it’s one of the factors holding down his adjusted rate stats, which are still excellent.

Unlike Koufax, his ERA doesn’t double or triple each year outside of Dodger Stadium vs. being at Dodger stadium, as was broken down several times already. Unlike Koufax, he was a star pitcher before he got to County Stadium at age 32, when Koufax had been retired for 2 years.

Your comeback will be to ignore this or to compare their home/road splits on a career level to cover up Sandy’s dodger stadium difference as opposed to his other home parks that don’t have extreme problems and didn’t align perfectly with his only good years.

You’ll get no argument from me that Spahn was better than Johnson, for numerous reasons. The problem is you chose to make the absurd proclamation, supported by 0 prominent and known expert baseball statisticians, that Spahn was “above average, at best”. Not being as good as Randy Johnson after you adjust for park is not a winning argument when this is your hypothesis. It’s shifting the goalpost, very obviously and poorly. A 119 ERA+, adjusted for park, in over 5,000 IP is not “above average at best” according to any prominent baseball statistician or by common sense.

Also, isn’t your argument you just made a few hours ago that Sandy’s first 7 years should be ignored? No home park effect creates Sandy’s terrible first half of his career. Interesting how his first half matters when it helps Sandy and does not matter when it hurts Sandy. Like all the Koufax arguments, it’s an argument from conclusion in which the argument is formulated after the conclusion without any regard for consistency to previous statements.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

No one is denying Spahn benefited from his park. Like most pitchers, his home numbers are better, and it’s one of the factors holding down his adjusted rate stats, which are still excellent.

Unlike Koufax, his ERA doesn’t double or triple each year outside of Dodger Stadium vs. being at Dodger stadium, as was broken down several times already. Unlike Koufax, he was a star pitcher before he got to County Stadium at age 32, when Koufax had been retired for 2 years.

Your comeback will be to ignore this or to compare their home/road splits on a career level to cover up Sandy’s dodger stadium difference as opposed to his other home parks that don’t have extreme problems and didn’t align perfectly with his only good years.

You’ll get no argument from me that Spahn was better than Johnson, for numerous reasons. The problem is you chose to make the absurd proclamation, supported by 0 prominent and known expert baseball statisticians, that Spahn was “above average, at best”. Not being as good as Randy Johnson after you adjust for park is not a winning argument when this is your hypothesis. It’s shifting the goalpost, very obviously and poorly. A 119 ERA+, adjusted for park, in over 5,000 IP is not “above average at best” according to any prominent baseball statistician or by common sense.

Also, isn’t your argument you just made a few hours ago that Sandy’s first 7 years should be ignored? No home park effect creates Sandy’s terrible first half of his career. Interesting how his first half matters when it helps Sandy and does not matter when it hurts Sandy. Like all the Koufax arguments, it’s an argument from conclusion in which the argument is formulated after the conclusion without any regard for consistency to previous statements.

I dont even know what to do with this. You just get more and more clueless as this thread goes along. You're not even trying to put forth honest arguments anymore. You're just trolling now. I'm done with you. Welcome to my ignore list along with Snow PaTroll. But hey, at least you got one thing right. I'm going to ignore you now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I dont even know what to do with this. You just get more and more clueless as this thread goes along. You're not even trying to put forth honest arguments anymore. You're just trolling now. I'm done with you. Welcome to my ignore list along with Snow PaTroll. But hey, at least you got one thing right. I'm going to ignore you now.

When a troll gets backed into an corner by his contradictions, shout trolling!