Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

So Peter, don't you agree that theory unfairly ignores other pitchers that were great right from the start and didn't need years to figure out how to pitch well? I also thought my analogy comparing pitchers to wash machines was kind of spot on in trying to pick which pitcher may best. Hey, if statisticians can reduce everything and everyone to just numbers, I say take it all the way then and treat pitchers as nothing more than a machine. That way you've removed pretty much the entire human element from the equation, which is whats stats and statisticians do to start with.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So Peter, don't you agree that theory unfairly ignores other pitchers that were great right from the start and didn't need years to figure out how to pitch well? I also thought my analogy comparing pitchers to wash machines was kind of spot on in trying to pick which pitcher may best. Hey, if statisticians can reduce everything and everyone to just numbers, I say take it all the way then and treat pitchers as nothing more than a machine. That way you've removed pretty much the entire human element from the equation, which is whats stats and statisticians do to start with.

I understand the rationale of focusing only on 5 or so peak years, whenever they occur, just think it's not all that meaningful and that something like JAWS which averages peak 7 and career better navigates the balance. But the excuse that it's OK to disregard Koufax' first five years because he was still learning to pitch, and that most pitchers are like that, is crap. If you're going to disregard them, at least be honest about why, namely that you care only about peak.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I understand the rationale of focusing only on 5 or so peak years, whenever they occur, just think it's not all that meaningful and that something like JAWS which averages peak 7 and career better navigates the balance. But the excuse that it's OK to disregard Koufax' first five years because he was still learning to pitch, and that most pitchers are like that, is crap. If you're going to disregard them, at least be honest about why, namely that you care only about peak.

I hear you Peter, preaching to the choir!

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

WHAT???????????? Are you telling us that something Travis has posted is not factually accurate? I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. He is an expert in every field except growing coconuts and knitting however if given enough time I bet he could teach us all a thing or two on those topics too!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

WHAT???????????? Are you telling us that something Travis has posted is not factually accurate? I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. He is an expert in every field except growing coconuts and knitting however if given enough time I bet he could teach us all a thing or two on those topics too!

LOL LOL LOL

Nothing I could ever add, you just dropped the mic after that one...............

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL LOL LOL

Nothing I could ever add, you just dropped the mic after that one...............

Bob he is my go to man now. Prior to his coming here I was mislead by groupthink over 3 point shooters, absolutely everything about pitching in the bigs, Joe Jackson autographs and the internal operations of PSA, PWCC and eBay to just name a handful of topics.

He has over 600 posts. I must reread all of them to see if I have missed anything.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Bob he is my go to man now. Prior to his coming here I was mislead by groupthink over 3 point shooters, absolutely everything about pitching in the bigs, Joe Jackson autographs and the internal operations of PSA, PWCC and eBay to just name a handful of topics.

He has over 600 posts. I must reread all of them to see if I have missed anything.

It's funny, someone posted how this is like the fastest thread ever on the forum to 1,000 posts. I wonder if he has the fastest ever to 600 posts on here now. And here's a thought, hundreds of posts ago in this very thread, he actually said he was done and wasn't going to post in this thread anymore. Thank goodness he kept his word and quit posting in this thread, otherwise he could be over 1,000 posts by now!!!! WOW!!! 😂

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

It's funny, someone posted how this is like the fastest thread ever on the forum to 1,000 posts. I wonder if he has the fastest ever to 600 posts on here now. And here's a thought, hundreds of posts ago in this very thread, he actually said he was done and wasn't going to post in this thread anymore. Thank goodness he kept his word and quit posting in this thread, otherwise he could be over 1,000 posts by now!!!! WOW!!! 😂

I sometimes wonder.... the OP started this thread and was subsequently banned. Is this thread his legacy to the Net54 community, or his curse on us?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

It's funny, someone posted how this is like the fastest thread ever on the forum to 1,000 posts. I wonder if he has the fastest ever to 600 posts on here now. And here's a thought, hundreds of posts ago in this very thread, he actually said he was done and wasn't going to post in this thread anymore. Thank goodness he kept his word and quit posting in this thread, otherwise he could be over 1,000 posts by now!!!! WOW!!! 😂

LOL!! I had already forgotten about that. Sensational!!! Well just yesterday he referred to this as an argument so maybe what he meant is that he was done discussing and was just going to argue?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Really? You sure about that? As young as Koufax was? How many teenagers have you seen pitching in the MLB? I'll wait...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Really? You sure about that? As young as Koufax was? How many teenagers have you seen pitching in the MLB? I'll wait...

Koufax threw 41 innings as a teen. It is not his teen years limiting his good years, it’s his arm going at 30 and that he only got productive at 25, a couple years after most all time greats but not really late.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Koufax threw 41 innings as a teen. It is not his teen years limiting his good years, it’s his arm going at 30 and that he only got productive at 25, a couple years after most all time greats but not really late.

What does that have to do with what we're arguing about? I made the claim that most pitchers don't come into the league as teenagers and just start kicking ass right out of the gate and that it usually takes them a few years to figure things out in the minors first. Peter seems to think that statement is false. He asserts that I must not have done my homework, because surely if I had, I would have come to a different conclusion.

Care to place a wager on this one Peter? Or Mr. Data Analyst perhaps? Mr Snow PaTroll perhaps? Anyone?

... No? Didn't think so.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

What does that have to do with what we're arguing about? I made the claim that most pitchers don't come into the league as teenagers and just start kicking ass right out of the gate and that it usually takes them a few years to figure things out in the minors first. Peter seems to think that statement is false. He asserts that I must not have done my homework, because surely if I had, I would have come to a different conclusion.

Care to place a wager on this one Peter? Or Mr. Data Analyst perhaps? Mr Snow PaTroll perhaps? Anyone?

... No? Didn't think so.

He cited examples of pitchers putting it together at 22, 23, 24. Not in their teens. Nobody is holding Koufax’s 1955 season at 19 against him. The problem is he put it together a couple years later than most great pitchers and was done at 30. He loses a couple years of effectiveness to his somewhat but not overly late bloom. He loses a decade to the fact he was done at 30. It’s fairly obvious which is the bigger problem for his careers value. One can discern it from a cursory look at his career. There’s nothing to wager on here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Really? You sure about that? As young as Koufax was? How many teenagers have you seen pitching in the MLB? I'll wait...

Straw man. Other than Doc, I pointed to examples of pitchers achieving greatness in their early 20s, when Koufax was mediocre. And I am sure I could cite many more. You have zero support for your assertion that "most" pitchers take 5 years to figure it out. Randy Johnson, to be sure, was a slow starter, and there may be others, but "most" you just made up.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Straw man. Other than Doc, I pointed to examples of pitchers achieving greatness in their early 20s, when Koufax was mediocre. And I am sure I could cite many more. You have zero support for your assertion that "most" pitchers take 5 years to figure it out. Randy Johnson, to be sure, was a slow starter, and there may be others, but "most" you just made up.

If you need some ammunition to help quiet someone down (this one's for you also G1911), here's a quick list of some MLB pitchers who started in the majors while still teens. Don't want to make people wait for accurate and verifiable answers to their questions, now do we? And of course, we can always expect someone asking such questions of us to be just as courteous and responsive in similar type questions we may pose to them, and can count on them answering us back with accurate and verifiable responses as well, right? And some of the pitchers on this list aren't too shabby to boot........

Felix Hernandez
Dwight Gooden
Bert Blyleven
Mike Morgan
David Clyde
Vida Blue
Denny McLain
Dave McNally
Early Wynn
Bob Feller (Who may be the youngest ever, in the modern era at least, at only 17)
Babe Ruth

People really should learn to do a little research before shooting off their mouths when demanding proof of something they think off the top of their head doesn't exist. Gee, I hope if this was something being asked for by a researcher or statistician that it isn't indicative of the usual quality of their work. Would certainly make me a tad bit concerned about believing anything such a person would ever say or suggest, right? Just another one of those - Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

[GeoPoto]

Hold on a sec. WRT Early Wynn: he may have pitched as a teenager, but he was a very ordinary pitcher through his age-28 season. It was only after Washington traded him to Cleveland that he started to pitch above league average -- he made the HoF in his 30's.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1638028681

[BobC]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Hold on a sec. WRT Early Wynn: he may have pitched as a teenager, but he was a very ordinary pitcher through his age-28 season. It was only after Washington traded him to Cleveland that he started to pitch above league average -- he made the HoF in his 30's.

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1638028681

George,

Don't disagree, but I believe the question asked of others was to name pitchers who pitched in the majors as teenagers, not how they fared when they pitched.

And thank you for bringing that up by the way, and I sincerely mean that. It cuts off whoever may have asked the original question from trying to throw it back in someone's face, because now if they still try to do that, they'll really look kind of dumb. Thanks!

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

Gee, I hope if this was something being asked for by a researcher or statistician that it isn't indicative of the usual quality of their work. Would certainly make me a tad bit concerned about believing anything such a person would ever say or suggest, right? Just another one of those - Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

Bob...come now. He is not just a researcher or statistician. He is a data scientist...with 4 post grad degrees. I dunno if this is indicative of his work but it has been 100% indicative of his posts here. So much nonsense from the snowman. I admit I am a huge fan.

[G1911]

Gary Nolan, Wally Bunker, Chief Bender, Rube Bressler and Smoky Joe Wood also all had excellent seasons as teens in the 20th century.


Most pitchers are not major league ready or good in their teens. Most aren’t at 20 or 21. Most excellent pitchers ‘put it together’ at 23-25. Koufax bloomed a little late, but not very late like Randy Johnson or Early Wynn. The much bigger issue for his value to his team is that he was completely done by 30. His early years can’t be ignored, nor should they for any pitcher, but his real problem is the age he was useless by. Johnson I have as #2 and he was a true late bloomer.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Bob...come now. He is not just a researcher or statistician. He is a data scientist...with 4 post grad degrees. I dunno if this is indicative of his work but it has been 100% indicative of his posts here. So much nonsense from the snowman. I admit I am a huge fan.

I don't want to ever sully a scientist like that. They are all very intelligent and dedicated intellectuals who make it a point that when they develop theories, they always test and recheck their data and results to strive for accuracy and verifiability in all that they do. And they never go about publishing or declaring their ideas and theories as factual until they have produced, and are able to share, their data and research supporting and proving those theories. Can't imagine a TRUE scientist ever willingly violating that well known tenet of the scientific community, can you?

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by BobC

If you need some ammunition to help quiet someone down (this one's for you also G1911), here's a quick list of some MLB pitchers who started in the majors while still teens.

Bob Feller (Who may be the youngest ever, in the modern era at least, at only 17)

Technically, I think that title goes to Joe Nuxhall, though Feller did manage to stick it out longer than 2/3 of an inning.

Another pitcher who started in their teens (a lefty even). went on to a respectable career, and retired young was Johnny Antonelli.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Technically, I think that title goes to Joe Nuxhall, though Feller did manage to stick it out longer than 2/3 of an inning.

Another pitcher who started in their teens (a lefty even). went on to a respectable career, and retired young was Johnny Antonelli.

And a great pitcher in 1954. He played a key role in getting the Giants their last title for decades, but was quickly forgotten by Giants fans. He’s one of those common cards I always target to get, coming from Giants country.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

If you need some ammunition to help quiet someone down (this one's for you also G1911), here's a quick list of some MLB pitchers who started in the majors while still teens. Don't want to make people wait for accurate and verifiable answers to their questions, now do we? And of course, we can always expect someone asking such questions of us to be just as courteous and responsive in similar type questions we may pose to them, and can count on them answering us back with accurate and verifiable responses as well, right? And some of the pitchers on this list aren't too shabby to boot........

Felix Hernandez
Dwight Gooden
Bert Blyleven
Mike Morgan
David Clyde
Vida Blue
Denny McLain
Dave McNally
Early Wynn
Bob Feller (Who may be the youngest ever, in the modern era at least, at only 17)
Babe Ruth

People really should learn to do a little research before shooting off their mouths when demanding proof of something they think off the top of their head doesn't exist. Gee, I hope if this was something being asked for by a researcher or statistician that it isn't indicative of the usual quality of their work. Would certainly make me a tad bit concerned about believing anything such a person would ever say or suggest, right? Just another one of those - Things that make you go hmmmmm.......

Holy $#!+. How clueless can you actually be? That's your list? 11 players? This is your argument against the very simple statement that most pitchers don't pitch in the MLB as teenagers and that it takes them a few years in the minors to figure things out before they get called up? Really? It wouldn't matter if you could come up with hundreds of pitchers who were called up as teens. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of players, hell, the vast majority of top prospects even, all spend multiple years in the minor league system before being called up. Welcome to my ignore list as well. I don't have time for people like you.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Holy $#!+. How clueless can you actually be? That's your list? 11 players? This is your argument against the very simple statement that most pitchers don't pitch in the MLB as teenagers and that it takes them a few years in the minors to figure things out before they get called up? Really? It wouldn't matter if you could come up with hundreds of pitchers who were called up as teens. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of players, hell, the vast majority of top prospects even, all spend multiple years in the minor league system before being called up. Welcome to my ignore list as well. I don't have time for people like you.

Snowman is having a meltdown...again. You are the one who started arguing about teenage pitchers in MLB. Another red herring to go along with many others. Once you get stopped in your tracks you find another angle and twist what others have posted so you can shift your position.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Straw man. Other than Doc, I pointed to examples of pitchers achieving greatness in their early 20s, when Koufax was mediocre. And I am sure I could cite many more. You have zero support for your assertion that "most" pitchers take 5 years to figure it out. Randy Johnson, to be sure, was a slow starter, and there may be others, but "most" you just made up.

Strawman? LMFAO. You're so ridiculous. That was literally my exact statement that you argued against. And who said anything about 5 years? Who's the one making straw man arguments now? All I said was it takes most pitchers a few years in the minors to figure things out before getting called up. Pretty simple statement Peter. And not one that's really debatable. But you'll argue against anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Strawman? LMFAO. You're so ridiculous. That was literally my exact statement that you argued against. And who said anything about 5 years? Who's the one making straw man arguments now? All I said was it takes most pitchers a few years in the minors to figure things out before getting called up. Pretty simple statement Peter. And not one that's really debatable. But you'll argue against anything.

This started with you making excuses for why you ignored half of Koufax' career. When I pointed to Gooden, you switched gears and said you assessed pitchers based on their 4 or 5 peak years. And you admitted a guy who was off the charts for 4 years or so could be your greatest pitcher of all time. My point is that your excuse for Koufax is therefore a pretext, and your real reason for ignoring half his career is that you choose to assess based on 4 or 5 peak years. Which is fine as long as you are consistent about it and why.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This started with you making excuses for why you ignored half of Koufax' career. When I pointed to Gooden, you switched gears and said you assessed pitchers based on their 4 or 5 peak years. And you admitted a guy who was off the charts for 4 years or so could be your greatest pitcher of all time. My point is that your excuse for Koufax is therefore a pretext, and your real reason for ignoring half his career is that you choose to assess based on 4 or 5 peak years. Which is fine as long as you are consistent about it and why.

I couldn't have possibly been more clear and consistent throughout this entire thread that I've only ever been interested in someone's peak 4 or 5 years when trying to figure out who I think was best. Your bad faith arguments are getting tiresome.