Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Snider looked 60.

He sure dude. Randy Johnson is actually another one. Was never young.

[Carter08]

Meant he sure did.

[BobC]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Wins in baseball don’t matter. I’ve “learned” that.

[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?

[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 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?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Here you go again with "wins" attributed to a pitcher. Lol

(facepalm)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hypothetical.

As a rookie, a guy next year sets records or is close in every meaningful modern metric. It's universally acclaimed as the greatest pitching season ever. He then quits baseball or dies. Is he the best pitcher ever?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hypothetical.

As a rookie, a guy next year sets records or is close in every meaningful modern metric. It's universally acclaimed as the greatest pitching season ever. He then quits baseball or dies. Is he the best pitcher ever?

Only if one today thinks Ferdie Schupp is the best lefty

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Wins in baseball don’t matter. I’ve “learned” that.

Wins in baseball is everything. Wins as a statistic attributed to a pitcher don't matter. There's a difference.

When I'm building a statistical model, I always use wins as the target variable. I want to know which team is most likely to win the game and what their odds of winning are. But far, the most important factor in that model is who the starting pitchers are. I can throw 100+ variables at the model and the mathematics will determine which of them are important. But it turns out that if you want to predict wins, you should actually look at other statistics besides "wins" attributed to a pitcher, because they are simply irrelevant in the presence of other variables like SIERA, K/BB, xFIP, velocity, WHIP, or even ERA. Knowing a pitcher's win/loss record literally adds zero information mathematically speaking. It is a nothing burger that only serves as a surrogate for things outside of one's control. I can't imagine a noisier statistic to look at.

[Carter08]

Serious thought on wins. I get the argument against but isn’t it defeated if there’s a pitcher out there who said I could absolutely fan guys and dominate for 6 innings but my bullpen needs help, my team behind me is pretty strong, so I’m going to go 9 innings and give up maybe 3 runs and still win. That’s the pitcher I would want.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Wins in baseball is everything. Wins as a statistic attributed to a pitcher don't matter. There's a difference.

When I'm building a statistical model, I always use wins as the target variable. I want to know which team is most likely to win the game and what their odds of winning are. But far, the most important factor in that model is who the starting pitchers are. I can throw 100+ variables at the model and the mathematics will determine which of them are important. But it turns out that if you want to predict wins, you should actually look at other statistics besides "wins" attributed to a pitcher, because they are simply irrelevant in the presence of other variables like SIERA, K/BB, xFIP, velocity, WHIP, or even ERA. Knowing a pitcher's win/loss record literally adds zero information mathematically speaking. It is a nothing burger that only serves as a surrogate for things outside of one's control. I can't imagine a noisier statistic to look at.

Gosh it sounds like we should just abolish that silly W-L stat then entirely. You heard it here first.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Rocket had a massive year at 23.

[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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I was avoiding pre-historic examples.

He may be pre-historic but him and another player from the same time Mr Ted Williams could be dropped into todays game. They would still be super stars with the talent they had back then. Really doubt you can say that about many others.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Rocket had a massive year at 23.

The GOAT had many massive years.

[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

Hypothetical.

As a rookie, a guy next year sets records or is close in every meaningful modern metric. It's universally acclaimed as the greatest pitching season ever. He then quits baseball or dies. Is he the best pitcher ever?

He might be, but we wouldn't have enough data to say that with confidence. We'd probably want something like 600-800 innings worth of work for variance to even out. And even then, someone could still have gotten lucky over that sample size, it's just significantly less likely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

He might be, but we wouldn't have enough data to say that with confidence. We'd probably want something like 600-800 innings worth of work for variance to even out. And even then, someone could still have gotten lucky over that sample size, it's just significantly less likely.

So if in my hypothetical the guy puts together two more similar seasons, then quits or dies, you would say he's the greatest ever?

[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 Carter08

Wins in baseball don’t matter. I’ve “learned” that.

LOL

Yeah, tell that to the fans that watch.

This idea seems to come, at least partially, from starting pitchers almost never throwing complete games anymore. And as these bigger, taller, harder throwing modern pitchers become more the norm, they all seem to be throwing fewer and fewer innings. Their reduced impact on the outcome of a game does make sense though the earlier they leave the game. But that's another modern bias. You go back to older pitchers like Grove and Spahn who mostly pitched complete or near complete games throughout their careers, and not only did they win lots of games, but they were way more responsible for those wins than modern starting pitchers who only seem to go 5 or 6 innings in their starts all the time anymore. So for modern pitchers the wins are less meaningful. But why disparage Grove or Spahn who completed games, if anything, they should be getting some extra credit for seeing games through till the end to better ensure their teams win. Doesn't fit with statistician's narratives of what they think counts and shows their lean towards modern pitchers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

Yeah, tell that to the fans that watch.

This idea seems to come, at least partially, from starting pitchers almost never throwing complete games anymore. And as these bigger, taller, harder throwing modern pitchers become more the norm, they all seem to be throwing fewer and fewer innings. Their reduced impact on the outcome of a game does make sense though the earlier they leave the game. But that's another modern bias. You go back to older pitchers like Grove and Spahn who mostly pitched complete or near complete games throughout their careers, and not only did they win lots of games, but they were way more responsible for those wins than modern starting pitchers who only seem to go 5 or 6 innings in their starts all the time anymore. So for modern pitchers the wins are less meaningful. But why disparage Grove or Spahn who completed games, if anything, they should be getting some extra credit for seeing games through till the end to better ensure their teams win. Doesn't fit with statistician's narratives of what they think counts and shows their lean towards modern pitchers.

These specimens also seem to be injured a lot more, although that's an anecdotal observation on my part. There are times it seems the great DeGrom can't go three starts without hurting himself?

[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.

[G1911]

Ignoring until after age 25, Spahn was far, far, far more valuable to his team than Koufax was. Every prominent baseball statistician recognizes this in their rankings. Koufax didn’t even pitch 1,500 innings after his age 25 season. Showing up is a key part. While Koufax was sitting on his ass, Spahn was producing effective innings.

[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.

[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 Peter_Spaeth

These specimens also seem to be injured a lot more, although that's an anecdotal observation on my part. There are times it seems the great DeGrom can't go three starts without hurting himself?

See, you get what I'm trying to say in thinking of pitchers as more like machines, and how even though the taller pitcher has a physical advantage, when he starts to get over a certain height that pitching ability actually drops quickly it seems. And along with pitching velocity, there may be a breakdown and more wear on a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine/body the longer and harder they continue to throw. That was what I was referring to when talking about a sweet spot/range in size and height for a pitcher to maybe still throw at a fairly high velocity, but also be able to pitch for a longer, extended period without suffering injuries or the inability to continue pitching at such a high level for very long. I get it that the height of the average MLB pitcher has slowly been going up a few inches the last few decades, but is that because the bigger, faster, stronger = better argument is really true, or is it maybe more from the fewer and fewer innings starters seem to be pitching anymore, so they don't injure/wear out their arms. These modernists talk about what an old time picther couldn't do if they transported him to the game today. Maybe they also should start asking what a modern pitcher couldn't do if they transported him back to a time when pitchers were supposed to complete their games. I can already picture these old time players fouling off pitches and running up pitch counts on them once they figure out some fireballer from the future seems to tire out a lot faster than pitchers they're used to facing.

Shoot, now there I go thinking about that human element again, instead of just trusting everything my friends the statisticians have told me because they are so smart and know so much more about everything. Oh foolish me, how could I ever doubt them?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ignoring until after age 25, Spahn was far, far, far more valuable to his team than Koufax was. Every prominent baseball statistician recognizes this in their rankings. Koufax didn’t even pitch 1,500 innings after his age 25 season. Showing up is a key part. While Koufax was sitting on his ass, Spahn was producing effective innings.

+ 1,000

As I've quoted the old axiom multiple times now - The greatest ability is availability!

[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!

[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...............

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if in my hypothetical the guy puts together two more similar seasons, then quits or dies, you would say he's the greatest ever?

If someone strings together the 4 greatest years in history then dies in a plane crash, then I think they're at least worth considering. It depends on how much better they were than everyone else though too. If some kid shows up next year and throws 225 innings with a 0.71 ERA, a 0.51 WHIP with 16 K/9, all while maintaining a league average BABIP, and then repeats it for 2 more years before hanging up the cleats to join the Navy Seals, then I'd have no problem saying he is the best pitcher of all time, despite only giving us 675 innings of greatness.

[G1911]

I very much admire the Socratic, and generally adopt the view that I might think a lot but don't really know a whole lot. One thing I know is that Sandy Koufax absolutely did not string together the best 4 pitching years in history.

No prominent baseball statistician has reached this conclusion, and the cumulative advanced metrics do not support it either. By the appeal to authority, prominent baseball statisticians outrank anyone else for baseball stats. Via the appeal to authority, this argument for Koufax thus fails.

See why these kinds of arguments are not good ones to make?