Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm reminded of a supposed exchange between Ty Cobb and a reporter in 1950 or so. The reporter asked Cobb, if you played today, what do you think you would hit?

Cobb replied, .270 or so.

The reporter asked, are today's players really that much better than in your day?

Cobb replied, no, but I am 65.

I've heard of a similar story from around the 1980s/1990s with a reporter asking Yogi Berra about Joe DiMaggio.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The superiority of the modern athlete is easily proven in track and field and weightlifting events, where there are actual, unbiased metrics to do so. The 4 minute mile seemed impossible during the deadball era, and wasn't accomplished until 1954. From Wikipedia:

A four-minute mile is the completion of a mile run (1.6 km) in four minutes or less. It was first achieved in 1954 by Roger Bannister, at age 25, in 3:59.4. The "four-minute barrier" has since been broken by over 1,400 athletes, and is now the standard of professional middle distance runners in several cultures.

In the 65 years since, the mile record has been lowered by almost 17 seconds, and currently stands at 3:43.13, by Hicham El Guerrouj of Morocco, at age 24, in 1999.

There, I've proved athletes of today are superior to those of 100 years ago. Lucky me.

Yeah, but what about a human ancestor from back around the time of the Ice Age that suddenly caught the attention of a hungry predator? I could see them breaking a 4 minute mile out of necessity. Its just that none of us were there to view and actually time the run. So there's one way I'm looking to disprove your comment. And also my original statement was refering to baseball players, and more specically pitchers. Not track athletes, basketball, or football players. In which case go look at the likes of David Wells, C.C: Sabathia, or even better, Bartolo Colon. I rest my case and am back to being correct in my original statement, and unlucky you.

Truth be known, people tend to keep improving such things as records are broken, so others then make breaking that new record their priority and train with even more focus and conviction. Plus people now start training and specializing for such goals at ever earlier ages, like the Williams sisters whose story is documented in the latest Will Smith movie "King Richard". Plus you have further impovements due to advances in medicine and science, training techniques, and even diet and nutrition. Humans have kind of advanced now to the point where you won't see much in the way of gains in new records. There is a point where the human body will hit its physical limit, but then can't go beyond that.

For example, read somewhere that the fastest a human body could possibly throw a baseball is supposedly around 110 MPH. But what's the current record, around 102 - 103 MPH? To get closer to that top speed though you'd have to find a human with the absolutely perfect body and physique, and then they'd actually have to be interested in throwing a ball that fast. And be willing to put in the training and effort to acheive it. Chances are there is a human or two on the planet that could do it, but they have neither the knowledge of that potential ability, nor the desire to act on and train for it. And some sports are given to advantages simply based on size or height. Baseball is one of those sports where physical size isn't always an advantage, nor indicative of the better players (Altuve, Jose' Ramirez, etc.). So the idea of modern ballplayers all being that much better athletes than those playing 75 or 100 years ago is not going to be that great, and will most likely be even less going forward from today.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

.300 was what the quotes attribute to what he'd hit; not .270

Well, I heard it was Lefty O'Doul being asked the question at a banquet where Cobb was present. I think he told that story in The Glory of Their Times if I'm not mistaken. So I guess there are multiple variations floating around.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That’s sort of a different argument. I agree if Randy Johnson prime went back in time he’d probably be better than Spahn and anyone else. Or if you put Spahn in the current game he might not be as good. Spahn might even be average compared to today’s pitchers. But he was far better than barely above average in his time. He was dominant.

Yes, he was very good in that era (though I wouldn't say he was dominant). You can't have a 1.28 WHIP and a 5 K/9 rate and ask people to refer to you as a dominant pitcher. But he was very good relative to his peers. The problem I have is when I'm asked to compare him to modern pitchers. He would be above average at best today. Or rather, the pitches he threw back then would be above average at best today. Perhaps he would be a totally different pitcher today, but when you look at the rate stats that matter, and compare those to the arms on mounds today, he's not even good. Those rate stats probably wouldn't even make the all-star game today let alone be in discussions for a CYA or MVP, and they are stratospheres away from GOAT discussions.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So if Lefty Grove was so mediocre, what are your thoughts on Walter Johnson?

Walter Johnson was legitimately dominant. There are a lot more advanced metrics that matter, but there are at least two stats that everyone can understand that translate well across eras: WHIP and K/9. Obviously, there's more to pitching than just that, but those two stats alone are FAR more important than Wins, complete games, and ERA. And when comparing across different eras, especially dead ball vs live, they're more important than even normalized values such as ERA+, xFIP, and WAR, each of which depends on the talent level of one's peers. A lot of these stats are fancy z-scoring style statistics that aim to simplify performance in a way that casual fans can understand. Obviously, WHIP can be influenced by multiple external factors as well, like the defensive skill of your teammates, the ballparks you pitch in, etc. xFIP does a pretty good job of separating out much of what a pitcher cannot control, but it only works well at comparing pitchers within similar eras. The problem with comparing someone like Walter Johnson to Randy Johnson is that the game itself was just played so differently, particularly with respect to HRs. You're limited with many of the advanced metrics if you want truly unbiased comparisons.

Much of my argument has to do with the fact that I think many people here misunderstand WAR and when/where it applies. A pitcher like Warren Spahn gets a lot of "credit" (via stats like WAR) for having a 1.28 WHIP not because he pitched in an era where hitters were just THAT much better back then than they are today, but rather because pitchers were just THAT much worse. Here's an example between Warren Spahn and Clayton Kershaw that highlight what I'm talking about.

Here is what's wrong with using WAR for answering the question of "who was better"?

Warren Spahn's 1947 stats (his best WAR season):
289.2 IP, 2.33 ERA, 170 ERA+, 3.35 FIP, 1.14 WHIP, 3.8 K/9, 9.4 WAR

Clayton Kershaw's
198.1 IP, 1.77 ERA, 197 ERA+, 1.81 FIP, 0.86 WHIP, 10.8 K/9, 7.7 WAR

Those are arguably each of their best seasons. Kershaw's performance though isn't just marginally better, it is MILES better than Spahn's. The delta between a 1.14 WHIP and a 0.86 WHIP and a 3.8 K/9 vs a 10.8 K/9 is the difference between Michael Jordan and the best pickup player at your local YMCA. These guys are not even in the same league, metaphorically speaking. And while you may like to point out that their ERAs are fairly close, or that they both won 21 games those years, I promise you, those stats don't matter nearly as much as you think they do. When I build my predictive models for betting on baseball, ERA and Wins don't even make it into the model at all. Not because I haven't tried, but because they have no statistical significance whatsoever, in the presence of the other variables when it comes to predicting future performance. They are rejected by mathematics, not bias.

Originally Posted by Carter08

But on the list of best RBs of all time I think it would seem wrong to rank Jim Brown 2,000th simply because you think he wouldn’t start for Oregon in today’s game competing against kids that have gone through more modern training.

This is a whole new can of worms to open up, but I believe one can make a pretty strong case for Jim Brown still being the greatest RB of all time despite the difference in eras. He's certainly in the conversation. But basically, it comes down to the fact that the delta between performance in football between eras isn't as great as the delta between MLB pitching performance between eras, though it certainly still exists. The Jim Brown problem is much more difficult to sort out mathematically than Warren Spahn vs pick your favorite modern lefty. I don't even think Spahn is a top 20 lefty, let alone top 3. Whereas I think Jim Brown is almost certainly top 5, and quite possibly the GOAT.

Originally Posted by G1911

Are you serious? First of all there are like 500 posts on this topic in this thread. Look at WAR, ERA+. Compare Grove’s figures to the league, number must be put into the context of time and place. Grove won 7 consecutive K crowns, are we really going to use strikeouts as an argument against him? He led the league with the lowest WHIP 5 times. A statistical argument should incorporate context. He dominated his time and place like no other lefty, and he produced pretty good counting stats.

The argument for Spahn is his extremely long career and consistently excellent but not great seasons.

Just read the thread.

See my point above. WAR and ERA+ just aren't relevant statistics to the question of "who was better" across different eras, despite their inventors attempting to create them for precisely that purpose. Look at Spahn vs Kershaw lines above. You tell me who was more valuable between those two seasons. It's not the one with the higher WAR.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the logic of Travis' argument would also dictate that Jesse Owens was slow, Mark Spitz was mediocre, Bill Russell would be a bench player today, and so forth. It's a fair argument if you're consistent with it, but personally I think it is much more meaningful to evaluate athletes relative to their time than on an absolute scale.

Jesse Owens was fast as hell. The fastest of his time. But his personal best was 10.2 seconds in the 100m. Usain Bolt would have beaten him by almost 15 feet! Owens' time wouldn't even QUALIFY for the Olympics today, let alone compete for a medal.

Bill Russell? lol. Ya. Possibly the most overrated athlete of any sport ever. He's not even a top 25 NBA player. Sorry. I could go off on this one. I won't.

Originally Posted by G1911

Even if we dismiss everyone before a randomly selected year to include only ones arbitrarily favorite candidates, how does one possibly come to the conclusion that Spahn was “an above average pitcher, at best”. At best. 100 WAR, 365 wins, 3 ERA crowns, 5 WHIP titles, 119 ERA+ In over 5,000 innings. This is merely above average, *at best*.

Surely someone can come up with a hot take that isn’t utterly absurd and can stand up to even cursory logical examination.

He was very good for his time. Perhaps even great for his time. I'm saying he is above average at best when comparing him to modern talent.

Originally Posted by G1911

After all, he is KOUFAX seems to be the linchpin of every argument for him, consistency be damned he must be evaluated under separate standards from every other contender. It’s only been like 18 months, perhaps next year a logical, consistently applied argument will be put forth for Koufax.

Koufax had an astounding peak, an amazing talent and 4 year run, I thought. But if Spahn is “above average, at best”, then Koufax, who has less than half of Spahn career value, must be a straight up bum.

Koufax's peak was absolutely incredible. I care more about a player's peak than I do about their longevity if we're talking about who was "better", though both matter to some extent. It's the same reason why I think Michael Jordan is better than Kareem and Lebron.

Koufax was a special player though. His highest single-season strikeout total was 382, which just so happens to be exactly DOUBLE Spahn's best single-season total of 191. His 6 year stretch from 61 to 66 is one of the greatest stretches by anyone in history, let alone lefties. And while he did benefit from throwing in a pitcher's park, a pitcher's park can't give you 10 K/9. The guy was absolutely dominant, and he was also particularly dominant when it mattered most with 2 World Series MVPs, 3 rings, a 0.95 career postseason ERA, and a career 0.825 postseason WHIP.

Originally Posted by BobC

Prove it!

Problem is, you and everyone else has absoluetly no way to do so, so you and others comfortably keep spouting this crap about how players from today's modern era are always so much better than those from long past, and while you can't possibly prove it, nobody can disprove it either, so lucky you.

The argument you and others make is akin to taking an Indy car and driver from today and putting them on a track against cars and drivers from 100 years ago. You completely ignore the different eras in baseball and all the changes in rules, equipment, facilities, training, medical care, and on and on. You want to really and properly compare players from today against those from 75 or 100 years ago, then have your Kershaws, Johnsons, and Koufaxs be born at the same time as those that actually played 75 or 100 years ago, and grew up under the same conditions, training, rules, and so on that those players back then had. Then, and only then, could you possibly have any chance to really compare pitchers from different eras to decide who was the best lefty of all time. But your earlier comments questioning Grove, and especially Spahn, even being in the conversation as the greatest lefty pitcher of all time is hands down the dumbest thing I've seen you say here on Net54, to date. And trust me, you've got a lot of other doozies to your credit.

You mentioned how Grove and Spahn don't even have the statistics to match up with all the other, more recent pitchers on that all time list, but all those statistics are nothing but crap, and don't always truly tell you anything comparable for players across different eras. When people go to a game in person, their favorite sports bar to watch on the big screen, or just turn on the tube at home to watch their team play, they don't care how many strikeouts a pitcher has, or how many hits, walks, and HRs he did or didn't give up. Most all fans, be they 8 or 88, in that present moment in time really only care about one thing, and one thing only, did their team WIN..........PERIOD!!!!!!!! Its after the fact that all the statisticians and analysts run the numbers so they can compare them and argue about who was better and did what, and on and on. But all these statistics are meaningless because all that really matters, all that baseball players are paid to do as their one sole task, is to win. And that is something Grove and Spahn did, was win.

And especially in Spahn's case, he won a lot. More so than any other left handed pitcher in any era, and it really isn't close. Yet you said he was just an above average pitcher (probably the next dumbest thing you've ever said on this forum so far), and downplayed his entire career as just being long and how that apparently doesn't count much towards him possiblly being the best lefty pitcher ever. Well there's an old sport's cliche' (and cliche's are cliche's because they are inherently so true) and that's - "The best ability, is availabity". And Spahn was around and available to rack up more wins than anyone else on that all time lefty list. And to top it off, Spahn did that losing three of his prime pitching years while in the service, and pitching on some not so hot teams early on in his career. In fact, at one time there was an old saying that the Braves fans had popularized that I don't know if you're familiar with - "Spahn and Sain, and pray for rain". I don't think any other lefty on the list was ever immortalized in a saying like that showing just how important he was to his team. And yet despite the so-called statistical shortcomings you were pointing out, Spahn had some unmeasurable, intangible talent or ability that still allowed him to inspire his teammates to thrive and do their utmost to help the team win behind the confidence he obviously instilled in them whenever he pitched. And if that isn't a sign and testament to somebody's greatness, then I don't know what is, but it sure ain't something you just pull off a stat sheet.

And don't try pulling that crap about how Spahn can't be that great because he didn't win all kinds of championships and MVP and Cy Young awards. He was 1 for 3 in World Series, being a world champ only once, with an overall WS record of 4-3 I believe. He won the Cy Young award just once, but believe he was an all star 14 times. And though never actually winning the MVP award, he got votes for the honor in 15 different years. Arguably in baseball, your starting pitcher probably has the greatest impact of any single player on whether their team will win or lose a game. But of all the major U.S. sports, baseball is the only one where a star player, in this case the starting pitcher, doesn't get to play in every game. In fact, realistically, a starting pitcher usually only gets to pitch in about every fourth or fifth game a team plays. Even if a starter were to win every single game he starts during a season, he still can't single handedly carry his team to the playoffs and the World Series. So again, don't even think about going there.

Also in talking about this greatest lefty argument, a lot of you ignore a pitcher's entire career and focus just on some arbitrary peak period when they were at the absolute best. Talk about meaningless stats, this is a timeless move by statisticians and analysts to mine a statistical database to select just the arbitrary period or information that reinforces or validates the argument or theory they are putting forth, and not necessarily the correct or true answer. You had mentioned Johnson not really starting to take off till it was already later in his career. Well Koufax was a rookie in '55, but didn't hit his peak till the early '60s, before finally retiring a few years later while still fairly young, for health reasons. So he was somewhat of a late bloomer as well. And over the first six years (exactly half) of Koufax's career, he had a cumulative losing won-loss record. Meanwile, Johnson had a similar overall losing record over his first seven years in the majors, accounting for about a third of his career. So when you then go to determine an all time greatest left hander, why would you even consider two pitchers who couldn't even have an overall winning record for major portions of their careers, and at the start of their careers no less? That makes absolutely no sense at all. All people are doing is cherry picking these pitcher's best years to make their arguments, and ignoring entire careers. I thought the question was best left handed pitcher of all time, not most dominant left handed pitcher for a specific, arbitrary period of time during their career that someone gets to pick and choose at their discretion. IMO those are two entirely different questions. And if it is the latter question, I could reasonably argue that the best, most dominant thing any pitcher can do is pitch a perfect game, so maybe we just look to LHPs that threw one, which interestingly enough includes both Koufax and Johnson. But then many others would argue there are other LHPs, like Dallas Braden or Tom Browning, who have also pitched perfect games, but would never be thought of as the greatest or most dominant ever lefty pitcher. So one game is too short, then why not one particular year, or even two? Why instead pick a five or seven year period then, unless maybe one of the reasons is it helps the person doing the period selection to better make the argument for whom they want to be considered as the all time best?

Again, the question was ALL TIME best lefty, not just best or most dominant lefty for a randomly selected portion of their career. Perhaps another way to approach this was through the question someone posed to possibly help decide this greatest lefty of all time issue, and that was - "If you're a GM starting a team today, who is the first lefthander you would select for your team?". But there people go using that modern bias of today and forcing the old time pitchers to suddenly come up to start against today's players, without giving them the same benefits as growing up with all the modern advancements and advantages that someone like Kershaw had. At least if you're going to do that, let pitchers like Spahn and Grove be born the same year as Kershaw was so they get a chance, the same as Kershaw, to learn and develop knowing the modern game they're going to be asked to pitch in. Otherwise its going to be like taking a 1930 or 1950 Indy car driver, AND HIS CAR, and just dropping them into the 2022 Indy 500 race. It is not a fair comparison, and they won't stand a chance.

But maybe we should ask that question a different way, remembering that we're looking for the ALL TIME greatest left hander, and not just the greatest left hander pitching against today's modern players. So instead of a GM picking a lefty for a team today, how about you're a GM picking a team in 1942, the same year Spahn was a rookie and first played in the majors!!!!!! It's easy to tell how Spahn would do and that he'd end up with 363 wins, but how would pitchers like Johnson, Kershaw, and Koufax do back then, what with different rules, equipment, training, facilities, medical care, pitching so many more innings, and especially losing three years to the service. Would those lost years especially push Koufax and Johnson to being even older before finally figuring out what they were doing as pitchers to become the studs they were, and thereby maybe dramatically change for the worse how their careers ultimately turned out? Do any of them even come close to Spahn's 363 career wins? Who knows? Given that scenario, would you really expect any other lefty on that list to equal, or better, what Spahn achieved. I'm guessing there may be a lot of people that would be inclined to select Spahn, in that case.

And speaking of how players from older eras are often automatically being assumed to not be able to fare well at all against modern players, what if you could bring Grove and Spahn forward in time to pitch against today's modern players, what makes you so sure they wouldn't do well. Remember, Koufax and Johnson started their careers with six and seven years of so-so/lousy pitching, respectively. Well, I feel Grove and Spahn were pitchers more than hurlers, so who's to say that if you transferred them both to pitch in today's modern game that they wouldn't be able to pretty quickly figure out how to adapt and change the way they pitch so they could consistently win, at least a lot faster than the years it actually took Koufax and Johnson to finally figure out they were doing wrong and finally get their you-know-what together. Doesn't seem like you may have ever considered that distinct and viable possibility.

I don't honestly know who I'd say the greatest left handed pitcher of all time is, to date, but to not consider how modern lefties would have fared as pitchers had they grown up and pitched in different, earlier eras is just shortsighted and fails to consider and account for the ALL TIME aspect of the question. But to even suggest that Grove, and especially Spahn, couldn't possibly succeed in pitching against modern players, and didn't at least belong in that conversation, is again as I said above, one of the dumbest things you've ever said on this forum!

Call it however you want to call it. But to my knowledge, I'm the only person in this thread who is actually qualified to speak about statistics. Everyone praising Spahn keeps pointing to statistics that either don't matter (wins) or that are grossly misunderstood and taken out of context (WAR). I challenge you to find any other statistician who disagrees with me on this. Spahn wasn't just not quite as good as Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw. He wasn't even remotely in the same league as them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ever heard of Bill James? He ranked Spahn 36 and Koufax 51. Out of all players. And Lefty Grove... wait for it... 19.

Bill James is a statistician. Quite a well known one in baseball circles. So much for your challenge.

Here's a challenge for you: get your ego in check.

[G1911]

A statistician should know an appeal to authority is not a rational argument, and is a fallacy. Who do you think invented WAR? Bill James is not a statistician? What baseball statistician ranks Koufax as the greatest total lefty ever? Your appeal to authority is not only ridiculous, it’s also just completely untrue even if it wasn’t an absurdly terrible fallacy.

Every argument for Koufax just gets more and more absurdist, and thus far all of them have relied on ignoring contextual math, emotion, and a surprising number of appeals to authority that should be evident to even their authors will not stand up to any examination at all. Again, if Spahn is to be punished for his time, then so must Koufax. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A statistician should know an appeal to authority is not a rational argument, and is a fallacy. Who do you think invented WAR? Bill James is not a statistician? What baseball statistician ranks Koufax as the greatest total lefty ever? Your appeal to authority is not only ridiculous, it’s also just completely untrue even if it wasn’t an absurdly terrible fallacy.

Every argument for Koufax just gets more and more absurdist, and thus far all of them have relied on ignoring contextual math, emotion, and a surprising number of appeals to authority that should be evident to even their authors will not stand up to any examination at all. Again, if Spahn is to be punished for his time, then so must Koufax. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

It's more like an appeal to an authority of one, himself.

Who else would have so massive an ego as to not only disregard everyone else who posts here, but more importantly all the scores of people including of course statisticians who have evaluated baseball players and compared them for decades, people who for the most part were dedicated followers of the game?

In Travis' universe though, he is the only intelligent being it seems, no one else matters.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ever heard of Bill James? He ranked Spahn 36 and Koufax 51. Out of all players. And Lefty Grove... wait for it... 19.

Bill James is a statistician. Quite a well known one in baseball circles. So much for your challenge.

Here's a challenge for you: get your ego in check.

+1

[Ricky]

I disagree that K/9 translates well over eras. Regardless of pitching, certain eras feature more strikeouts than others, and that doesn’t even get into whether a pitcher was a strikeout pitcher or not. Warren Spahn was never a strikeout pitcher and neither was Greg Maddux. That shouldn’t be held against them, because both used other effective and equally legitimate, means to win - a lot.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ever heard of Bill James? He ranked Spahn 36 and Koufax 51. Out of all players. And Lefty Grove... wait for it... 19.

Bill James is a statistician. Quite a well known one in baseball circles. So much for your challenge.

Here's a challenge for you: get your ego in check.

Yep, I'm very familiar with his work. I reference it often. Bill James was ranking overall career contributions in the list you're referencing. Not the same thing. Nice try. So much for your challenge to my challenge. There's no scenario in hell where Bill James thinks Warren Spahn had better stuff than Sandy Koufax or that he would pick him to start in a game 7 over Koufax either. If you're asking "who was better", I'm answering that as who you'd pick to start in a fictitious game 7. Not who is going to rack up more wins over the course of two decades.

Keep ridiculing me all you want. I know how these threads go. You guys ask questions that can only be answered by someone with a strong background in statistics. Then you all weigh in with a bunch of irrelevant, nonsensical arguments, displaying your complete lack of statistical aptitude (which you mistakenly believe you actually have quite a strong grasp of). Then an actual statistician weighs in and you call them an imbecile and a know-it-all. Then you point to a bunch of shit you don't understand to make your points, the statistician rolls his eyes, does a face palm, and you call him arrogant and stupid.

I don't really care who you think is the best. I'm just telling you what the numbers say. If you want to change the question to "who provided more cumulative value over the course of their career?", then sure, Spahn is in that conversation. But that's a different conversation. What we're talking about here is "who was the best"?

If you go up to any coach and ask them who their best pitcher is, exactly zero of them are going to respond with, "well, Mikey here has thrown 20 no hitters each of the past 5 seasons, so he's pretty good, but I'm going to have to go with uncle Jimmy because he's been above average for the past 20 years and he has more total wins than Mikey."

There's a word for anyone who would pick Warren Spahn over Sandy Koufax to start in a fictitious world series game 7, and that word isn't 'statistician'.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yep, I'm very familiar with his work. I reference it often. Bill James was ranking overall career contributions in the list you're referencing. Not the same thing. Nice try. So much for your challenge to my challenge. There's no scenario in hell where Bill James thinks Warren Spahn had better stuff than Sandy Koufax or that he would pick him to start in a game 7 over Koufax either. If you're asking "who was better", I'm answering that as who you'd pick to start in a fictitious game 7. Not who is going to rack up more wins over the course of two decades.

Keep ridiculing me all you want. I know how these threads go. You guys ask questions that can only be answered by someone with a strong background in statistics. Then you all weigh in with a bunch of irrelevant, nonsensical arguments, displaying your complete lack of statistical aptitude (which you mistakenly believe you actually have quite a strong grasp of). Then an actual statistician weighs in and you call them an imbecile and a know-it-all. Then you point to a bunch of shit you don't understand to make your points, the statistician rolls his eyes, does a face palm, and you call him arrogant and stupid.

I don't really care who you think is the best. I'm just telling you what the numbers say. If you want to change the question to "who provided more cumulative value over the course of their career?", then sure, Spahn is in that conversation. But that's a different conversation. What we're talking about here is "who was the best"?

If you go up to any coach and ask them who their best pitcher is, exactly zero of them are going to respond with, "well, Mikey here has thrown 20 no hitters each of the past 5 seasons, so he's pretty good, but I'm going to have to go with uncle Jimmy because he's been above average for the past 20 years and he has more total wins than Mikey."

There's a word for anyone who would pick Warren Spahn over Sandy Koufax to start in a fictitious world series game 7, and that word isn't 'statistician'.

Hysterical. Perhaps you should have first stated your definition as the pitcher who, at his absolute peak, I would pick to start one key game. Very few people would make that their criterion I don't think, including of course Bill James, but at least we could have a discussion being on the same page.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hysterical. Perhaps you should have first stated your definition as the pitcher who, at his absolute peak, I would pick to start one key game. Very few people would make that their criterion I don't think, including of course Bill James, but at least we could have a discussion being on the same page.

Agree. Seems like a different question altogether. I’d probably take 1985 Doc Gooden, albeit a righty, over anyone for one game but he’s sadly not in the conversation for best of all time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agree. Seems like a different question altogether. I’d probably take 1985 Doc Gooden, albeit a righty, over anyone for one game but he’s sadly not in the conversation for best of all time.

If we're narrowing it to just one year or a few years, I would say Gooden (although I'd hesitate because of his youth), The Big Train at his zenith, Grove at his zenith, 68 Gibson, 72 Carlton, Unit during that 4 year stretch, Pedro during his very peak, or 63/66 Koufax. Hard to go wrong with any of those guys.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If you're asking "who was better", I'm answering that as who you'd pick to start in a fictitious game 7.

Wow, you've just moved the goal posts so much a Vikings field goal kicker might actually be able to kick one through.

Okay, you pick Koufax to win one game, and out of the dugout steps the Sandy of 1960, when he was 8-13 with a 3.91 ERA. Good luck.

Why don't you just say Koufax was the best ever because if you needed to win a Game 7, you want Koufax on the day he threw a perfect game.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's more like an appeal to an authority of one, himself.

Who else would have so massive an ego as to not only disregard everyone else who posts here, but more importantly all the scores of people including of course statisticians who have evaluated baseball players and compared them for decades, people who for the most part were dedicated followers of the game?

In Travis' universe though, he is the only intelligent being it seems, no one else matters.

If I'm the only statistician in the room and we're discussing statistics, then yes, my opinion is the only one that should matter. Just like if we were discussing how the Supreme Court might rule on an upcoming case and a room full math geeks was debating it with a constitutional attorney, then the attorney's opinion is the only one worth listening to in that discussion. Or if a room full of blue collar parents were in a room with one doctor and they were discussing whether or not to give a sick child some antibiotics, then that doctor would be the only opinion worth listening to. If this were a forum full of other statisticians, then we could all sit and debate the subtle nuances that separate and differentiate certain metrics over others and debate the relevance of each. But you guys aren't capable of that debate. You guys have no clue what you're talking about. You're not statisticians. You don't even understand which statistics are more relevant than the other ones, let alone how to calculate the more advanced statistics and what their implications are. And from my cursory read of this thread so far, you guys don't even have an elementary understanding of the subject, let alone that's capable of having this debate. You guys just want to sit here and talk out your asses like you always do. So carry on pointing to articles that you don't understand (but think you do), and keep drawing your invalid conclusions. After all, it's what lawyers do best!

Keep arguing with statisticians about statistics. You got this one guys! Warren Spahn is the GOAT!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Wow, you've just moved the goal posts so much a Vikings field goal kicker might actually be able to kick one through.

Okay, you pick Koufax to win one game, and out of the dugout steps the Sandy of 1960, when he was 8-13 with a 3.91 ERA. Good luck.

Why don't you just say Koufax was the best ever because if you needed to win a Game 7, you want Koufax on the day he threw a perfect game.

Wins and losses are meaningless of course, and ERA is so passe. I am sure our data scientist has some metric like the square root of the average velocity plus 3 times the average number of rotations on the curve ball divided by the percentage of balls put in play minus the average launch angle of extra base hits surrendered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If I'm the only statistician in the room and we're discussing statistics, then yes, my opinion is the only one that should matter. Just like if we were discussing how the Supreme Court might rule on an upcoming case and a room full math geeks was debating it with a constitutional attorney, then the attorney's opinion is the only one worth listening to in that discussion. Or if a room full of blue collar parents were in a room with one doctor and they were discussing whether or not to give a sick child some antibiotics, then that doctor would be the only opinion worth listening to. If this were a forum full of other statisticians, then we could all sit and debate the subtle nuances that separate and differentiate certain metrics over others and debate the relevance of each. But you guys aren't capable of that debate. You guys have no clue what you're talking about. You're not statisticians. You don't even understand which statistics are more relevant than the other ones, let alone how to calculate the more advanced statistics and what their implications are. And from my cursory read of this thread so far, you guys don't even have an elementary understanding of the subject, let alone that's capable of having this debate. You guys just want to sit here and talk out your asses like you always do. So carry on pointing to articles that you don't understand (but think you do), and keep drawing your invalid conclusions. After all, it's what lawyers do best!

Keep arguing with statisticians about statistics. You got this one guys! Warren Spahn is the GOAT!

This attorney would listen respectfully to what other people had to say and would not feel the need to, as G puts it, appeal to his own authority. This is very different from using one's knowledge to explain why other people might be wrong. And by the way, other people usually have intelligent and worthwhile things to say even if they lack a particular expertise. Lots of guys here are not lawyers but they make interesting and worthwhile common sense points on threads about legal issues. You're just a massive egotist which of course ultimately is a sign of insecurity. Here are two choices on how to post an opinion.

1. Here's my opinion and why.
2. Here's my opinion and why, I'm the only one here entitled to have an opinion, and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

Which do you think most people respect more?

[G1911]

Now that we've established the rules, awesome.

I'm a data analyst. Looking at the data tells me that Koufax had nowhere near the career of Grove or Spahn, and thus he can not be the greatest lefty ever because other lefties have been better for longer.

Since I am the only data analyst in the room, which I will just assume because that suits my interest in declaring myself infallible, I will now declare that everyone else is thoroughly incompetent and incapable of using numbers correctly, and thus everyone else is completely wrong. I am automatically right, because of my series of assumptions and unstated ground rules I have completely made up precludes any other opinion than my own. I will simply ignore that this is a completely nonsensical appeal to authority and just double down on that fallacy.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wins and losses are meaningless of course, and ERA is so passe. I am sure our data scientist has some metric like the square root of the average velocity plus 3 times the average number of rotations on the curve ball divided by the percentage of balls put in play minus the average launch angle of extra base hits surrendered.

Yes. Something like that.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This attorney would listen respectfully to what other people had to say and would not feel the need to, as G puts it, appeal to his own authority. This is very different from using one's knowledge to explain why other people might be wrong. And by the way, other people usually have intelligent and worthwhile things to say even if they lack a particular expertise. Lots of guys here are not lawyers but they make interesting and worthwhile common sense points on threads about legal issues. You're just a massive egotist which of course ultimately is a sign of insecurity. Here are two choices on how to post an opinion.

1. Here's my opinion and why.
2. Here's my opinion and why, I'm the only one here entitled to have an opinion, and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

Which do you think most people respect more?

The difference is I first answer, "here's my opinion and why". THEN you guys respond with, "you're an idiot and your opinion isn't worth shit". THEN I say, "uh, whose the one arguing about statistics with the statistician"? Big difference. But again, nice try.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes. Something like that.

We eagerly await your advanced statistical argument for why all the traditional and SABRmetric stats are wrong, and Sandy is the GOAT. I for one am thrilled all statistical conversations can be immediately resolved by your authority. Let’s hear this statistical basis you’ve developed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The difference is I first answer, "here's my opinion and why". THEN you guys respond with, "you're an idiot and your opinion isn't worth shit". THEN I say, "uh, whose the one arguing about statistics with the statistician"? Big difference. But again, nice try.

Red herring IMO. These are ultimately subjective judgments, informed by statistics sure, but it's not like the question is what's the probability of X happening, or did this drug outperform a placebo, where there is an objective statistical answer (maybe, in the latter case). Statistics don't definitely establish who the best pitcher was. They inform the discussion. So sorry yours is not the only meaningful opinion.

Nor would mine be on a legal issue if I was the only lawyer on a thread. I might be able to make my case better than someone else, but that doesn't make me right or the only one worth listening to. And, a second lawyer could probably come on and argue it very differently -- this happens all the time in the real world where equally qualified experts reach dramatically different conclusions -- so qualifications are only a part of the picture.

Someone who genuinely had confidence in his opinion would not, in my opinion, repeatedly feel the need to shove his qualifications down our throats.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Now that we've established the rules, awesome.

I'm a data analyst. Looking at the data tells me that Koufax had nowhere near the career of Grove or Spahn, and thus he can not be the greatest lefty ever because other lefties have been better for longer.

Since I am the only data analyst in the room, which I will just assume because that suits my interest in declaring myself infallible, I will now declare that everyone else is thoroughly incompetent and incapable of using numbers correctly, and thus everyone else is completely wrong. I am automatically right, because of my series of assumptions and unstated ground rules I have completely made up precludes any other opinion than my own. I will simply ignore that this is a completely nonsensical appeal to authority and just double down on that fallacy.

Well shit, why didn't you say so earlier?! We have a data analyst in here folks! Sounds like you guys are in great hands! I'm sure you guys will have no problems sorting this one out now.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, he was very good in that era (though I wouldn't say he was dominant). You can't have a 1.28 WHIP and a 5 K/9 rate and ask people to refer to you as a dominant pitcher. But he was very good relative to his peers. The problem I have is when I'm asked to compare him to modern pitchers. He would be above average at best today. Or rather, the pitches he threw back then would be above average at best today. Perhaps he would be a totally different pitcher today, but when you look at the rate stats that matter, and compare those to the arms on mounds today, he's not even good. Those rate stats probably wouldn't even make the all-star game today let alone be in discussions for a CYA or MVP, and they are stratospheres away from GOAT discussions.




Walter Johnson was legitimately dominant. There are a lot more advanced metrics that matter, but there are at least two stats that everyone can understand that translate well across eras: WHIP and K/9. Obviously, there's more to pitching than just that, but those two stats alone are FAR more important than Wins, complete games, and ERA. And when comparing across different eras, especially dead ball vs live, they're more important than even normalized values such as ERA+, xFIP, and WAR, each of which depends on the talent level of one's peers. A lot of these stats are fancy z-scoring style statistics that aim to simplify performance in a way that casual fans can understand. Obviously, WHIP can be influenced by multiple external factors as well, like the defensive skill of your teammates, the ballparks you pitch in, etc. xFIP does a pretty good job of separating out much of what a pitcher cannot control, but it only works well at comparing pitchers within similar eras. The problem with comparing someone like Walter Johnson to Randy Johnson is that the game itself was just played so differently, particularly with respect to HRs. You're limited with many of the advanced metrics if you want truly unbiased comparisons.

Much of my argument has to do with the fact that I think many people here misunderstand WAR and when/where it applies. A pitcher like Warren Spahn gets a lot of "credit" (via stats like WAR) for having a 1.28 WHIP not because he pitched in an era where hitters were just THAT much better back then than they are today, but rather because pitchers were just THAT much worse. Here's an example between Warren Spahn and Clayton Kershaw that highlight what I'm talking about.

Here is what's wrong with using WAR for answering the question of "who was better"?

Warren Spahn's 1947 stats (his best WAR season):
289.2 IP, 2.33 ERA, 170 ERA+, 3.35 FIP, 1.14 WHIP, 3.8 K/9, 9.4 WAR

Clayton Kershaw's
198.1 IP, 1.77 ERA, 197 ERA+, 1.81 FIP, 0.86 WHIP, 10.8 K/9, 7.7 WAR

Those are arguably each of their best seasons. Kershaw's performance though isn't just marginally better, it is MILES better than Spahn's. The delta between a 1.14 WHIP and a 0.86 WHIP and a 3.8 K/9 vs a 10.8 K/9 is the difference between Michael Jordan and the best pickup player at your local YMCA. These guys are not even in the same league, metaphorically speaking. And while you may like to point out that their ERAs are fairly close, or that they both won 21 games those years, I promise you, those stats don't matter nearly as much as you think they do. When I build my predictive models for betting on baseball, ERA and Wins don't even make it into the model at all. Not because I haven't tried, but because they have no statistical significance whatsoever, in the presence of the other variables when it comes to predicting future performance. They are rejected by mathematics, not bias.




This is a whole new can of worms to open up, but I believe one can make a pretty strong case for Jim Brown still being the greatest RB of all time despite the difference in eras. He's certainly in the conversation. But basically, it comes down to the fact that the delta between performance in football between eras isn't as great as the delta between MLB pitching performance between eras, though it certainly still exists. The Jim Brown problem is much more difficult to sort out mathematically than Warren Spahn vs pick your favorite modern lefty. I don't even think Spahn is a top 20 lefty, let alone top 3. Whereas I think Jim Brown is almost certainly top 5, and quite possibly the GOAT.




See my point above. WAR and ERA+ just aren't relevant statistics to the question of "who was better" across different eras, despite their inventors attempting to create them for precisely that purpose. Look at Spahn vs Kershaw lines above. You tell me who was more valuable between those two seasons. It's not the one with the higher WAR.




Jesse Owens was fast as hell. The fastest of his time. But his personal best was 10.2 seconds in the 100m. Usain Bolt would have beaten him by almost 15 feet! Owens' time wouldn't even QUALIFY for the Olympics today, let alone compete for a medal.

Bill Russell? lol. Ya. Possibly the most overrated athlete of any sport ever. He's not even a top 25 NBA player. Sorry. I could go off on this one. I won't.




He was very good for his time. Perhaps even great for his time. I'm saying he is above average at best when comparing him to modern talent.




Koufax's peak was absolutely incredible. I care more about a player's peak than I do about their longevity if we're talking about who was "better", though both matter to some extent. It's the same reason why I think Michael Jordan is better than Kareem and Lebron.

Koufax was a special player though. His highest single-season strikeout total was 382, which just so happens to be exactly DOUBLE Spahn's best single-season total of 191. His 6 year stretch from 61 to 66 is one of the greatest stretches by anyone in history, let alone lefties. And while he did benefit from throwing in a pitcher's park, a pitcher's park can't give you 10 K/9. The guy was absolutely dominant, and he was also particularly dominant when it mattered most with 2 World Series MVPs, 3 rings, a 0.95 career postseason ERA, and a career 0.825 postseason WHIP.




Call it however you want to call it. But to my knowledge, I'm the only person in this thread who is actually qualified to speak about statistics. Everyone praising Spahn keeps pointing to statistics that either don't matter (wins) or that are grossly misunderstood and taken out of context (WAR). I challenge you to find any other statistician who disagrees with me on this. Spahn wasn't just not quite as good as Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw. He wasn't even remotely in the same league as them.

And now the real problem finally comes out. You're too busy talking about how you're the only person that knows statistics and everything else, but you can't even understand and answer the actual question that was asked. Who was the best lefty of all time? Not who was the most dominant lefty over some short period of time that if you had to win just one game you could pick that person at his most effective time in is career. It sure seems that is the question you're answering and not the one that was asked.

You are a hypocrite! I asked you to prove your points and show reasons why your positions are valid. I gave you a lot of detail, facts, explanations, conjecture, and what did I get in return? The pathetic non-response just above saying to YOUR knowledge you're the only person in this thread qualified to speak about statistics, you then say statistics like WINS don't matter and WAR is grossly misunderstood, followed by how we probably can't find any other statisticians to ever disagree with you, and then polished it off by saying Spahn wasn't just not quite as good as Kershaw, Johnson, and Koufax, he wasn't even remotely as good. Do I have it about right?

In an earlier post you went into how taking even marginal pitchers of today back in time, they would blow away the batters of yesteryear, and then went into how the players from then wouldn't even make today's rosters, and how pitchers like Grove and Spahn couldn't beat the batters of today either. You never gave factual evidence as to why any of this would be true or to support any of your statement. So I very simply asked you to prove what you said to me. And this was the lame-ass response I got back!!!!

So you didn't constructively answer or respond to anything, just stated how no one else apparently knows much of any anything about statistics, WINS are meaningless, WAR is taken out context, and restated how Spahn is no good. In other words, you effectively told me only you know what you're talking about, that you are right, and everyone else is wrong!

OMG When you first started posting on here, you were going at it and back and forth with many others (and still are) and saying how you were trying to get them to be more open minded and were presenting ideas and facts to make them realize and see there could be other results and valid points of view in regards to whatever was being discussed and argued. And you got many responses back that effectively just said that they were right, and you were wrong. And you would go after them about that. So now here we are with you simply telling me you're right and I'm wrong, and now doing to me what others were doing to you. And as I stated above, I think that kind of makes you a hypocrite.

So let me give you a chance to redeem yourself:

1. How can you prove today's pitchers would blow away yesterdays batters, and yesterday's players couldn't make it in todays game? (And saying because I said so, doesn't cut it.)

2. You keep mentioning statistics as though they are somehow proving your points regarding how old and current players would do if they switched and played in different eras. Exactly how, and specifically which statistics, are proving this?

3. You keep saying WINS are meaningless. How can that be when the only thing players get paid and play for, and fans watch for, is to see their team win? You can strike out 27 players in every game, never walk anyone or give up any HRs, have an ERA under 2.00, but if you still don't win any games, all of that doesn't mean crap.

4. Why do you keep insisting upon following the illogical step of saying to properly compare and rate players from different eras that you simply take someone from one era and just drop them into another time to see how they fare. Just like you complained about people misunderstanding WAR and using it out of context, you're guilty of the exact same thing in moving players between eras like that. To get a proper comparison within context, you wouldn't just move Randy Johnson from the 1990s back to pitch in the 1920s. You would want Randy to have been born around 1900 so he could grow up with the baseball rules, equipment, training, medical care,and so on, so you could then see how he would actually pitch during the 1920s, within the same context as everybody else pitching during that time. And the same thing going the other way. You'd want Spahn to be born around 2000 so he would be just now getting ready to pitch in the 2020s, within the same context of everyone else pitching the 2020s then. To argue that using WAR as a measure is out of context, but that simply switching players between eras is not, is another clear case of hypocracy.

5. You keep going on about being the only qualified statistician in this thread. Do you know what the definition of "statistician" is? - An expert in the preparation and analysis of statistics. Do you then know what the definition of "statistics" is? - A branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data. And do you know what accountants, controllers, financial planners, CFOs, and CPAs mostly do? - Collect, keep, manage, inspect, analyze, and interpret large amounts of financial (numeric) data for the preparation af numerous reports, tax returns, financial statements, studies and analysis for various business and personal consulting, investing, tax planning, business operations, projections, audit engagements, and other miscellaneous projects and functions, amongst other things, in a real-world, hands-on scenario. And now, do you want to guess what I've been doing for the last 45+ years, in both the public and private sectors, and with some of the biggest and smallest companies there are? So what exactly is this mystery benefit you seem to be alluding to as a self-appointed statistical expert? All the statistics are meaningless when you're still looking at some things out of context. And you completely fail to take into account any unmeasurable intangible traits of the players, and also ignore the ability of people to adapt, adjust, and quickly learn when faced with new circumstances, such as being dropped into a new era to suddenly play ball. Why?

[earlywynnfan]

I don't understand why WHIP is one of the key stats used to compare across eras. Grove, Johnson, Spahn pitched in eras where nobody cared about stats. Baserunners didn't mean much unless they crossed the plate. And pitchers were expected to finish games, or at least attempt to. Is it really fair to compare an old-timer who needed to be ready for 9 innings to Kershaw, who at best would give 7? At the end of 9 innings, Grove let 1.5 more baserunners on than Koufax, pitching in a hitters' era.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Well shit, why didn't you say so earlier?! We have a data analyst in here folks! Sounds like you guys are in great hands! I'm sure you guys will have no problems sorting this one out now.

Yes, it’s an absolutely horrible and illogical argument, isn’t it? My appeal to authority is utterly absurd and completely illogical.

Maybe an actual case, argued on the merits of its evidence and not professed authority and other fallacies, can be presented.

[G1911]

Using WHIP (of course without any adjustment for context, because that math would hurt Sandy), Kershaw is number 1. But he’s active and his number is changing every year. The lowest WHIP for a retired player is Reb Russell. Perhaps he’s the GOAT.

I’ll be disappointed if this advanced statistical basis for Koufax that only certified professionals are capable of understanding turns out to be WHIP.

[Exhibitman]

We have a variation of this debate regularly on the boxing thread, of the 'Tyson would have killed Ali' or 'Frazier would have broken Klitschko in half' variety. The truth is that athletes in each era contended with the rules and limits and inconveniences and attitudes of the sport in each era and would train up accordingly. Joe Louis in 1937 is a 190# killing machine relative to his peers; in 2000 he would be 220# because of the training differences. Guys back then kept in shape primarily by fighting; now it is a lot of weight-lifting and core power exercises and comparatively few actual fights. Same is true of baseball. The season a Grove pitched or a Spahn pitched simply cannot be compared with what a Kershaw pitches today on raw numbers. Saying that Grove had a worse ERA or Spahn barely struck out anyone is meaningless out of context. Grove led the AL in strikeouts seven straight seasons and went over 200 once. He led the league in ERA 8 times but never went below a 2.06. It wasn't the same game strategically. It was guys who hit for super high averages and rarely struck out. Look at Earl Averill. Pretty average HOFer from the thirties. Hit .318 and had a high of 58 strikeouts. The attitude was that a strikeout was a failure, not a price to pay six times to get one HR, which is why if you look at the yearly stats there are virtually no prewar players with 100+ strikeouts but there are dozens every year now. If you look at the really rarified territory--200+ K's a year--they are all post-2000. Dave Kingman was a punchline; today he would be a superstar. Spahn led the league in strikeouts four years, never once over 200 and he pitched an average of 300 innings a year in that stretch. Koufax in his last two seasons pitched 54 complete games (led the league each time with 27) with 13 shut outs. In 1968 Bob Gibson pitched 28 complete games and did not even lead the league. Kershaw has pitched 24 complete games in his entire 14 year career. Max Scherzer has 12 and led the league three times with 4, 2 and 2. It is just a different game. That's why a peak WAR analysis makes more sense than comparing raw stats if you want to assess players of different eras.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yes. peak value and career value can be quite different. This can lead to different answers depending on the question - "Would you rather have player X at their peak for one game" vs. "Would you rather have player X or Y when constructing an all-time team."

Way back when Bill James published his Baseball Abstract, he had Koufax #2 Peak Value, and #7 Career Value (amongst lefties). Note: Grove #1 in both instances.

Interesting fact - Career One-Hitters: Ryan 12, Feller 12, Koufax 2

Considering how much time missed due to military service, Feller pretty impressive. How many more No/One hitters if he didn't miss time? Debate for another time, but Bill James has Feller #5/#6 for Peak/Career righties. Off the top of my head I would rank Feller higher.

[earlywynnfan]

So greatest lefty of all time is about one WS Game? Then maybe we should discuss Harry Brecheen.
But I’ll play. WS Stats:
Koufax: 57 IP, ERA 0.95, WHIP .825 36H/6ER/2HR/11W/61K
Grove: 51+ IP, ERA 1.75 WHIP 1.013 46H/10ER/0HR/6W/36K

If you look at the two “best” WS for both, where they made multiple starts, Koufax faced the Yankees and the 1964 Minnesota Twins. Grove faced the Gas House Gang. Koufax faced teams that hit far more homers while having far smaller batting averages, and Grove the opposite. Logic tells me that Koufax would allow more homers and Grove more hits. And the statistics bear this out.
I’ve always been taught that statistics shouldn’t exist in a vacuum. The difference in WHIP is easily identified through the lens of the era. I haven’t looked closely, but I’ll assume half of these games were pitched at either Dodger Stadium or Shibe Park. One pitcher pitched off a higher mound.
Koufax had noticeably more strikeouts than Grove, but also noticeably more walks. I think it’s pretty clear that Koufax had better stats, if you don’t look at the competition they faced. But how is one of these “The Greatest Lefthander of All Time” and one of these “Barely better than your church softball player”??

Oh, and for the record, Grove DID blow his arm out. He was regularly listed in the conversation of “hardest thrower ever” between Johnson, Feller, and Ryan. And he came back from it to, among other things, lead the league in ERA several times. All before modern medicine.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

One pitcher pitched off a higher mound.

Same pitcher also got a larger strike zone that coincided with their best seasons.

[Carter08]

Minor point but Spahn hit 35 dingers. Joe Torre fondly recalled the manager pinch hitting Spahn for him on a few occasions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Minor point but Spahn hit 35 dingers. Joe Torre fondly recalled the manager pinch hitting Spahn for him on a few occasions.

But Koufax hit a HR off Spahn in a 1962 game.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The superiority of the modern athlete is easily proven in track and field and weightlifting events, where there are actual, unbiased metrics to do so. The 4 minute mile seemed impossible during the deadball era, and wasn't accomplished until 1954. From Wikipedia:

A four-minute mile is the completion of a mile run (1.6 km) in four minutes or less. It was first achieved in 1954 by Roger Bannister, at age 25, in 3:59.4. The "four-minute barrier" has since been broken by over 1,400 athletes, and is now the standard of professional middle distance runners in several cultures.

In the 65 years since, the mile record has been lowered by almost 17 seconds, and currently stands at 3:43.13, by Hicham El Guerrouj of Morocco, at age 24, in 1999.

There, I've proved athletes of today are superior to those of 100 years ago. Lucky me.

No you haven’t “proven” anything. Modern training methods combined with superior footwear contributed to this. You can’t say for certain that bannister et al wouldn’t have been capable of shaving seconds off their times. Now I think globalization and just a higher pop count suggests on a level playing field El Guerrouj would have beaten those guys but the clock alone is not proof of anything.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But Koufax hit a HR off Spahn in a 1962 game.

Ha damn you!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

My top few:

Grove
Spahn
Koufax
Kershaw
Johnson
Carlton

Don't really care what order as long as Grove is first.

[mrreality68]

The reality is there are a lot of great left handers and many can make a great argument for many of them being the best.

Regardless if you think that it is Koufax, Grove, Spahn, Johnson or others

Enjoy the banter we had here back and fourth.

Enjoy the cards of each of these greats

Enjoy what that gave to the Game of Baseball and the fans

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Using WHIP (of course without any adjustment for context, because that math would hurt Sandy), Kershaw is number 1. But he’s active and his number is changing every year. The lowest WHIP for a retired player is Reb Russell. Perhaps he’s the GOAT.

I’ll be disappointed if this advanced statistical basis for Koufax that only certified professionals are capable of understanding turns out to be WHIP.

I would point out that Kershaw is the live ball era career leader in both WHIP and ERA in an era of high scoring.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would rank them like this
Grove
Johnson
Spahn
Carlton
Koufax/Kershaw even at this point anyhow gun to my head I would take Kershaw.
Hubbell

Could see flipping Johnson and Spahn.
Koufax just too short a career, however great his peak, and I think it's been show that peak benefited a lot from pitching in Dodger Stadium. Take away the good looks, the heroic pitching in pain, the not pitching on Yom Kippur, etc., I think the mystique of Koufax goes away to an extent.

C'mon man, if you're always going to harp on Kershaw's post season failure then you have to give credit to Sandy for his post season dominance!

[Snowman]

I never said WHIP was some advanced metric that was sufficient for settling the debate. I used it as an example of a basic statistic that isn't normalized by how strong or weak the rest of the pitchers in the league are. I chose it because I figured you guys could at least understand it and used it as a contrast to normalized statistics. Stop taking my words out of context.

My top 3 are Koufax, Randy, and Kershaw, and not necessarily in that order. Grove was great, but I discount his era. Spahn was very good for his time, but would be above average at best today. Those are my opinions. Take them or leave them. I don't care.

Modern pitching is far superior to pre-war pitching. It's not even remotely close. As I stated above, wins is one of the worst predictors of a pitcher's future success. ERA is highly subject to variance (aspects that a pitcher cannot control). WAR is great for comparing pitchers in a similar era, so long as you understand that it is a counting statistic (and what that implies). However, if you understand how WAR is calculated, then you'd know that in an effort to control for variations in league wide hitting talent from year to year, it's creators adjust for how well someone pitches relative to their peers. The problem with this adjustment from a statistical theory standpoint is that it simply trades one form of variance for another by trading the variance in league-wide hitting talent for the variance in league-wide pitching talent. They have solved one problem by creating another. The clue for this is even in the name (wins above "replacement"). This means their WAR calculations depend on how good or bad replacement level pitching was in that era (or for a rolling 3 year window). If you instead used a 2021 replacement level pitcher as the baseline for Warren Spahn's stats, his WAR value would drop significantly. These are not my opinions. These are all facts that can be easily proven. Again, as stated above, this is also why I said WAR and wins should not be used to determine who was "best". If you want to have a real discussion around who was best, then we'd need to dive into some of the more advanced sabermetrics (and no, I'm not talking about WHIP). But I have zero interest in discussing that with you guys because you don't even understand basic statistics, let alone the statistical theory needed to have this discussion, as evidenced by Peter's cute little ridiculing formula above. Just because you can't wrap your heads around some of the more advanced sabermetrics doesn't mean they don't matter.

Anyhow, I'm done here. I'll let the net54 intelligentsia committee settle this debate. It sounds like you guys are in great hands. After all, there are data analysts, CPAs, and financial planners in here! And they are "good with statistics". Lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

How does your analysis factor in Koufax' first 6 seasons (half his career, total WAR 6.8) or do you just disregard it? Since you haven't I don't think actually given us your analysis, but just talked down to us about how stupid we are, it seems a reasonable question.

One other aside, Koufax first pitched 66 years ago and last pitched 55 years ago. He's a lot closer in time to Grove (who pitched until 1941, just 14 years before Koufax started) than to today's pitchers. Why do you completely discount Grove because he pitched in prehistoric times, but apparently treat Koufax' numbers as legit?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

No you haven’t “proven” anything. Modern training methods combined with superior footwear contributed to this. You can’t say for certain that bannister et al wouldn’t have been capable of shaving seconds off their times. Now I think globalization and just a higher pop count suggests on a level playing field El Guerrouj would have beaten those guys but the clock alone is not proof of anything.

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

[Mark17]

Let's first agree that the answer to the question is, of course subjective. There is not a definitive answer that can be derived from statistical or any other kind of analysis. In the end, it is opinion.

Having said that, I completely agree with this. Just my opinion:

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

My top few:

Grove
Spahn
Koufax
Kershaw
Johnson
Carlton

Don't really care what order as long as Grove is first.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Reminds me of my mother in law, one of the 'these days' types. Once at dinner she said "the animals are different these days." Really? Did they evolve during your lifetime?

Agreed, your mother in law doesn't sound too bright.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How does your analysis factor in Koufax' first 6 seasons (half his career, total WAR 6.8) or do you just disregard it? Since you haven't I don't think actually given us your analysis, but just talked down to us about how stupid we are, it seems a reasonable question.

One other aside, Koufax first pitched 66 years ago and last pitched 55 years ago. He's a lot closer in time to Grove (who pitched until 1941, just 14 years before Koufax started) than to today's pitchers. Why do you completely discount Grove because he pitched in prehistoric times, but apparently treat Koufax' numbers as legit?

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I would point out that Kershaw is the live ball era career leader in both WHIP and ERA in an era of high scoring.

I think there is a fine, good-faith argument for Kershaw. I think he falls well short, because the greatest of all time is a combination of 1) how good he was and 2) how long he was good. Kershaw has not had a long career at this point in time, even by the standards of pitchers today he's missed a lot of time. On the other hand, he has aged well as his velocity declines and while he isn't the dominator he was, he may have several good seasons left. He could end up #1 when all is said and done. Active players are very difficult to rank because at age 33, to make Kershaw #1 we have to assume the future, which I don't think is reasonable.

If we'd like to count him, Kershaw is #1 and Reb Russell is #2.

I'd rather have grove for 4,000 innings than Kershaw for 2,500 Innings. Kershaw's best is on par or possibly even better than Grove's best, but not by the margin to cover this huge gap in my eyes.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

You're an idiot.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're an idiot.

I agree with this analysis frequently. I don't know a whole lot, but I do recognize an absurd, fallacious argument when it's really, really obvious.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Because he's KOUFAX. Logical consistency doesn't matter. Math doesn't matter. Context doesn't matter. He's KOUFAX. It's irrelevant that Spahn pitched 11 of Sandy's 12 years, Spahn and Grove must be dismissed as pitchers of antiquity, for the dominant pitcher of modernity, Koufax, who hasn't pitched in 55 seasons. But even though our argument centers on defining the best of "all time" as the best of an arbitrarily and completely inconsistently decided modernity (hence, it's not really of "all time", now is it?), we will dismiss Kershaw too, who is the obvious choice if the modernity argument is made sincerely because....

Well I'm sure there's a super advanced statistical argument you and I are too stupid to understand, even though no actual statistical argument has been given, simply a series of fallacies, references to common unadjusted statistics that are then walked back, and an appeal to statistical authority.

I am waiting, in vain perhaps, for the affirmative showing why Koufax is the "best" and by what definition. In particular I would like to know how that argument accounts for the half of his career where he clearly was mediocre, the Dodger Stadium factor, and so forth. As stated, I also would like to understand why Grove is too prehistoric to consider but Koufax, only 14 years removed from Grove but 55 years removed from the present, is not. But I guess as John Updike put it, gods don't answer letters. Speaking of Updike and that quote, his famous piece on Ted's last game starts with a bit of statistical analysis of Ted's career. I am 100 percent sure, Updike being a non-statistician, and launch angles and BABIP not yet being in vogue (or even WAR), the analysis was pathetic.

[tiger8mush]

Best Career LHP = Grove.
Best in my lifetime = Randy Johnson, with Kershaw #2.

If we're discussing the hypothetical World Series game 7 - Whitey Ford's "peak" was his 33 & 2/3 consecutive scoreless World Series innings between 1960-1962. So unless this game goes 34+ innings he's my guy