Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the era breakdown:

19th century - surprisingly weak. Has to be someone by default, but none really belong in this conversation.

Deadball - Plank. It should have been Waddell, but Plank pitched another 1,500 innings and was very effective while Waddell was crazy and done by 32. Plank pitched effectively his entire career; even in limited innings at 41 his ERA was 45% better than the league. Plank had only one season below the league average ERA, and that year his FIP was .70 better than his ERA. Plank was a model of excellent consistency, very similar to Spahn. What holds Plank back is that he never really dominated the league; unlike Spahn who annihilated the league 2 times in his long career and was excellently consistent the rest of the time.

Waddell though has my favorite season by a lefty. In 1900, his first full season, Waddell led the National League in ERA, FIP, ERA+, K/9 and WHIP. He only pitched 208 innings, not that many back then, but he might have been the best pitcher in the league that season. He completed 16 of his 22 starts. He won 8 games and lost 13. What makes it so weird is that he was actually on a very good team. The Pirates won 79 games and lost 60 (Their Pythagorean is 81-58), finished 2nd in the NL that season. And yet the league ERA champion on the #2 team went 8-13. I do not think there has ever been a more tough luck season for a southpaw than this.

Pre-War Liveball - Grove . To see how good Grove is, look at how good Hubbell was. Grove absolutely smokes him. As a Giants fan, Hubbell is my favorite of the two but facts are facts.

Post-War Vintage - Spahn. Carlton is not that far behind, but definitely behind I think. Ford was as good as either of them, but he loses significant value by his low inning count (low in the context of an all time great discussion, that is) and so comes in a way behind them. Too much has been made of Ford's winning % and not enough of Ford's ERA relative to context. He really deserves a better look than he has gotten thus far.

1980-2021 - Randy Johnson, by a country mile. Kershaw is very unlikely to have enough effective innings left in him to overcome Randy, even with Johnson's late bloom.

Surprising how so few lefties pitched in the 19th century. The two I mentioned, Morris and Tannehill, are the best of the lot. I still say maybe Norris for a long career. Not a lot going on there in this Era for lefties.

Waddell and Plank is a tough one, and as noted, similiar to the Spahn-Koufax debate. Either is a good pick really, but I thought Waddell here because he did succeed for longer than Koufax and, despite the wins, Plank NEVER led the league in any important pitching stats, unlike Spahn who did lead in Wins 8 times, ERA 3 times, and Ks 4 years in a row. The only selection you and I disagree on among the different eras. I'm with you on the other Era selections.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

Surprising how so few lefties pitched in the 19th century. The two I mentioned, Morris and Tannehill, are the best of the lot. I still say maybe Norris for a long career. Not a lot going on there in this Era for lefties.

Waddell and Plank is a tough one, and as noted, similiar to the Spahn-Koufax debate. Either is a good pick really, but I thought Waddell here because he did succeed for longer than Koufax and, despite the wins, Plank NEVER led the league in any important pitching stats, unlike Spahn who did lead in Wins 8 times, ERA 3 times, and Ks 4 years in a row. The only selection you and I disagree on among the different eras. I'm with you on the other Era selections.

Plank Black Ink: 15
Average HOF black ink: 40

Plank Gray ink: 291
Average HOF gray ink: 185

This is what really hurts Plank, he never was really the best pitcher. He was the 2-5 pitcher in the league almost every season. He never had a bad year or really declined. He came into the league excellent and left excellent, which very few have done in lengthy careers. The only time he led in major stats was 1915, his year in the Federal League that was a much inferior league to the National and Americans.

WAR has Plank just a bit below Grove/Johnson/Spahn. Personally I think WAR is biased to modern players and disagree with much of what it weights more than other things, but it does a pretty good job of total value bettween players in a generation. Plank is at 90, Waddell 58, and WAR loves strikeouts which favors Waddell. If I was a GM, and I knew the future, I would draft Gettysburg Eddie for my team over Rube. I’ve got my ace until he’s 41, or a crazy guy whose brilliant but done at 32.

If we were to use the Koufax argument, that only a pitchers best matters, Waddell might be #1 all time. Even in his best years where he tore up the league and won ERA crowns, and granting that the newspapers are probably a little hyperbolic at the least, Waddell was undisciplined, unfocused, and rarely all there. I’m not sure there has ever been a greater left hand talent than him, though I don’t think his career was as valuable as Planks. Koufax was gifted the perfect park, with the perfect mound, in an expansion period. Waddell was given a period where strikeouts were tough to come by, and severe mental problems and no discipline. Both were great for a short time, but there was little room for peak Koufax to be better, Waddell even at his best is something of a disappointment.

Waddell has the cooler cards too. His E93 as another poster mentioned is gorgeous. His T206 pitching pose and Turkey Red are also beauties. Planks T206 gets the press, but it’s not an aesthetic favorite to me. I own none of either pitchers cards..

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

Plank Black Ink: 15
Average HOF black ink: 40

Plank Gray ink: 291
Average HOF gray ink: 185

This is what really hurts Plank, he never was really the best pitcher. He was the 2-5 pitcher in the league almost every season. He never had a bad year or really declined. He came into the league excellent and left excellent, which very few have done in lengthy careers. The only time he led in major stats was 1915, his year in the Federal League that was a much inferior league to the National and Americans.

WAR has Plank just a bit below Grove/Johnson/Spahn. Personally I think WAR is biased to modern players and disagree with much of what it weights more than other things, but it does a pretty good job of total value bettween players in a generation. Plank is at 90, Waddell 58, and WAR loves strikeouts which favors Waddell. If I was a GM, and I knew the future, I would draft Gettysburg Eddie for my team over Rube. I’ve got my ace until he’s 41, or a crazy guy whose brilliant but done at 32.

If we were to use the Koufax argument, that only a pitchers best matters, Waddell might be #1 all time. Even in his best years where he tore up the league and won ERA crowns, and granting that the newspapers are probably a little hyperbolic at the least, Waddell was undisciplined, unfocused, and rarely all there. I’m not sure there has ever been a greater left hand talent than him, though I don’t think his career was as valuable as Planks. Koufax was gifted the perfect park, with the perfect mound, in an expansion period. Waddell was given a period where strikeouts were tough to come by, and severe mental problems and no discipline. Both were great for a short time, but there was little room for peak Koufax to be better, Waddell even at his best is something of a disappointment.

Waddell has the cooler cards too. His E93 as another poster mentioned is gorgeous. His T206 pitching pose and Turkey Red are also beauties. Planks T206 gets the press, but it’s not an aesthetic favorite to me. I own none of either pitchers cards..

And that all is exactly why this is possibly a tougher decision than Spahn-Koufax. If I use the washing machine analogy, that may point more towards Plank also, but it is much less clear or decisive of a measure as it is for the Spahn-Koufax debate. This is an extremely tough call and primarily depends on one's specific definition of exactly what "greatest" actually means or entails.