I think Grove was probably better than Spahn. But I can't say that with confidence without spending a significant amount of time making adjustments to control for the level of skill of the league in general during their respective eras.

But even leaving league adjustments aside, pretending that the league was every bit as strong when Grove was pitching (which it most certainly was not), Koufax still outperformed Grove's numbers across the board in the postseason, and it's not close. The only statistic that Grove was better at was BB/9, but Grove also had a larger strike zone to work with than Koufax did (top of the shoulders to bottom of the knees vs armit to top of the knees). Regardless, Koufax put significantly fewer batters on base, was scored on half as much, and struck out batters almost twice as often. What's there to compare? Koufax was significantly better than Grove in the postseason (and Grove was great).

Serious question. I don't know the answer, but was there any pitcher ever, right or left-handed, who was better in the postseason than Koufax with at least 50+ IP?

Either way, postseason performance isn't all that interesting to me. The sample sizes are just too small for it to be as meaningful as most people want it to be.

Koufax was 4-3 with an ERA of 0.95. There was another left hander, named Ruth, who was 3-0 with an ERA of 0.87. And a guy named Gibson who was 7-2 with an ERA of 1.89.

Hey now, no giving out hints. G1911 has to solve this riddle on his own. He's a data analyst!


Yes, I'm taking Ryu over Spahn. No, I'm not joking. The number of games someone won is absolutely meaningless to me. You might as well be talking about his hair color.

OK, so you're saying Koufax was the best of the 3 then. Got it. As Ruth does not qualify with his 31 IP (and a mere 8 Ks) during the dead-ball era, and Bob Gibson gave up about twice as many runs and was slightly easier to hit off of.

Not sure what their W-L record has anything to do with anything though. Perhaps you could fill me in on that?

In each of Koufax's 3 postseason losses, he gave up 1 earned run. That bears repeating. He only gave up ONE earned run in each of his postseason losses. ONE.

Career WAR of 48. For the all time great, that’s too low for me.

Mariano Rivera. 8-1 record with 42 saves in 141 innings pitched. 0.70 ERA with a 0.759 WHIP.

Wait, aren't you the one who said that this should boil down to who you'd want to start game 7 of the WS? Is this conversation about peak, career, or just one start for you?
Why do you have to "pretend" Grove's era was as strong as Koufax's, when Koufax pitched against the 1964 Twins?
Why do you bring up Grove's strike zone but not Grove's lower mound?

Statistics aside. Being selected to the hall as the youngest player ever mean anything to the naysayers? That is a great tribute when the writers basically went by five seasons of greatness.

I don’t think even the “naysayers” have Koufax out of the top 3 or so. It’s the 5 seasons of greatness and not more that have him out of the top 2.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Or, to allow for differences of opinion, nobody leaves him out of top 5? Maybe Spahn or Carlton has a case?? But Koufax was one friggin' awesome pitcher.

Duh --- If you pitch extremely effectively until you are 40 or more (Spahn, Johnson & Grove), you will not be elected to the Hall of Fame at the age of 37. Sorry Tony, but your argument has a big hole in it.

Jeez, if there could only be one left-handed pitcher in Cooperstown, it would be a war zone. Jousting Net54 proponents of each pitcher could settle this definitively in less time than it takes to read this thread, but I bet none of you would volunteer to participate in a joust.

C'mon men.

Again, that makes absolutely no sense. Retiring early is not a benefit. Most great pitchers are still producing at 37, not giving their Cooperstown speech. You don’t think his team would rather have had Koufax pitching from 31-37 than sitting at home?

I’m glad you now recognize how ridiculous fallacious egotist appeals to self professed total authority are!

Sorry, but I'm not giving out hints for this one.

So forgetting whether someone is left or right handed for a minute, does what you're saying mean anything in determining who was a better overall pitcher when comparing say Koufax, who took several years to really develop as a pitcher, to Bob Feller, who literally seemed to walk off an Iowa farm and directly into into ball parks and blow away major league hitters from day one, while still a teenager?

I don't know how you would get that out of my post. In which I made no comparisons nor ranked Koufax. I was pointing out an interesting fact that may have kept him from becoming even greater (or greater for a longer period) Of course the minors could have also backfired, maybe he has to retire even earlier if he pitches more as a youngster, who knows?

Frank,

You're 100% right! (Good lord, did I actually just say that? :D)

This is a debate that cannot be won or lost as it is a totally subjective question that no statistics or other objective information can ever truly answer. Everyone has their own opinions and biases, and we're dealing with different people across different eras and times, playing under different rules and circumstances, along with a myriad of other different mitigating and contributing factors. People debating on here are taking many things out of context in their arguments, or forgetting that context even matters to begin with. Or they start reciting statistics, but pick and choose, or narrow and/or expand, the scope and/or time period of those chosen statistics to tailor them to produce the result they want it it to be. There has been no exact, specific definition of precisely what the word "best" or "greatest" means in the context of this hotly debated question. And until such an accord as to the precise definition is reached by all the partipants, there will never be the remotest possibility of arriving at a consensus answer to the question.

I personally don't know who the greatest left handed pitcher of all time (to date) is, but can certainly concur and agree with all the candidates that have been nominated in this thread as to at least being in the discussion. What I don't agree with is when people forget, ignore, or purposely disregard the context of situations, circumstances, and/or the who, what, and why of their topic of debate and use their narrow minded and focused thinking to insult and disparage those from other times, periods, and circumstances as just being useless, worthless, or just plain out of hand, not good enough or deserving of any consideration. To me, the treatment by some of Grove, and especially Spahn, rises to this disgusting level of what I was just referring to. And it may also bespeak to the type of person those that are guilty of doing such truly are. For if such people, without any real forethought or remorse, can be so dismissing of the likes of Grove and Spahn, how can they react to or think about the likes of you, me, or anyone else out there in the real world?

Agree!

Wow. Well written post, Bob. That was quite a broadside salvo of words, I must say. Thank you. -- Brian Powell

Hey Scott,

My apologies, wasn't meant to disparage you or as any type of a put down. Also wasn't a comment for or against Koufax, just that was who you referenced in your post, and I just continued using the same reference. Your comment just got me thinking how players can more quickly or slowly develop at different ages and times, and merely wondered if that could have some impact on how good a player may be perceived as being by others. Was hoping to hear what you and others think, that was all.

Ah, my bad.

Obviously the longer you are good, the better your career looks so of course someone who is a success at 19 has an advantage over a guy who struggles until he's 24 and then puts it together.

Of course in the specific case you mentioned, Feller played the vast majority of his career against little to no African American competition. Would that absence alone have made Sandy more successful right from the start? Probably not enough to make a massive difference in people's opinions of him, but I think it would have to have an impact.

Interesting topics for thought/discussion

Not appealing to this because his stats speak volumes but I would just like to add that I think it’s pretty amazing Sphanie served in World War II. And not just served but defended a key bridge and dealt with the Battle of the Bulge, earning a Purple Star for a significant shrapnel wound and a Bronze Star for bravery. Easy to dismiss him as an innings eater until you look at his stats and realize the guy flat out dominated. Multiple no hitters etc. And one of the coolest deliveries ever known!

Well, I would rank him 5th or 6th I think, behind Grove, Johnson, Spahn, Carlton and Kershaw, although Kershaw's post-season makes me not that enthusiastic. I would certainly rank Carlton ahead based on the overall body of work.

Ordinarily I would apologize for risking taking a thread off the rails, but after 871 posts on the main, unsolvable question, not in this case.

I have another element to ponder, and it is related. How much impact did it have on pitchers, in particular, to have been playing in their prime before integration?

It's easy to say the bats of Aaron, Mays, Frank and Jackie Robinson, etc. would've made a pitchers' job tougher, and their ERAs higher, but consider a guy like Gaylord Perry. Sure, he had to pitch against Aaron, Clemente, and Frank, but on the other hand, he was getting run support from Mays and McCovey, not to mention serious defensive assistance from Say Hey and Stretch.

Koufax benefited greatly from Maury Wills, Roseboro, and Tommy Davis, although he had to pitch to Frank, Henry, etc. Junior Gilliam saved his World Series Game 7 shutout in 1965 and Lou Johnson's homer was the run that won it.

My point is, when the color barrier came down, it strengthened the quality of MLB pretty much across the board. This hurt pitchers in the sense they had to face some good and great, previously barred, players. But they also got more offensive and defensive support. So, from the standpoint of a pitcher, does this make it a push?

To partially answer my own question, I think the color barrier helped the pitchers on the teams that took full advantage of integration (Dodgers, Giants, Indians, Braves) and hurt those that didn't (Red Sox, most notably.) It would really be frustrating to be a Red Sox pitcher in the 1950s and early 1960s, watching all these terrific Black players coming into MLB, but virtually none ending up on your team.

Carlton in 1972 is one of the top peak pitching years. WAR has it better than anything Koufax or Grove did.

I’d throw Ford into consideration on your list, but I agree. Ranking 6th or 7th all time is not disparaging. It’s better than most statistical rankings would put him too. Koufax is 89th in pitching WAR.

Personally and certainly unpopularly, I think the overall effect was probably negligible, because as integration became “full” in the 60’s (when teams stopped having only 1 or 2 blacks and fully allowed the most meritous players on the team), expansion simultaneously occurred to offset the influx of new major league talent by adding more starting jobs and lowering the bottom barriers of the leagues. If expansion had occurred in a fully white league, or expansion had not occurred but integration had, things would be very different, but these two probably balance out.

Clearly it greatly benefited the teams that first truly integrated like the Giants and Dodgers.

4 Cy Youngs overall. Including one at 37.

Carlton was ending right as I was getting into baseball so I didn’t think much of him, especially since I was a Mets fan and he was a longtime Philly. Looking at his stats he was just absurdly good.

My favorite Carlton stat is that when he went 27-10 with a 1.92 ERA in 1972, his team won only 59 games.

27-10, .730 with a Carlton decision.

32-87, .367 when anyone else was the deciding pitcher.

What a fantastic season.

Leaving aside different eras, integration and all the rest, the best ability is availability, and the guy who threw his last pitch at 30 didn't have it.

When he had command of his slider -- which was very often -- he was tough to beat. Also notice how he was almost never injured.

This is not correct. MLB enlarged the strike zone for, what a coincidence, Sandy's best four seasons:

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/strike-zone

I have a feeling facts aren’t going to get in the way of a false narrative.

Well that's a bit misleading isn't it? 8 of Koufax's 12 seasons he was subject to a smaller strike zone. And 4 of his 5 best K/9 seasons also were during that time with the smaller strike zone, NOT the larger strike zone as you state. What made Koufax so great in his later years wasn't his ability to strike people out, but rather his newfound ability to control the ball better and stop walking batters. His BB rate fell through the floor, but his strikeout rates were actually slightly better before he became the left arm of god. All of Lefty Grove's seasons had the same strike zone as Koufax's final 4 seasons.

I see you're still pitching a tent in the Walmart parking lot. Do you need some water? Maybe a sandwich or two?

[QUOTE=Snowman;2164645


I see you're still pitching a tent in the Walmart parking lot. Do you need some water? Maybe a sandwich or two?[/QUOTE]

Great argument!

You forgot to explain away the higher mound!

We Cannot argue against greatness

As all those discussed are Great just hard to determine the greatest lefty with the variations from era, mound heights, liveliness of the ball, dimensions of the park, etc.

So we are just nit picking to put our great at the top of the Greatness List and that is the fun of it.

If I'm reading a more recent post by member "Snowman" correctly, during 3 of Koufax' 4 WS years, he had the exact same strike zone as Grove.

But, if you use the "statistics in a vacuum" approach, which I was trying not to do in my original post, you are correct: Koufax has better stats.

I would take either one of them as my greatest and I would love to be have been able to see either pitch in person

This is what I’m talking about. I must be a homeless person because I can see you offer nothing but elementary fallacies. You are completely unable to engage with facts, form a coherent argument that makes any rational sense, or even simply not make appeals to your ego and self-professed but completely unsupported total authority.

Wait, his BB rate fell through the floor during the four years where the size of the strike zone was increased?!?! What a shock!

I didn't mention his K/9 rate in my post. There was nothing misleading at all about what I posted. You posted factually incorrect information. I corrected that and pointed out that the increased strike zone lined up with Sandy's four best years. Nothing misleading about that.

I for one am shocked that a member who was banned from Blowout has done nothing but cause problems here.

When analyzing Koufax, you just can't ignore the first 6 years of his career and only go by his later 6 year span. His first 6 years his W/L was 36-40 with ERA well over 4. - far, far away from the stuff of legendary greatness. During the first half of his career I wouldn't even pay money to see him pitch.

Now the second half of his career, yes, outstanding. Possibly even the best 6 year span of any pitcher ever.

Koufax career at home ERA 2.48, away 3.04
Grove career home ERA 3.04, away 3.05
Obviously, the home park benefited Koufax a whole lot.

One guy to pitch one game at the height of their career, Koufax might be your man. But overall value to a team for their career there is no way Koufax is the man.

I am also shocked. Shocked so many members are playing along with the silliness.

No, you didn't mention his K/9 rate, but you should have. That's my point. You implied that he became better at striking batters out because they increased the strike zone in his final 4 years. But his K/9 rate actually went Down during that time, not up. The differences are explainable through some other engineered metrics, but I'll ignore that as I don't want to go chasing down another tangent.

The part of your post that is misleading is that you compared Lefty Grove with Sandy Koufax, then you said that Koufax benefited from them increasing his strike zone in his final 4 years. What you failed to mention is the fact that prior to them increasing his strike zone, they SHRANK it in 1950. When they expanded it in 1963, they reverted it back to where it was originally, back when Lefty Grove was pitching! Pretty important little detail you left out.

As far as mound heights is concerned, yes that definitely needs to be accounted for. It's something I've never looked at in a predictive model though. It's never been a relevant factor for the problems I've needed to solve for. It will almost certainly make Koufax less god-like than his numbers would otherwise indicate. How much less god-like though? I don't know. It would be a fun question to answer. Maybe if I get some free time I'll calculate its effect.

Sandy's best 4 years also lines up with expansion. Sandy was 14-2 vs. the Houston Colt .45s (1.90 ERA) and 17-2 vs. the Mets (1.44 ERA.) Those weak expansion clubs combined to give him 31 wins against just 4 losses. Take that away and Sandy is a lifetime 131-83 pitcher.

Did anyone else point out that it's not surprising that the OP picked a pitcher with a qualifier?

Now you're just making stuff up.

I did no such thing. I said his four best years lined up with the increased strike zone. Didn't mention strikeouts at all. Or imply any connection to them.

No, I didn't. My post about the strike zone didn't mention Lefty Grove. You made the - again - factually incorrect assertion that Grove had a larger strike zone to work with than Sandy. I corrected that. Didn't mention Grove at all or make any comparison between the two.

It kinda goes without saying that, if they increased the size of the strike zone to be the same as Grove's, it was previously smaller, hence why I, you know, didn't say it.

Gentlemen (and Ladies if any are watching along),

It is all well and good to keep debating the OP's question forever, but it seems none of you still realize this is a multi-part question. And apparently none of you have yet to really address one of those extremely important parts, making it virtually impossible to ever get even close to a consensus agreement on what typically ends up being the main focus of these (I'll put it politely) civil discussions.

Everyone keeps going back and forth about the "who" part of the question, without having first agreed on the "what" part of the question. And in this particular case, the "what" part of the question is, what is the exact definition that constutes someone being the "greatest" at something, like being a left handed MLB pitcher. Without everyone agreeing on the "what" first, it makes arguing about the "who" pretty senseless, and in some instances, downright stupid.

And with no agreement on "what" exactly constitutes someone being the greatest at something, the "who" part of the question will likely have multiple correct answers, all dependent on differing points of view as to what the correct definition of "greatest" is.

Think of it this way. Two guys sit down at a standard checker board, pull out their pieces and start playing. Problem is, one guy has regular checker pieces and starts playing checkers, the other guy has chess pieces and thinks that is the game being played. And at the end of whatever the heck they ended up doing, they both claimed they were right and they were the winner. Unfortunately, they never agreed on the actual game and rules they were going to play by first. See the problem boys........................?