Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.
When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.
The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles. He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.
|
So you can't identify a single year to support your claim. No, they didn't have FIP, but it's a quick and handy way to break out the prime years without copying in 30 different stats and taking 2 hours. I gave the source link, you can see for yourself. Vance's prime overlaps with Grove, every year except 1924. They both dominated the late 1920's to 1930, and then Vance washes out, like Koufax.
Vance is older because his career begins at age 31. His overlap with Grove is the SAME as Marichal's with Koufax (actually, Vance and Grove have more career overlap years than Koufax and Marichal or Koufax and Gibson). Grove and Vance were in different leagues, so obviously they did not draw MVP votes against each other. I am sure you are aware that that is terrible argument to make.
Again, different standards for Koufax than everyone else, because we need to show that Koufax had strong competition and Grove pitched against a bunch of nobody pitchers. These arguments are growing increasingly absurd, rather than actually making a reasoned case for the Koufax claims.