Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
When I brought up the road argument, it is because another poster said his road numbers were good, not great, and then the Koufax advocates tried to claim that he was being labelled as good, not great, overall. I clarified the distinction that was explicit from the first.
For the record, I think Koufax was a great pitcher from 1962-1966. He was a good pitcher in 1961 (and in the 41 innings he pitched in 1955, actually). He was mediocre 1956-1960 (actually, he was terrible in 1956). If Babe Ruth had 4 or 5 great years, he wouldn't be the greatest of all time either.
The math is compelling on the road though. His away ERA in his turning year you highlight of 1962 was actually higher than the 2 previous years. In 1964 his road ERA is 300% more than his home. It is only 1963 and 1966 that his road ERA is significantly better than it was 'before' the magic turn that just happened to coincide perfectly with adjustments to his park and context that greatly favored him. He pitched in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in one of the most pitcher-friendly periods of baseball history, and his home/road splits are drastic. It is difficult not to link the two.
When you take his road/home splits which are drastic, and factor in context (very low run league, pitchers era, high mound, ballpark extremely favorable to pitchers, expansion era, very short peak) the math does not suggest that he was the greatest ever, that his road performance was anywhere near his home performance, and highlights exactly why he put up such great numbers.
Context matters, it would be remiss to look at Bonds' stats and ignore that they happened on steroids during an offensive era that dominated baseball. It would be remiss to ignore Helton put up his numbers at Coors, even if to place into context does not mean that he was not an excellent player. It doesn't mean Sandy wasn't a great pitcher, though for a short time, or he shouldn't be someone's favorite. If the discussion is "best of all time", then it needs to be supported by the math in context or we are just praising whoever we like. No math suggests that Koufax's 4 years were more dominating than Grove's 9, or that his home ballpark was not a massive factor in his favor.
|
Longevity seems to be what's at issue for many here. The early part of Koufax's career seems to cancel out for many, any claims Koufax would have to being the greatest of all-time. I understand the argument. If everybody wants to go for Grove, that's fine. I'm not saying Grove wasn't great. He of course, was. I'm just arguing against those who seem to want to downplay just how great Koufax was by overplaying the Chavez angle, the mound, strike zone, and expansion.
I have said Chavez was an asset. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on it, rather than the conscious change on Koufax's part as to how he pitched. And 1961 was the year he changed direction.
I don't care by what percentage his road E.R.A was higher in 1964 over his home E.R.A. You want to say how easy it was to pitch at Chavez. Don Drysdale was no slouch, and his E.R.A that year was 2.02. He was a great pitcher. Why wasn't he down at 0.85? I guess one could go on and on trying to uncover the nuances of just went into all of these statistics. You seem to want to concentrate on the park. I am not saying the park wasn't a factor. But it was not the cause. If Koufax hadn't become a better pitcher, Chavez Ravine wouldn't have helped him.
Also in regard to guys like Grove and Walter Johnson: they enjoyed the same strike zone Koufax did. The height of the mounds varied in those days, as the rules only stipulated that they couldn't be more than 15". But who's to say some of them weren't 15".
The 1960's were a pitching dominant era, because there were great pitchers, who pitched with the strike zone that had existed for the better part of baseball's history up until that time. Some of the game's greatest hitters played then as well who had great offensive numbers. If it's referred to as the second dead ball era, it is not because the ball itself was dead, but because it is much too lively today and everything benefits the hitters.
If you want to use expansion to try to eclipse what Koufax did well what can I say? Knock yourself out, I guess. But you can start throwing in all sorts of intangibles like traveling and night baseball, as well the broadening of the talent pool with the inclusion of black and Latino players.
Looking at Grove's E.R.A.'s I'm surprised that he's getting a pass on winning over 20 games a couple of years with E.R.A.'s over 3.00.
Finally again, I understand the longevity argument if you're going to argue for a best of all-time. I think Koufax's case is unique for consideration with a short career. Many players take a couple of years to get off the ground. Koufax took a little longer for the reasons I explained. But once he did, what he did was phenomenal. What makes his peak so interesting, is that it stopped at it's height, unlike most players, who usually go downhill. Koufax struggled and surmounted his control issues, and dazzled more and more each year. Three times his E.R.A. was under 2.00. It's looks like we're going to disagree as to why he was as great as he was and just how great. But that's okay. I've really enjoyed discussing this with you.
Really quick, when speaking about context, I agree that one can't ignore that Bonds took steroids. But that was cheating. Koufax was a champion in every sense of the word.