[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

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.

Responding with numbered points to make this a little easier:

1) The math suggests that too much emphasis is not being placed on the change in ballpark. If it was how he pitched, then his road era would not be 300% higher in 1964. It would not be essentially the same as it was in his 'before' period for most of the years after the magic change. These are things we can actually look at, with data. The data does not support the allegation. At all.


2) If you "don't care" what the math suggests and the fact that his road/home splits are extremely abnormal, well, what is the point? If we ignore verifiable data in favor of narratives we like, there is nothing to say. The decision is made before the examination. I don't care about people's narratives, I care about things that actually check out as true. One pitchers case is based on data and things that are verifiable as true. The other is based on dismissing such data.


3) Your strike zone allegation is also demonstrably false. It was redefined in the rules before the 1963 season, expanded from the armpits to the top of the shoulder. The knees were also adjusted. Again, this is not a narrative, it is actual, verifiable fact. Sandy responded by cutting almost a full run off his ERA from his excellent 1962 season, his first really good year, and posting his mind-boggling 4 year peak between 1963-1966 with this expanded strike zone in place. His peak aligns EXACTLY with a material change in the strike zone in favor of pitchers. And it also aligns with a pronounced change across MLB, as run production fell and pitching dominated the 60's.


4) As for the mound, the rule was that the mound had to be 15 inches or less. In 1950, it was changed so that it had to be 15 inches, an advantage to the pitcher.


5) If folks are going to try and use integration as a reason to dismiss pre-1947 pitchers, than it is absolutely fair to point that as the talent pool widened, more and more teams were quickly added to the league and Sandy's numbers were absolutely helped by beating up on new expansion teams that performed terribly. He was not alone in this, Gibson and Marichal's impressive numbers were also run up in this environment.


6) Grove's ERA's are higher, because he pitched in a high offensive context. Compared to the league average, Grove outpaced Koufax by a wide margin, 148 to 131 ERA+'s, which account for league and park. Context. Do we seriously not think there is a difference between offense in the AL in 1930, and the NL in 1963? Again, this is not a narrative. It is verifiable fact, we can look at what occurred over the course of the entire league during their careers (a huge sample size of batters), we can easily prove the 1930's AL is a much higher run environment. If context doesn't matter and we don't care about longevity, then Ferdie Schupp is the greatest lefty of all time. But nobody will make that argument, only for Koufax is the argument that we should ignore context and time.


7) If we are going to ignore verifiable data, ignore context, and pretend major rule changes simply did not occur that are clearly in the rule books there is no point into any actual examination. Those looking for concrete evidence do not find narratives to provide any actual evidence, and those relying on narratives that run counter to the demonstrable facts will never be convinced by any amount of data. There is a significant difference between players we like and who the best was. I have a sentimental attachment to Ferris Fain, and he was an excellent ballplayer, but he isn't better than Lou Gehrig. I have a sentimental attachment to Joe Dimaggio, but he isn't better than Willie Mays or Ty Cobb, because a preponderance of the data does not suggest that he was, but suggests the opposite. I think we should recognize these as two separate things. Data should guide to the conclusion, not make the conclusion and then try to form the argument after the fact.


Koufax was great for 4 years, in a time and place heavily advantageous to the pitcher, in which pitchers dominated, and had failed to produce until the conditions were in place and the rules re-written in his favor. Grove was great for twice as long in a context in which batters were heavily favored and dominated his entire career. I don't think it's close, when you look at the totality of the data. If data to the contrary exists, I would change my conclusion. I have no attachment to Grove, and the era he played is one of the periods of baseball history I am least interested in, but the data in context is compelling.