Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.
As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.
Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.
This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.
In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.
They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.
|
This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.
BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.
Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.
Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.
Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.