It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.
It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.
However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.
It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.
Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.
If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).
How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?
In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.
In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.
Now if you want to talk about dominance.
Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.
Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.
Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13
