Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cammb

Koufax wins three Cy Young Awards, all UNANIMOUS. I rest my case.

Well, you got us. Lefty Grove didn't win a single Cy Young Award, let alone unanimous.

[Touch'EmAll]

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

[G1911]

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.

[Touch'EmAll]

And we all know the story of the 1934 All-Star Game where Hubbell struck out Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons & Cronin - in a row. Legendary.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.

Don't forget that Koufax pitched against some great hitters (which he did,) while Grove only pitched against white stumblebums. Pitching against Pete Rose was way tougher than pitching against wussies like "Ruth" or "Gehrig."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Don't forget that Koufax pitched against some great hitters (which he did,) while Grove only pitched against white stumblebums. Pitching against Pete Rose was way tougher than pitching against wussies like "Ruth" or "Gehrig."

And somehow, pitching in the most friendly park to a pitcher in the most pitcher friendly era in the last century is somehow further proof that Koufax is the GOAT.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"

When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, so even with this twisted logic, Koufax loses.

Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

Thank you for clarifying. I shall amend too:



"The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

and

B) pitchers before the Cy Young Award do not count for "all time"


When I said the logic had run off the rails earlier, well, it's now even worse.

Also, Randy Johnson won 5 Cy Young's, *but since they were not unanimous Koufax wins*"


A stunning logical argument.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cammb

Randy Johnson was unanimous pick once. Koufax was unanimous pick 3 times in all of baseball not just one league. I rest my case

Forgive me, you keep resting your case but I'm not really sure what case you are trying to make. Stop dropping the mike and walking away without completing a thought. It looks like you are saying Koufax is better than Randy Johnson??

[cammb]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Forgive me, you keep resting your case but I'm not really sure what case you are trying to make. Stop dropping the mike and walking away without completing a thought. It looks like you are saying Koufax is better than Randy Johnson??

Bingo!

[earlywynnfan]

So I dug out my Bill James Abstract to see his rankings. It's the 2001 version, so no Randy Johnson. He has Grove tops (#2 overall), then Spahn (5), and Koufax (10).
Then:
13 Hubbell
15 Carlton
22 Ford

[cammb]

I wonder how many of you mathematicians have seen Koufax pitch? I have and the players he pitched against say he was the best they had ever seen. The Yankees gave him accolades when they met in the World Series even commenting on his record of 25 and 5 stating "How did he loose 5 games?" I rest my case whether you like it or not

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

The Koufax advocates are now arguing that

A) pitchers before integration do not count for "all time"

Ha! This thread is now jumping the shark. Anyway, in my last post, I said that if you're weighing the factor of expansion you could look at integration as an extra factor which made for stronger competition. This is not to say there wasn't strong competition for major league pitchers pre-integration. Of course, there was.

At any rate, again, I haven't been saying that there aren't strong cases to make for others being the greatest lefty. I am not saying that Koufax was or wasn't the greatest. But the idea that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher is ridiculous. The detractor camp is just not giving him his full due. At this point, I would say they're trying way too hard not to acknowledge him. If it comes to down to listening to what they think, and what guys like Hank Aaron think, I'll go with Aaron.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ha! This thread is now jumping the shark. Anyway, in my last post, I said that if you're weighing the factor of expansion you could look at integration as an extra factor which made for stronger competition. This is not to say there wasn't strong competition for major league pitchers pre-integration. Of course, there was.

At any rate, again, I haven't been saying that there aren't strong cases to make for others being the greatest lefty. I am not saying that Koufax was or wasn't the greatest. But the idea that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher is ridiculous. The detractor camp is just not giving him his full due. At this point, I would say they're trying way too hard not to acknowledge him. If it comes to down to listening to what they think, and what guys like Hank Aaron think, I'll go with Aaron.

A) was not in reference to you, but another poster who used the integration cutoff to dismiss anyone pre-1947 pitchers.

Hanks testimony is useless, as he did not face any of the other pitchers in the discussion except Carlton. All of the guys in this thread have quotes from hitters about them being tough to bat against. That we selectively only apply this for Koufax, because statistical arguments in context cannot be found, is just one more reason he is not the greatest. The argument entirely relies on emotional appeals like this

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

A) was not in reference to you, but another poster who used the integration cutoff to dismiss anyone pre-1947 pitchers.

Hanks testimony is useless, as he did not face any of the other pitchers in the discussion except Carlton. All of the guys in this thread have quotes from hitters about them being tough to bat against. That we selectively only apply this for Koufax, because statistical arguments in context cannot be found, is just one more reason he is not the greatest. The argument entirely relies on emotional appeals like this

Well, I believe I was the first to make a reference to integration. But maybe I missed a comment, or like you say, you were commenting in response to somebody else.

If Aaron's testimony is useless, so is that of everyone who is coming out against Koufax, because you guys didn't face him either, lol. Aaron wasn't saying Koufax was the greatest lefty ever, but was the greatest of the pitchers he had faced in his era. And yes, there are other quotes that will testify as to the greatness of the other pitchers. Who knows how players of the 30's would have felt against Koufax, and how players of the 60's would have felt against Grove or Johnson?

But I think some of the remarks I made, as well as those by a couple of the other posters haven't been reflected on enough by those deriding Koufax's pre-1963 seasons. I'm not saying that some of the things you guys have brought up didn't help Koufax. But Koufax dominated that mid-60's time frame, and it wasn't merely due to Chavez Ravine. He developed as a player. If you had put him in Chavez Ravine in the late 50's, he would not have excelled as he did when he actually arrived there. You keep saying that I am making emotional appeals. I think that you are taking too clinical an approach.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Well, I believe I was the first to make a reference to integration. But maybe I missed a comment, or like you say, you were commenting in response to somebody else.

If Aaron's testimony is useless, so is that of everyone who is coming out against Koufax, because you guys didn't face him either, lol. Aaron wasn't saying Koufax was the greatest lefty ever, but was the greatest of the pitchers he had faced in his era. And yes, there are other quotes that will testify as to the greatness of the other pitchers. Who knows how players of the 30's would have felt against Koufax, and how players of the 60's would have felt against Grove or Johnson?

But I think some of the remarks I made, as well as those by a couple of the other posters haven't been reflected on enough by those deriding Koufax's pre-1963 seasons. I'm not saying that some of the things you guys have brought up didn't help Koufax. But Koufax dominated that mid-60's time frame, and it wasn't merely due to Chavez Ravine. He developed as a player. If you had put him in Chavez Ravine in the late 50's, he would not have excelled as he did when he actually arrived there. You keep saying that I am making emotional appeals. I think that you are taking too clinical an approach.

Yes, it was as I said. 97. Take offense if you wish, though.

Yes, we didn't hit against him. Nobody hit against all the great lefties. Which is EXACTLY why some of us are using math and verifiable facts here; something besides completely subjective testimony of people who did not face the others discussed and so have no useful relevance.

The math suggests it WAS largely due to Chavez Ravine, as he did not have excellent numbers outside of his home park. See previous breakdowns.

Yes, I am taking a clinical approach using math and things that can be verified, instead of an emotional attachment to Koufax. The question posited was who is the best of all time, not who your favorite is.

[earlywynnfan]

I, for one, have never felt that Koufax, for 4 seasons at least and possibly even 6, wasn't great. I think he's the best pitcher of the 60's, RH or LH. I feel his lack of longevity keeps him from being best ever, and his peak, when taken in the context of eras, is not as great as Grove's.

I enjoy these topics, and I know I can come across as yelling sometimes, but that's because I love the debate, not because I think ill of someone with differing opinions.

I did learn something about Grove in this: his #1 comparable stunned me! Without looking, can anyone guess? I'll post tomorrow. Not the HOFer I was expecting!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I, for one, have never felt that Koufax, for 4 seasons at least and possibly even 6, wasn't great. I think he's the best pitcher of the 60's, RH or LH. I feel his lack of longevity keeps him from being best ever, and his peak, when taken in the context of eras, is not as great as Grove's.

I enjoy these topics, and I know I can come across as yelling sometimes, but that's because I love the debate, not because I think ill of someone with differing opinions.

I did learn something about Grove in this: his #1 comparable stunned me! Without looking, can anyone guess? I'll post tomorrow. Not the HOFer I was expecting!

I don’t think anyone has actually argued Koufax is merely good; one poster said Koufax was merely good, not great, on the toad and posted the math to back it up. It has turned into a talking point to argue against that nobody actually said unless I missed a post.

Since Baseball Reference similarity scores don’t adjust for era... is it Hubbell or John Clarkson? A lot of their career stats are fairly close off memory

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

I love Hubbell and find it sad he's pretty much forgotten except that All Star feat. He's truly great. But I don't believe his peak beats Grove's. Sure, the King won two MVP's vs. Grove's one. But the only other stat you bring up is WHIP, and I see that Hubbell led the league 6 out of 8 times, Grove 5 out of 7. Not quite sure that's dominance. If you are only looking at 'prime,' two of his best WHIP seasons are outside the prime 5!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I love Hubbell and find it sad he's pretty much forgotten except that All Star feat. He's truly great. But I don't believe his peak beats Grove's. Sure, the King won two MVP's vs. Grove's one. But the only other stat you bring up is WHIP, and I see that Hubbell led the league 6 out of 8 times, Grove 5 out of 7. Not quite sure that's dominance. If you are only looking at 'prime,' two of his best WHIP seasons are outside the prime 5!

I agree with this, Hubbell is a little overshadowed by being a direct contemporary of Grove, and both are overshadowed by the context of the offensive dominance of their context. Hubbell is a top 4 lefty for me.

1. Grove
2. R. Johnson
3. Spahn
4. Hubbell

Hubbell has better peak than Spahn, but Spahn was so reliably effective for so many more innings. I think 2-4 all have valid arguments for any position in that range. 5 on down is a drop from the top 4, I think. Plank (hurt by never leading the league in much), Ford, Carlton (inconsistent) would come next I think in some order. Kershaw is climbing up and just needs solid years, not great ones, to quickly jump up the rankings. Less than 2,300 innings and the postseason is all that holds him back

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Hubbell had a tremendous mid-career stretch that rivals or exceeds any stretch Grove ever had. Carl Hubbell had 4 years with lower WHIP than Grove ever did have. Hubbell also had 2 MVP's plus a 3rd - again better than Grove. For a 5 year stretch one could argue Hubbell better than Grove. They pitched in same 1930's. Hubbell needs some love. And heck, wasn't Koufax' great run abut 5 years?

This is a good point. Hubbell was better than Grove. 2.98 ERA to 3.06. 1.166 WHIP to 1.278. In fact of the top 8 lefties, Grove had the worst WHIP of all. Kershaw is really the only one close to Koufax, it could be argued that he was the better regular season pitcher, but his poor pitching in the postseason makes him #2.

1. Koufax
2. Kershaw
3. Ford
4. Hubbell
5. Johnson
6. Grove
7. Carlton
8. Spahn

3 and 4 are close, 5-8 are close, but there are 3 clear tiers.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Well, you got us. Lefty Grove didn't win a single Cy Young Award, let alone unanimous.

My vote (posted because I just like lookin at it)

[btcarfagno]

Take a look at Koufax numbers in 1961, his first really good year and the Dodgers last year at LA Memorial Coliseum. He was pretty bad at home and very good on the road. Then look at his home/road splits the next five years. He was very good on the road but put up video game numbers at Dodger Stadium. To be fair the numbers in 1966 were pretty even. But the other four years he was a border line HOF pitcher on the road and the best ever at home.

Larry Walker syndrome. Still a very good player on the road but freakish at home. That doesn't get enough play with Koufax for some reason. The numbers don't lie

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Take a look at Koufax numbers in 1961, his first really good year and the Dodgers last year at LA Memorial Coliseum. He was pretty bad at home and very good on the road. Then look at his home/road splits the next five years. He was very good on the road but put up video game numbers at Dodger Stadium. To be fair the numbers in 1966 were pretty even. But the other four years he was a border line HOF pitcher on the roadand the best ever at home.

Larry Walker syndrome. Still a very good player on the road but freakish at home. That doesn't get enough play with Koufax for some reason. The numbers don't lie

Koufax’s road ERA was 2.81 those 4 seasons. If that is borderline HOF, then what does that say about guys with higher ERAs like Grove, Spahn, Randy Johnson, Carlton etc.? Are they not Hofers? Should we kick out everyone above your borderline? That would leave us with Koufax and Ford as the only post 1920 HOF starting pitchers and Kershaw and maybe deGrom as the only future HOF pitchers. Koufax was still one of the greatest pitchers of all time on the road those seasons and that is with you excluding his best season.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Koufax’s road ERA was 2.81 those 4 seasons. If that is borderline HOF, then what does that say about guys with higher ERAs like Grove, Spahn, Randy Johnson, Carlton etc.? Are they not Hofers? Should we kick out everyone above your borderline? That would leave us with Koufax and Ford as the only post 1920 HOF starting pitchers and Kershaw and maybe deGrom as the only future HOF pitchers. Koufax was still one of the greatest pitchers of all time on the road those seasons and that is with you excluding his best season.

An ERA of 2.81 (over a piddly four year period no less) is equal to the greatest who ever pitched? 2.81? Really? For starters, ERA? Holy crap. But let's get past that. His road ERA of 2.81 over that four year period on its own is so impressive that he would be one of the greatest of all time had that been his career number. Really? Ok.

Any idea who had a 2.58 ERA over that same four year period? And if you include 1966 to add a fifth year this person had an ERA of 2.34 .

Any idea?

Gary Peters.

But sure. Koufax road ERA of 2.81 from 1962-1965 makes him super special.

Larry.

Walker.

[btcarfagno]

Koufax home ERA 1962-1965............... 1.32

Koufax road ERA 1962-1965................ 2.75


Nothing to see here obviously.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax home ERA 1962-1965............... 1.32

Koufax road ERA 1962-1965................ 2.75


Nothing to see here obviously.

According to baseball reference, Koufax’s road ERA from 1962-1966 was 2.59. For pitchers with 400 or more innings pitched, the minimum to qualify for the ERA title, that was the best in Major League Baseball. Gibson and Marichal tied for second best at 2.69.

There is nothing to see. Koufax was great on the road and even greater at home. Any advantage Koufax gained from pitching in Dodger Stadium for 5 years is more than offset by pitching 4 years in the LA Coliseum with its 250 foot left field fence and 320 foot power alley in left-center.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

An ERA of 2.81 (over a piddly four year period no less) is equal to the greatest who ever pitched? 2.81? Really? For starters, ERA? Holy crap. But let's get past that. His road ERA of 2.81 over that four year period on its own is so impressive that he would be one of the greatest of all time had that been his career number. Really? Ok.

Any idea who had a 2.58 ERA over that same four year period? And if you include 1966 to add a fifth year this person had an ERA of 2.34 .

Any idea?

Gary Peters.

But sure. Koufax road ERA of 2.81 from 1962-1965 makes him super special.

Larry.

Walker.

Not a lefty, but 1964-68, Joe Horlen had a 2.32 ERA for the White Sox. There are lots of examples of guys having amazing 5-year runs.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Not a lefty, but 1964-68, Joe Horlen had a 2.32 ERA for the White Sox. There are lots of examples of guys having amazing 5-year runs.

Joe Horlen was a good pitcher, but not in the class of Koufax.

Look at Horlen's innings pitched, complete games, and strikeout totals from 1964 - 1968.

IP:

210.2
219
211
258
223.2

CG:

9
7
4
13
4

SO:

138
125
124
103
102


Compare these totals to Koufax's stats from 1962 - 1966:

IP:

184
311
223
335
323


CG:

11
20
15
27
27


SO:

216
306
223
382
317


And Horlen's W-L record for 1964 - 1968 was:

13-8
13-13
10-13
19-7
12-14


Koufax's from 1962 - 1966:

14-7
25-5
19-5
26-8
27-9


The clubs Horlen was on were largely good too. The White Sox position in the standings from 1964 - 1968 were:

2nd
2nd
4th
4th
9th

All first division clubs except for 1968, and they finished one game behind the Yankees in 1964 and only 3 behind the Red Sox in 1967.

Horlen's E.R.A.'s were great for that 5 year run, but his other stats don't come near challenging what Koufax achieved - by a long shot.

Also if you're looking at lifetime statistics, it's no contest between the two, with Koufax coming out way on top.