Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

[packs]

I give in.

[Touch'EmAll]

Just looking at ERA - Home vs Away, Koufax' peak years significantly (over .50) better at Home. Career totals for Grove...Home ERA 3.04, Away ERA 3.05

Then I looked at Bob Gibson, Career ERA Home 3.08, Away 2.76

And Gibson's historic year 1968 Home ERA 1.41, Away 0.81

Wonder what Gibby's numbers would look like if he pitched where Koufax did - Dodger Stadium.

Just a note - mid 1930's NL league batting average about .275 and mid 1960's NL league batting average about .251

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

Looking up his 1968 again, some stuff:

- Gibson had a 2.14 ERA in his losses. I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he had 9 losses in 1968.

- He had a four-game losing streak. He had a 1.87 ERA during that streak.

- His ERA after the Sept 2nd game was 0.99.

- His shortest starts were 7 IP, in each of his first two starts. After that, 8 IP minimum in every start, including 11 twice, and 12 once.

- Never once lifted in the middle of an inning. So never once knocked out of a game.

- Tied the record for fewest appearances (34) while throwing 300+ innings.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

I never said he was competing against Vance for league leads. Read it again, it even credits them for winning crows in the same exact year. Vance’s peak directly and absolutely overlaps Grove’s. The claim was that it did not, which is 100% false, as we can see who did what in what year. Grove was starting his run as the best in the AL as Vance had his brief peak as the best NL pitcher.

I am amazed that the year well-documented events happened is so controversial.

[Touch'EmAll]

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

Absolutely does matter, no question. Koufax was great in every single start. Kershaw has been pretty mediocre overall - a bunch of good starts mixed with a bunch of bad starts and a handful of good/awful relief appearances. I do wonder how Sandy would have fared pitching in the current postseason format of 3 rounds.

[Jim65]

Why are we expected to look at Koufax extremely dominant years and disregard his bad years? His 4 year span might be the greatest ever but his career was 12 years not 4. Those bad years were also him pitching and have to be considered when judging him against other all-time greats

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Why are we expected to look at Koufax extremely dominant years and disregard his bad years? His 4 year span might be the greatest ever but his career was 12 years not 4. Those bad years were also him pitching and have to be considered when judging him against other all-time greats

I think we're all debating the "peak." Otherwise, anyone who'd take Koufax's career over Grove, Spahn, Johnson, or Carlton is pretty crazy.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Absolutely does matter, no question. Koufax was great in every single start. Kershaw has been pretty mediocre overall - a bunch of good starts mixed with a bunch of bad starts and a handful of good/awful relief appearances. I do wonder how Sandy would have fared pitching in the current postseason format of 3 rounds.

Ok, just one more thing.

I suspect, pretty damn well.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

Agree. Kershaw might end up with top-10 career stats, but his current postseason record is what we'll remember.

Sorta like AROD vs Reggie. AROD was a much better player, but nobody wanted to see him batting for the home team in the WS! (Well, I did, but I'm a life-long yankee hater.)