Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

Mathematics is much more instructive than heavily biased accounts of players who did not face the other great left handers. Verifiable facts > anecdotal opinions.

Yeah, I'm sure the guys Grove was striking out (as he led the league 7 straight years) said he was a pretty outstanding pitcher too. Are we supposed to stack up quotes from guys who faced Koufax but not Grove, vs guys who faced Grove but not Koufax, and try to figure out who piled on the superlatives to the greatest extent?

As far as Sandy and his Cy Young awards, Grove would've at least equaled, and probably topped him. Let's compare their top 6 season runs:

Grove
1928 24-8 2.58 (led in wins, strikeouts)
1929 20-6 2.81 (led in ERA, strikeouts)
1930 28-5 2.54 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1931 31-4 2.06 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1932 25-10 2.84 (led in ERA, strikeouts)
1933 24-8 3.20 (led in wins, strikeouts)

Plus 148 more career ML wins, and 111 minor league wins

Koufax
1961 18-13 3.52 (led in strikeouts)
1962 14-7 2.54 (led in ERA)
1963 25-5 1.88 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1964 19-5 1.74 (led in ERA)
1965 26-8 2.04 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1966 27-9 1.73 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)

Plus 36 more career ML wins

Grove's best season, 1931, beats Sandy's best (1963 or 1966, you choose)
Grove's best 6 year run beat Sandy's
The remainder of Grove's career destroys Sandy's (148 more wins to just 36)

For extra credit, Grove was forced to spend his first 5 years in the minors, where he won another 100+ games.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yeah, I'm sure the guys Grove was striking out (as he led the league 7 straight years) said he was a pretty outstanding pitcher too. Are we supposed to stack up quotes from guys who faced Koufax but not Grove, vs guys who faced Grove but not Koufax, and try to figure out who piled on the superlatives to the greatest extent?

As far as Sandy and his Cy Young awards, Grove would've at least equaled, and probably topped him. Let's compare their top 6 season runs:

Grove
1928 24-8 2.58 (led in wins, strikeouts)
1929 20-6 2.81 (led in ERA, strikeouts)
1930 28-5 2.54 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1931 31-4 2.06 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1932 25-10 2.84 (led in ERA, strikeouts)
1933 24-8 3.20 (led in wins, strikeouts)

Plus 148 more career ML wins, and 111 minor league wins

Koufax
1961 18-13 3.52 (led in strikeouts)
1962 14-7 2.54 (led in ERA)
1963 25-5 1.88 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1964 19-5 1.74 (led in ERA)
1965 26-8 2.04 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)
1966 27-9 1.73 (led in wins, ERA, strikeouts)

Plus 36 more career ML wins

Grove's best season, 1931, beats Sandy's best (1963 or 1966, you choose)
Grove's best 6 year run beat Sandy's
The remainder of Grove's career destroys Sandy's (148 more wins to just 36)

For extra credit, Grove was forced to spend his first 5 years in the minors, where he won another 100+ games.

Yeah, but Grove had higher raw ERA's, and we are pretending that park affects and low-run environments are somehow irrelevant for Koufax

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yeah, but Grove had higher raw ERA's, and we are pretending that park affects and low-run environments are somehow irrelevant for Koufax

Low run environment is irrelevant when caused by superior pitching. Same for park affect when you choose to ignore Koufax's 4 years in the LA Coliseum.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

Low run environment is irrelevant when caused by superior pitching. Same for park affect when you choose to ignore Koufax's 4 years in the LA Coliseum.

The only sensible way to look at ERA is to compare a pitcher to his peers. That accounts for general trends in ballparks, juiced baseballs, mound height, league expansion, etc.

Koufax led the league in ERA 5 times. Pretty impressive. Grove led the league in ERA 9 times. More impressive.

You can't win these arguments, Koufax vs Grove:
Best season - Grove's 1931 is insane. The 3 guys to win 30 games since 1920 are Grove (31 in 1931), Dean (30 in 1934), and McLain (31 in 1968.) Despite Grove and Dean doing it in a 154 game season, and players since 1961 having 8 more games, it hasn't been done in the last 50+ years.

Best run of 6 consecutive seasons: Grove, see above.

Career:
ERA titles: Koufax 5, Grove 9
Wins: Koufax 165, Grove 300
Win percentage: Koufax 65%, Grove 68% (highest among 300 game winners and eighth best overall).

Short term (one season), Grove.
Best years (6 season run), Grove.
Career, Grove.

We remember Koufax. Many of us saw him in his prime. He is a very popular player and fellow.

Grove was better, period.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The only sensible way to look at ERA is to compare a pitcher to his peers. That accounts for general trends in ballparks, juiced baseballs, mound height, league expansion, etc.

Koufax led the league in ERA 5 times. Pretty impressive. Grove led the league in ERA 9 times. More impressive.

You can't win these arguments, Koufax vs Grove:
Best season - Grove's 1931 is insane. The 3 guys to win 30 games since 1920 are Grove (31 in 1931), Dean (30 in 1934), and McLain (31 in 1968.) Despite Grove and Dean doing it in a 154 game season, and players since 1961 having 8 more games, it hasn't been done in the last 50+ years.

Best run of 6 consecutive seasons: Grove, see above.

Career:
ERA titles: Koufax 5, Grove 9
Wins: Koufax 165, Grove 300
Win percentage: Koufax 65%, Grove 68% (highest among 300 game winners and eighth best overall).

Short term (one season), Grove.
Best years (6 season run), Grove.
Career, Grove.

We remember Koufax. Many of us saw him in his prime. He is a very popular player and fellow.

Grove was better, period.

This is your opinion and I disagree with it. Dominating a weak pitching era doesn't make someone better than a pitcher who dominates one of the strongest pitching eras. Wins are not a good metric to use to compare pitchers. I have presented evidence in this thread that Koufax lacked the run support that Grove received. Koufax should have won 30+ games both in 1963 and 1966. Grove's 31 wins were a matter of luck. He won 4 games where he gave up 4+ runs. That is a poor pitching performance under any circumstance, but the A's powerful offense bailed him out. He also won 4 in relief including a 3 inning relief appearance where the A's gave him the lead in the tenth and Grove blew it only to have the A's to score twice in eleventh.

Koufax had 2 or 3 seasons better than Grove's best. Koufax's 6 year run from 1961-1966 was better than Grove's, ERA, WHIP, FIP, K/9, no hitters, etc. Even Koufax's career numbers are better including counting stats like shutouts and strikeouts despite Koufax retiring at 30. Grove just pitched for stronger offensive team over a long period of time resulting in more wins. These are just opinions, but I don't judge a pitcher by wins.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by rats60

Dominating a weak pitching era doesn't make someone better than a pitcher who dominates one of the strongest pitching eras.

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66,.

That’s crazy! If it wasn’t for the expansion teams he wouldn’t even be close to 22nd best lefty pitching WAR.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

Jack Morris had the most wins in the 1980s. That argument was used to get him elected to the HOF. Does that make Jack Morris one of the greatest pitchers of all time because he was considered the best of a weak era? Of course not and feel free to insert Dave Stieb or some other mediocre pitcher from that era, it doesn't change anything.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pitching and hitting are an inverse relationship. In other words, saying Grove pitched in a "weak pitching era" is another way of saying it was a strong hitting era. And he was a top-line pitcher during that time, leading in ERA a whopping 9 times (and that had nothing to do with the offensive run support he received.)

Meanwhile, Sandy dominating one of the strongest pitching eras means he was pitching at a time when lots of other pitchers were also enjoying above average success. And his great streak (strong pitching era) coinciding with expansion (4 new teams stocked with former minor leaguers) is no coincidence either. Sandy was 31-4 against the Mets and Colt/Astros from 1962-66, which coincidentally was Grove's record against all teams in 1931.

Perhaps we can agree they were both good.

Jack Morris had the most wins in the 1980s. That argument was used to get him elected to the HOF. Does that make Jack Morris one of the greatest pitchers of all time because he was considered the best of a weak era? Of course not and feel free to insert Dave Stieb or some other mediocre pitcher from that era, it doesn't change anything.