Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

No, there isn't, and I think that is your point.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

No, there isn't, and I think that is your point.

Caught me

[jgannon]

Looking at this whole thread, I think there are a couple of debates going on. I can see the argument that longevity should be a factor in considering who is the greatest of all time. My arguments have been directed at the posters who claim that Koufax was only a great pitcher for the period in which he excelled, due to external circumstances. It is not anecdotal to cite Koufax's own quote about his change in his approach to pitching in 1961. He is a first-hand historical source. Hey, maybe it's possible he has some insight into what we're talking about here. To dismiss his input as irrelevant is ludicrous as it is arrogant. Koufax gained his control after he stopped trying to overpower the hitters. If he hadn't done this, it wouldn't have mattered how many expansion teams came into existence and if they raised the mound to 30". Without the change in his approach, he would not have become the great pitcher he became.

Also, the arrogance toward the quotes by the great players who played against Koufax is pretty incredible. If it comes down to listening to the informed, professional opinions of some of the greatest who have played the game, and those who dismiss what they had to say here, I know who I am listening to. Also, the players quoted don't say that Koufax was the greatest of all-time, but go out of their way to recognize that there was something special about him, with Aaron going as far to say he was a step ahead of other greats of the era.

I could see people choosing other lefty pitchers as the GOAT due to the longevity factor. But the fact that Koufax IS included in the conversation after only having the brief, brilliant run that he did have, says a lot about how great he was.

I feel, we can argue over who is the greatest of all-time. But you can't argue that Sandy Koufax wasn't one of baseball's all-time great pitchers.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Looking at this whole thread, I think there are a couple of debates going on. I can see the argument that longevity should be a factor in considering who is the greatest of all time. My arguments have been directed at the posters who claim that Koufax was only a great pitcher for the period in which he excelled, due to external circumstances. It is not anecdotal to cite Koufax's own quote about his change in his approach to pitching in 1961. He is a first-hand historical source. Hey, maybe it's possible he has some insight into what we're talking about here. To dismiss his input as irrelevant is ludicrous as it is arrogant. Koufax gained his control after he stopped trying to overpower the hitters. If he hadn't done this, it wouldn't have mattered how many expansion teams came into existence and if they raised the mound to 30". Without the change in his approach, he would not have become the great pitcher he became.

Also, the arrogance toward the quotes by the great players who played against Koufax is pretty incredible. If it comes down to listening to the informed, professional opinions of some of the greatest who have played the game, and those who dismiss what they had to say here, I know who I am listening to. Also, the players quoted don't say that Koufax was the greatest of all-time, but go out of their way to recognize that there was something special about him, with Aaron going as far to say he was a step ahead of other greats of the era.

I could see people choosing other lefty pitchers as the GOAT due to the longevity factor. But the fact that Koufax IS included in the conversation after only having the brief, brilliant run that he did have, says a lot about how great he was.

I feel, we can argue over who is the greatest of all-time. But you can't argue that Sandy Koufax wasn't one of baseball's all-time great pitchers.

Many anecdotes are first-hand. That does not make them not anecdotes.

Why do you only want to listen to the "informed, professional opinions" of the greats who faced Koufax? The ruleset for judging Koufax is different from that for everyone else. Unless you want to rank Ewell Blackwell as one of the greatest due to anecdotes mentioned earlier.
'
Again, if Koufax had discovered some pitching secret, it wouldn't be only his home numbers that greatly improved. His away stats remained pretty flat most years after his alleged discovery. This claim does not mesh with verifiable fact; just like most anecdotes.

Finally, still no one has argued that Koufax was not great during his peak. One poster said he was merely 'good' on the road, which appears to be true looking at his numbers on the road compared to the league averages. His exceptional home park performance and 5 ERA crowns is still a great peak. Nobody in this thread has alleged it was not.

I would love to hear an argument for Koufax based in verifiable fact, in the same standards everyone else is judged too. There must be one that could reasonably be made instead of attempting to replace fact with anecdote, ignore half Koufax's career, ignore anyone else with short term success, ignore highly unusual road/home splits, ignore era/ballpark/league factors etc.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many anecdotes are first-hand. That does not make them not anecdotes.

Why do you only want to listen to the "informed, professional opinions" of the greats who faced Koufax? The ruleset for judging Koufax is different from that for everyone else. Unless you want to rank Ewell Blackwell as one of the greatest due to anecdotes mentioned earlier.
'
Again, if Koufax had discovered some pitching secret, it wouldn't be only his home numbers that greatly improved. His away stats remained pretty flat most years after his alleged discovery. This claim does not mesh with verifiable fact; just like most anecdotes.

Finally, still no one has argued that Koufax was not great during his peak. One poster said he was merely 'good' on the road, which appears to be true looking at his numbers on the road compared to the league averages. His exceptional home park performance and 5 ERA crowns is still a great peak. Nobody in this thread has alleged it was not.

I would love to hear an argument for Koufax based in verifiable fact, in the same standards everyone else is judged too. There must be one that could reasonably be made instead of attempting to replace fact with anecdote, ignore half Koufax's career, ignore anyone else with short term success, ignore highly unusual road/home splits, ignore era/ballpark/league factors etc.

Here we are back at the beginning again. I put up a post on page three where I discuss that Koufax began his turn the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine. Koufax's last road E.R.A. was 1.96. You can ignore or dismiss that the man himself said he began pitching differently. You can ignore a 1.96 E.R.A.

Anyway, maybe we should all start debating that Mantle and Ruth weren't really great home run hitters because they had the short right field porch at Yankee Stadium. And Whitey Ford wasn't really that good a pitcher because of death valley there. A lot of Mays' home runs were cheap, because he began hitting them the opposite way at Candlestick so that the wind would help carry them. Can't work with the conditions in the ballpark you play in, or use it's uniqueness to your advantage. The thing is, that's how baseball is. And one of the things that makes it so interesting and fun. The point is, Koufax was a great pitcher anyway you slice it.

Edit: And yes, I know that the wind was a hindrance at Candlestick Park and was making potential home runs into fly outs. Mays of course, compensated.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Here we are back at the beginning again. I put up a post on page three where I discuss that Koufax began his turn the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine. Koufax's last road E.R.A. was 1.96. You can ignore or dismiss that the man himself said he began pitching differently. You can ignore a 1.96 E.R.A.

Anyway, maybe we should all start debating that Mantle and Ruth weren't really great home run hitters because they had the short right field porch at Yankee Stadium. And Whitey Ford wasn't really that good a pitcher because of death valley there. A lot of Mays' home runs were cheap, because he began hitting them the opposite way at Candlestick so that the wind would help carry them. Can't work with the conditions in the ballpark you play in, or use it's uniqueness to your advantage. The thing is, that's how baseball is. And one of the things that makes it so interesting and fun. The point is, Koufax was a great pitcher anyway you slice it.

This is 100% exactly why park affects in modern statistics are a thing! You are ignoring the other posts with Koufax's ERA on the road in all years but 1966. How about 1964? In most seasons after his alleged change, he continued to perform similarly on the road as he had the two seasons before. We are back at the beginning because A) you keep using the same points that are not supported by verifiable facts B) keep using these points to argue against an allegation that has not been made by anyone in this thread, even though you keep insisting they have.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

There have to be better arguments for Koufax than things like denying low run environments, denying park affects, and pretending longevity matters for only 4 seasons before no longer being a factor, and anecdotes. There must be a logical, fact-based argument for Koufax somewhere.

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims like the pitching was as good in Grove's era as Koufax's and the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by rats60

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims like the pitching was as good in Grove's era as Koufax's and the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

There doesn't have to be "arguments" for claim Koufax is the best lefty, facts trump arguments, and the facts dispute that... considerably.

Wait!! I found an old unimportant article, from a meaningless source, forgotten or not known by any stating that Koufax once signed an autograph for a small child who didn't even ask!!!

... learning this CRUCIAL information, I changed my mind, he MUST be the best lefty... right ???

[HistoricNewspapers]

Koufax's MPH was measured and he clocked in at 93 MPH. There were several players who were measured at the same time as he was and he was not the fastest among his peers.

There is a more comprehensive list of that test, but this Sports Illustrated article from when Ryan was clocked at over 100 alludes to Koufax's speed.


https://vault.si.com/vault/1974/09/1...p-for-an-angel

One poster above made a very wise distinction about what defines 'best', when he said that a career value and peak value can give two very different answers, and both be correct.

There is no way Koufax can be viewed better than Warren Spahn based on their careers. Simply no way.

However, if you are talking about who was better in their peak years, then Koufax is going to be the answer.

I do want to point out that many do cite Koufax's early retirement as a way of giving him more credit toward someone like Spahn. While that is a good 'what if' scenario to take into consideration, keep in mind that Koufax is not the only player that has strong 'what if' factors such as that. Spahn himself lost three years due to WWII.

Had Spahn not lost three years, then he is easily a 400 game winner. Wins are not the best indicator of a pitcher, but he still lost three years of production. Any way you slice it, add those three years into his career, then his lead on Koufax is impossible to overcome.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

There have to be better arguments against Koufax than false, unscientific claims [...] the LA Coliseum was the same for lefties as righties.

Literally no one has made such a claim in this discussion.