Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

To summarize:

"Road Koufax" was the best pitcher in baseball twice (1963 and 1966) and he was also either best or (more likely) second best one year (1965). "Road Koufax" doesn't sniff the top 20 in any other year. "Road Koufax" had gaudy strikeout numbers for the most part, although 1962 (196) and 1964 (198) are a bit pedestrian.

The real Sandy Koufax did have four World Series rings. One of which (1955) he did little to earn. One of which (1959) he was a back of the rotation starter/reliever and two of which he was the ace of the staff and series MVP. In his 7 career World Series starts he put up gaudy numbers even with a pedestrian record of 4-3.

Knowing that the above player had such a short career, is he a Hall Of Famer? If you use the Kirby Puckett "what could have been had he not gotten hurt" method then absolutely yes. But is the above player the GREATEST left handed pitcher of all time?

The thought is laughable.

What is laughable is to think he is not a hofer. we went from an opinion that he was the best left hander to does he belong in the Hall of Fame.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by cammb

What is laughable is to think he is not a hofer. we went from an opinion that he was the best left hander to does he belong in the Hall of Fame.

"road Koufax" is barely a Hall Of Famer. Chavez Ravine aided Koufax is a legend. Try to keep up.

[packs]

I genuinely do not understand how someone can disregard personal accounts of people who saw someone pitch. Someone said before that Phil Niekro was almost as valuable as Pedro Martinez because of some stat they rattled off. Anyone who saw either guy pitch would never think twice about Phil Niekro.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

I genuinely do not understand how someone can disregard personal accounts of people who saw someone pitch. Someone said before that Phil Niekro was almost as valuable as Pedro Martinez because of some stat they rattled off. Anyone who saw either guy pitch would never think twice about Phil Niekro.

Because there is value in being good to very good for a ridiculously long period of time. In their prime it isn't close. Starting probably in each of their tenth best seasons on down, Niekro was far better. It isn't sexy but it's true. That gives him value.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by packs

I genuinely do not understand how someone can disregard personal accounts of people who saw someone pitch. .

Well do you think it could be, just maybe, because nobody has seen everybody pitch?

You saw X pitch, I saw Y pitch, and Ted Z saw Eddie Plank pitch What basis does that give us for comparison? Stats are the only measures we have that aren’t completely subjective, and even they have to be massaged. But personal accounts are a joke.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

I genuinely do not understand how someone can disregard personal accounts of people who saw someone pitch. Someone said before that Phil Niekro was almost as valuable as Pedro Martinez because of some stat they rattled off. Anyone who saw either guy pitch would never think twice about Phil Niekro.

Because memories are notoriously unreliable. Because guys naturally filter out memories/experiences that don't fit the narrative. Because they focus on a few short years or whatever. Hank Aaron hit .372 with 7 homers against Koufax. Yet Aaron would still about him like he was this unhittable monster.

[packs]

I guess I should say when you’re talking about two players you saw yourself. There has to be some room for knowing what it felt like to watch Pedro pitch and knowing what it felt like to watch Niekro pitch.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess I should say when you’re talking about two players you saw yourself. There has to be some room for knowing what it felt like to watch Pedro pitch and knowing what it felt like to watch Niekro pitch.

We are talking about who was best, not feelings and emotions.

Facing a guy like Sam McDowell or Sandy Koufax or Walter Johnson or Nolan Ryan will obviously "feel" different than facing a knuckleball pitcher like Niekro, or a junkball pitcher with brains and control, like Tommy John.

But there are guys who had more success hitting heat rather than butterflies.

[brian1961]

One thing that should be stressed with Sandy Koufax is the fact that, for the most part mind you, he did not have a team behind him that could give him a lot of runs. I recall the term, "small ball", being associated with Koufax & Drysdale. The Dodgers had Frank Howard, but even mighty Hondo struggled in their home parks. They had Tommy Davis, who put up spectacular numbers in '62, and won a pair of batting titles, if I recall correctly. Their biggest warrior was the dynamic Maury Wills. I know expressing this won't convince you, probably. Nevertheless, as someone who grew up during Sandy's string of banner years, I well remember the press being mighty impressed with Mr. Koufax because he did not have a team of sluggers and better hitters behind him, yet was the most invincible hurler in MLB.

The same could be said for Nolan Ryan and Sam McDowell on that count.

Cheers----Brian Powell

[packs]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We are talking about who was best, not feelings and emotions.

Facing a guy like Sam McDowell or Sandy Koufax or Walter Johnson or Nolan Ryan will obviously "feel" different than facing a knuckleball pitcher like Niekro, or a junkball pitcher with brains and control, like Tommy John.

But there are guys who had more success hitting heat rather than butterflies.

I'm talking about a person who used a stat to compare Niekro to Pedro, two pitchers I personally feel are at opposite ends of "greatness" when I think about actually watching them pitch. So, yes, I think that's the feeling I'm talking about. I'm also talking about the feeling YOU got when YOU watched them, not some third party.

If you never watched Pedro pitch I understand your indifference.

Talking about what YOU saw is a big part of passing down the game to people who didn't see a person play. You can analyze Bernie Williams's stats all you want and deduce he wasn't an elite player. But Yankee fans will always consider him a legend because they watched him play. There is room in discussion for these things.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We are talking about who was best, not feelings and emotions.

Facing a guy like Sam McDowell or Sandy Koufax or Walter Johnson or Nolan Ryan will obviously "feel" different than facing a knuckleball pitcher like Niekro, or a junkball pitcher with brains and control, like Tommy John.

But there are guys who had more success hitting heat rather than butterflies.

+1

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Because memories are notoriously unreliable. Because guys naturally filter out memories/experiences that don't fit the narrative. Because they focus on a few short years or whatever. Hank Aaron hit .372 with 7 homers against Koufax. Yet Aaron would still about him like he was this unhittable monster.

Exactly. Has there ever been a hitter that hasn't said the pitchers he faced were the greatest?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I genuinely do not understand how someone can disregard personal accounts of people who saw someone pitch. Someone said before that Phil Niekro was almost as valuable as Pedro Martinez because of some stat they rattled off. Anyone who saw either guy pitch would never think twice about Phil Niekro.

I don't think you actually read the post.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

"road Koufax" is barely a Hall Of Famer. Chavez Ravine aided Koufax is a legend. Try to keep up.

In your post, #410, YOU posed the question "Is he a hall of famer"?
Try to keep up .

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by cammb

In your post, #410, YOU posed the question "Is he a hall of famer"?
Try to keep up .

Is "Road Koufax" a real HOFer. That's part of that post as well. Reading comprehension.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Is "Road Koufax" a real HOFer. That's part of that post as well. Reading comprehension.

uh

Oh, I see . You made up an imaginary Koufax and you want to know if the imaginary Koufax is a Hall of famer

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by cammb

uh

Oh, I see . You made up an imaginary Koufax and you want to know if the imaginary Koufax is a Hall of famer

Correct. Showing that Koufax, without the benefit of his home park, might have been a marginal at best HOFer. Yet no one ever mentions this about him. With Larry Walker it's all you hear. But Koufax? His home/road splits during his video game number seasons never comes up...as astounding as the splits truly are.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

"road Koufax" is barely a Hall Of Famer. Chavez Ravine aided Koufax is a legend. Try to keep up.

Koufax did in fact win three cy youngs, 1963, 1965, and 1966....And all were unanimous votes!

[Shoeless Moe]

Sandy Koufax first year HOF eligible he got 86.9% of the vote

Randy Johnson first year HOF eligible he got 97.3% of the vote



The Big Unit baby!!!!

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Koufax did in fact win three cy youngs, 1963, 1965, and 1966....And all were unanimous votes!

Statistically Marichal was better in 1965. 63 and 66 were no brainers though. And the only reason he didn't win in 1964 was...wait for it...his road ERA that year was 2.93.

While his home ERA was 0.85.

That is not a typo.

2.93 vs 0.85

But sure. Nothing to see here.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Statistically Marichal was better in 1965. 63 and 66 were no brainers though. And the only reason he didn't win in 1964 was...wait for it...his road ERA that year was 2.93.

While his home ERA was 0.85.

That is not a typo.

2.93 vs 0.85sssz

But sure. Nothing to see here.

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

You must have missed my earlier post, please explain why bWAR is "made up" but you use fWAR to make a point. Also, why would you use ERA+ in a comparison when it helps Koufax, but say it doesn't count when it doesn't have him come out ahead? You keep saying that Grove is obviously better than Koufax because of all the strikeouts and shutouts, but when someone has more strikeouts, you want to look at other stats?

[howard38]

/

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by howard38

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road.

That makes sense as Chance pitched in the same home park as Koufax from 1962 to 1965. In 1965 his home ERA edge was even bigger than in 1964, 2.33/4.15. When the Angels moved into their own park in 1966 Chance, for the first time, had a higher ERA at home than on the road, 3.30/2.87.

Funny that.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by howard38

That makes sense as Chance pitched in the same home park as Koufax from 1962 to 1965. In 1965 his home ERA edge was even bigger than in 1964, 2.33/4.15. When the Angels moved into their own park in 1966 Chance, for the first time, had a higher ERA at home than on the road, 3.30/2.87.

Yeah, Chance had a great year, and really at this point, I don't think anyone's arguing that Chavez wasn't a pitcher's park. And throughout this thread I haven't been saying Koufax, or anyone else was "the best". Ultimately it's really impossible to compare eras. I think Johnson, Grove, and Spahn are all excellent candidates for the title. While Koufax, may not have the years to qualify for everyone's all-time great list, I do think his incredible run, and his artistry on the mound occurred because he was truly a great pitcher and not merely a creature of the home park he pitched in. His 1963 - 1966 run stirs the imagination.

It has been noted that Drysdale and Podres' pitching splits show that they enjoyed better home E.R.A.'s. However, neither pitcher's E.R.A. were consistently as low as Koufax's. Drysdale posted great home E.R.A.'s, and his amazing run of six shutouts in 1968, four of which were at home, really lowered his home E.R.A. that year. But with the exception of that year, his home E.R.A.'s were all in the 2.00's. Not too shabby, but not challenging what Koufax's were.

Podres, while also posting better E.R.A.'s at home in 1962 and 1963, his 1963 E.R.A. split was 3.49/3.60 (home/away).

The numbers show that Koufax was one hell of a pitcher, as no Dodger pitcher achieved what he did at Chavez Ravine. You have to be great to pitch as well as he did at Chavez. No other Dodger was posting 0.85.

Dean Chance had his great year there in 1964, for sure. Chance's E.R.A.'s at Chavez were always better than on the road. His home E.R.A. pitching split in 1962 was 2.76/3.22. 1963 was 2.96/3.45. And 1965 again, and here it really is significant, his home E.R.A. was 2.33/4/15. Chavez factor duly acknowledged. The Angels move out of Chavez for 1966, and for the first time, his away E.R.A. is higher.

So Chavez is a factor. But I argue that Koufax's numbers show that he was great even if there is that factor. No one consistently posted stronger E.R.A.'s at Chavez than Koufax. His strikeout totals also speak to his dominance. And the idea that Koufax was less than stellar on the road, takes a significant hit when you go out with a 1.96 away E.R.A. Koufax was a great pitcher in Chavez Ravine, but not because of Chavez Ravine.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.

BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.

Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.

Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.

Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.

BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.

Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.

Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.

Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.

But did it really? In 1961 Candlestick had a park factor of 94. The Giants played 40 years in Candlestick and it had a park factor under 100 30 of those seasons. Candlestick was always known as a pitchers park. So was Marichal really hurt or was 1965-1966 an anomaly? Those just happened to be two of the worst six seasons for pitchers in Candlestick history.

Even if you go by ERA+, Marichal is only ahead 9%.Does that really out weigh a better WHIP and FIP? 40 more innings pitched? And the real deciding factor, Koufax setting a MLB record with 382 strike outs? This is my problem with bWAR, it doesn’t add up. Even if you mainly rely on ERA+, the difference should be .5 or less. There has to be some value to pitching more innings and allowing fewer base runners. I think today, even with advanced metrics, Koufax still wins. Remember he led Marichal by 3.2 in fWAR, which is just as ridiculous as bWAR in 1965.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

There is also a fair argument that Kershaw is not even the best pitcher on his current team!!