Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Noone is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher outside of Chavez Ravine either though. I have gone to great pains to make it clear that Koufax was most likely the best pitcher in baseball from 1962-1966 if you just double his road numbers. And that fact, along with the corresponding insane strikeout numbers, likely gets him into the HOF under the "Kirby Puckett what if rule" even if you just double the road numbers and forget all about his performance at Chavez Ravine.

And also nobody is arguing about Koufax vs Drysdale or Podres and that isn't the standard of this thread anyway. This is about best ever.

All I am saying is that Koufax was a great pitcher, likely a Hall of Famer simply for his road performance, but that he was GREATLY helped by his home park. Those years you speak of, that legendary five year performance, was a perfect storm of immense talent meeting a way to harness and control said talent coupled with the opening of one of the best pitchers parks in the history of baseball. All three were the reason for those unbelievable seasons but only the first two are ever mentioned.

Where I am disagreeing with you and some of the others is about how much his home park had an effect on his numbers. By citing Drysdale and Podres, I wasn't going off topic, but wanted to illustrate how much more brilliant Koufax was at home than they were. The park is only going to do so much for you.

As far as the Kirby Puckett allusion, we don't need to know "what if" with Koufax. Yes, it would have been great if he had been able to compete longer. But he established himself as a Hall-of-Famer in the time he played. Given how much better he was at home than his Dodger contemporaries at the time, doubling Koufax's road numbers is unnecessary to justify his induction into the Hall.

[jgannon]

I'll just add to all my other statements on this thread, that while the topic is "Who Was The Greatest Lefty?", during the discussion, I felt Koufax's greatness was being made into a caricature, which is to do this legendary pitcher a disservice.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Where I am disagreeing with you and some of the others is about how much his home park had an effect on his numbers. By citing Drysdale and Podres, I wasn't going off topic, but wanted to illustrate how much more brilliant Koufax was at home than they were. The park is only going to do so much for you.

As far as the Kirby Puckett allusion, we don't need to know "what if" with Koufax. Yes, it would have been great if he had been able to compete longer. But he established himself as a Hall-of-Famer in the time he played. Given how much better he was at home than his Dodger contemporaries at the time, doubling Koufax's road numbers is unnecessary to justify his induction into the Hall.

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

[G1911]

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

Bumgarner

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

Harry Breechen has a better post-season, 0.83 ERA. His regular season ERA+ is better than Koufax too. In a similar amount of innings.

If we are pretending a players best is who they are and ignoring everything else and their poor seasons or the context, by the Koufax logic Ferdie Schupp is still the best lefty all time regular-season.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Harry Breechen has a better post-season, 0.83 ERA. His regular season ERA+ is better than Koufax too. In a similar amount of innings.

If we are pretending a players best is who they are and ignoring everything else and their poor seasons or the context, by the Koufax logic Ferdie Schupp is still the best lefty all time regular-season.

Bumgarner!

Bumgarner is unhittable in the World Series. In five career appearances, he has a microscopic 0.25 ERA, which is the lowest of any pitcher in history with at least 25 World Series innings pitched.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

Harry Breechen has a better post-season, 0.83 ERA. His regular season ERA+ is better than Koufax too. In a similar amount of innings.

If we are pretending a players best is who they are and ignoring everything else and their poor seasons or the context, by the Koufax logic Ferdie Schupp is still the best lefty all time regular-season.

Nice strawman.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

That's certainly a fair point, and hits close to home as a fan of a team that has sucked ass for a long long time (Pirates). What does one value more? Excellence over a longer period or outright dominance over a short period? To me it needs to come as close as possible to both criteria, which is why a Niekro at one end of the extreme or Koufax at the other would never get my vote.

But I certainly understand the sentiment.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That's certainly a fair point, and hits close to home as a fan of a team that has sucked ass for a long long time (Pirates). What does one value more? Excellence over a longer period or outright dominance over a short period? To me it needs to come as close as possible to both criteria, which is why a Niekro at one end of the extreme or Koufax at the other would never get my vote.

But I certainly understand the sentiment.

Hey, I am old enough to remember 1971 and 1979. I am thinking about friends who are Cubs fans. Winning one was the highlight of their life. Imagine having a 5 year run like the Dodgers had with Koufax. There are a number of teams that have never won. Winning is all that matters.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each)

And Barry Bonds.

Obv another discussion in itself, but it's always fascinated me that this dynamic hasn't been considered a lot more in those guys' legacy. You have five of the best eight or so hitters to ever step on the diamond, and just two combined titles.

It's hard for me to believe that it's ALL a function of just subpar teams at the wrong time for those guys.

Common denominators there are sullen/unlikeable personalities and maybe not much team leadership by your superstar. But then, Dimaggio was a jerk who wasn't the rally the troops type, and he won like crazy. Maybe that era's Yankees was still enough regardless.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

???

Kershaw has a 2.15 ERA at home, 2.78 away. That's significantly closer than Koufax for splits (Dodger Stadium home).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

???

Kershaw has a 2.15 ERA at home, 2.78 away. That's significantly closer than Koufax for splits (Dodger Stadium home).

Not for his career.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not for his career.

True. The conversation, however, was centered on his ridiculous splits during the Dodger Stadium years.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

The reason I cited the other Dodger pitchers, specifically Drysdale was to show that while their E.R.A.'s were also lower at Dodger Stadium, Koufax,'s were MUCH lower than theirs. In other words, he was down in the 1.00's and even below 1.00 while Drysdale was doing very well in the 2.00's. The point is, while the stadium may have been a factor, that Koufax did so well there also had to be due to his ABILITY.

And I want to reiterate that while yes, the 1960's favored the pitcher, this dismissing of the 1960's as being weak on hitting or a second deadball era, is unfair. It gives short shrift to the many great hitters who played back then, and doesn't take into account the more rugged and aggressive style of the game. Hitters had to face brush back pitches and the threat of being knocked down without all the protective gear of today. Calling it a second deadball era is such an inaccurate term. It reminds me of placing Mantle's record of 18 World Series home runs, down the list under the heading of "post-season home runs". The cheapness of the more modern statistics in ballparks that are smaller, with a much livelier ball, doesn't make the ball that was used in Koufax's day dead, nor the hitting weak. The modern outlook doesn't acknowledge the great hitters who had to play a truer game and face some of the greatest pitchers who ever played, under much more arduous circumstances. Guys like Koufax didn't dominate because the hitters were weak, but because the pitchers were good.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The reason I cited the other Dodger pitchers, specifically Drysdale was to show that while their E.R.A.'s were also lower at Dodger Stadium, Koufax,'s were MUCH lower than theirs. In other words, he was down in the 1.00's and even below 1.00 while Drysdale was doing very well in the 2.00's. The point is, while the stadium may have been a factor, that Koufax did so well there also had to be due to his ABILITY.

And I want to reiterate that while yes, the 1960's favored the pitcher, this dismissing of the 1960's as being weak on hitting or a second deadball era, is unfair. It gives short shrift to the many great hitters who played back then, and doesn't take into account the more rugged and aggressive style of the game. Hitters had to face brush back pitches and the threat of being knocked down without all the protective gear of today. Calling it a second deadball era is such an inaccurate term. It reminds me of placing Mantle's record of 18 World Series home runs, down the list under the heading of "post-season home runs". The cheapness of the more modern statistics in ballparks that are smaller, with a much livelier ball, doesn't make the ball that was used in Koufax's day dead, nor the hitting weak. The modern outlook doesn't acknowledge the great hitters who had to play a truer game and face some of the greatest pitchers who ever played, under much more arduous circumstances. Guys like Koufax didn't dominate because the hitters were weak, but because the pitchers were good.

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

I agree 150%. Here’s what certain people are missing. A “high mound” is an advantage to a pitcher, BUT any hurler requires the world-class tools to capitalize on the mound’s higher plane. In Koufax’s case, it was his incredible “12 to 6” curveball that bottomed out right at the hitting zone. In those 5 years of sheer dominance, Koufax’s curveball was as good as any pitcher who ever toed an MLB rubber, combining the curve with an upper 90s riding fastball to dominate hitters as good or better than any all-time great in a 5-year span. The greatest lefty of all-time - NO - just not enough years of dominance to stake that claim. However, from a “peak-value” perspective, he stands at or near the top right alongside any lefty or righty.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You still don't get it. Not everyone was going to post an 0.85 E.R.A. in Chavez no matter how good the park was. To say that Koufax was primarily a product of the ballpark, doesn't take into account that different people were going to perform differently in the ballpark due to their ability. That's why I am comparing him to the other Dodger pitchers.

You just have refused to acknowledge that Dodger Stadium or no Dodger Stadium, Koufax excelled there because he was great in his own right. The home/road splits are being overblown. 2.31 and 1.96 weren't exactly bad road E.R.A.'s.

This debate has been a side one, because one of the reasons people here have dismissed him as not being the all-time greatest lefty has been that he was merely a creature of his ballpark. I say you have to be a great pitcher first to throw 0.85 in any ballpark.

Just skip it.

You are still arguing against things not said, instead of what it is said. I have acknowledged Koufax had a great streak for five seasons and used numerous superlatives in describing them as "astounding", etc. He is still a product of time and place, a time and place that are very, very favorable to him, historically so, as they were not for pitchers who had much better careers.

Nobody has said he wasn't great these years. Nobody has said other Dodgers of the period were better. Not a single post has said this.

The same handful of strawmans, arguing against points nobody has actually made, again and again and again and again while ignoring the points actually made.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the millionth time, Sandy being better than the other Dodgers is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The discussion is the best lefty of all time, not the best dodgers starter of the 60's. Literally nobody is disputing this. Outperforming his teammates proves nothing but that he was better than his teammates. Although in 1964, he wasn't even better than Chance who shared the same home park (almost like there's a connection here...). Can we stop making up arguments to argue against because they are easier to dispute than the ones actually being made? This is beyond absurd.

Nobody has alleged there were no good hitters in the 1960's. Nobody! It is very, very, very simple to see that it is a weak hitting period. We can look at the runs being scored every single year in baseball history. We can see the rule changes and expansion align 100% with this reduction. It was a weak offensive period, whether or not you like it.

For the final time, these arguments are absolutely irrelevant to the actual question, for or against. Your feelings and romanticism for this period do not overcome actual math.

Could we maybe address the ACTUAL topic of this thread, the best left hander of all time, not the best dodgers pitcher of the 60's? Half the posts are making and refuting these increasingly irrelevant claims that are either absurd or proven wrong by even a cursory check of the data and still have nothing to do with the actual question even if they were logical or true.

Nice strawman.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

What is the Puckett rule?

[FrankWakefield]

What G1911 said.... +++

Mr Koufax was a great, dominant, Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. He falls just a tad bit short of the Lefty ever. I saw Koufax pitch... and Spahn and R Johnson and A Pettitte and S Carlton... I still think Lefty Grove was the best.

Whitey Ford has been mentioned. My understanding (based on what I think I've read, heard and maybe dreamed) was that the Yankee management didn't want him winning 20+ games a season (he only did twice) was because management didn't want his wins thrown out at them as a reason to justify a salary increase. A biproduct was that Jim Turner and Casey Stengel wanted him rested for important games. I think Mr. Ford was a great pitcher, but would you really to pick him to win a game for you if you had Grove, Koufax, Spahn, ro R Johnson rested and ready on the bench?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

If Chavez Ravine was a factor, no one was able to capitalize on the conditions there like Koufax. That had to do with Koufax's amazing ability. I don't think the doubling of his away numbers is useful, and I don't think the Larry Walker analogy is fair, as Walker played in an environment with no gravity or atmosphere, lol. I think Coors Field was a much more extreme thing. And Koufax's road E.R.A.'s were still great.