Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by cammb

Imagine if Koufax pitched 5 more years at his prime and not retire after posting a 27 win season. This conversation would be over

One could also imagine him pitching his entire career at Coors field in the live ball era, then he would never even have a thread dedicated to him...and only the people who recognize the importance of context, would see his value.


But really, what you said is the entire point. He would need five more elite years just to get into the discussion, because only then would he would begin to match the length of dominance of Unit or Grove.

Until he puts up those five more elite years...he doesn't belong in the conversation of all time best lefty.

[G1911]

If we're going to rate based on people's fantasies, then literally anyone can be proclaimed the greatest ever. If Walter Johnson had pitched with his left arm, he would be the greatest lefty ever. I nominate him as a result.

Pfeister had the lowest career ERA of a lefty, and a better whip and FIP. With context removed, why isn't he the greatest, Koufaxers?

Or if career stats don't matter, because longevity doesn't favor Koufax at all, and only peak does, then why isn't it Schupp?

I once heard from someone that somebody who faced him said Lefty Leifield was unstoppable! If anecdotes are our basis, why not him?

Even removing longevity, ignoring context of time and place, taking all the ridiculous claims for Koufax no matter how many principles of logic they violate, he still doesn't come out #1. The "best of all time" and "my personal favorite" are not synonyms; they are wildly different things.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Also keep in mind that Koufax used every ounce of his body to achieve the velocity on his pitches and torque on his curve ball. That is what it took for him to achieve what he did in his last five peak years.

Who is to say that was sustainable? Actually, it proved not to be sustainable.

So either he was going to break down had he continued(which he did break down), or he would have had to pitch a little differently DURING his peak to last longer(which would mean his peak wouldn't have been as good as it was), and his next five years even lower.

So instead of throwing 27 complete games, it may have been 19. Instead of throwing ten shutouts, it may have been six. Then you wouldn't be citing his complete games etc.


Kind of reminds me of Tim Lincecum and how he used every ounce of his body to achieve four excellent years...and then that was all his body could handle, and then he quickly went to becoming mediocre, and then was done soon after.

On the flip side, someone like Randy Johnson did it for 4,100 innings and within that career length he had a better dominance than Koufax, as he led the league in ERA+ SIX times and IP twice. Koufax led just twice in ERA+ and twice in Innings pitched.

Johnson won five Cy Young awards and finished second three more times...and was able to be better than average up until the age of 44.

I'm sure Unit could have shined even brighter some of those years, adding a few more complete games, striking out 400 batters in a season had he chosen to...but then he may have burned out more quickly and not added an entire 'second' career that Koufax never was able to do.

Johnson had a BETTER and LONGER peak than Koufax and he was better much longer too. That equals a slam dunk win over Koufax as to who was better

And since "winning is all that matters" in the biggest game, according to some....Randy Johnson was 3-0 with a 1.04 ERA in World Series play, taking an EXPANSION TEAM to World Series victory over one of the greatest dynasties in MLB history. An expansion team!

Since fantasy talk is prevalent, Koufax doesn't go to any World Series playing for the expansion Mets in those years. Zero. Zilch.

[cammb]

[QUOTE=HistoricNewspapers;2004405]One could also imagine him pitching his entire career at Coors field in the live ball era, then he would never even have a thread dedicated to him...and only the people who recognize the importance of context, would see his value.


But really, what you said is the entire point. He would need five more elite years just to get into the discussion, because only then would he would begin to match the length of dominance of Unit or Grove.

Until he puts up those five more elite years...he doesn't belong in the conversation of all time best lefty.[/QUOTE

You know nothing about Grove other than his suspect stats. Not many of us were alive when he pitched. You probably never saw Koufax pitch as well as most of you Koufax deniers. You rely on these made up metrics that some jock sniffer made up in his basement and you tout them as gospel the fact that he is a first round hofer and the youngest elected says it all.

[earlywynnfan]

[QUOTE=cammb;2004466]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

One could also imagine him pitching his entire career at Coors field in the live ball era, then he would never even have a thread dedicated to him...and only the people who recognize the importance of context, would see his value.


But really, what you said is the entire point. He would need five more elite years just to get into the discussion, because only then would he would begin to match the length of dominance of Unit or Grove.

Until he puts up those five more elite years...he doesn't belong in the conversation of all time best lefty.[/QUOTE

You know nothing about Grove other than his suspect stats. Not many of us were alive when he pitched. You probably never saw Koufax pitch as well as most of you Koufax deniers. You rely on these made up metrics that some jock sniffer made up in his basement and you tout them as gospel the fact that he is a first round hofer and the youngest elected says it all.

Please identity which of Grove's stats are suspect.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

You know nothing about Grove other than his suspect stats. Not many of us were alive when he pitched. You probably never saw Koufax pitch as well as most of you Koufax deniers. You rely on these made up metrics that some jock sniffer made up in his basement and you tout them as gospel the fact that he is a first round hofer and the youngest elected says it all.

This is the perfect encapsulation of how utterly absurd, comical and ridiculous the emotional argument for Koufax is. Grove's stats are made up metrics by jock sniffers. Koufax is therefore the GOAT. Stunning.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is the perfect encapsulation of how utterly absurd, comical and ridiculous the emotional argument for Koufax is. Grove's stats are made up metrics by jock sniffers. Koufax is therefore the GOAT. Stunning.

Well, you can't argue with the fact that he was a HOFer at age 37. Clearly that makes him superior to bums like Feller (44), Walter (49), Nolan Ryan (52.) Guess that also means Mays (48), Aaron (48), and Musial (49) must be fairly mediocre.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Well, you can't argue with the fact that he was a HOFer at age 37. Clearly that makes him superior to bums like Feller (44), Walter (49), Nolan Ryan (52.) Guess that also means Mays (48), Aaron (48), and Musial (49) must be fairly mediocre.

That bum Grove was still winning ERA crowns at the age Sandy made the hall, he sure was terrible (and his league leading ERA’s were made up by jock sniffers! But Sandy’s ERA’s are evidence of his greatness). Cap Anson didn’t make it until he had been dead for 17 years, I can’t believe I used to think he was pretty good too.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by G1911

That bum Grove was still winning ERA crowns at the age Sandy made the hall, he sure was terrible (and his league leading ERA’s were made up by jock sniffers! But Sandy’s ERA’s are evidence of his greatness). Cap Anson didn’t make it until he had been dead for 17 years, I can’t believe I used to think he was pretty good too.

That Joe DiMaggio guy took three tries to get selected. That guy must have been awful.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by G1911

That bum Grove was still winning ERA crowns at the age Sandy made the hall, he sure was terrible (and his league leading ERA’s were made up by jock sniffers! But Sandy’s ERA’s are evidence of his greatness). Cap Anson didn’t make it until he had been dead for 17 years, I can’t believe I used to think he was pretty good too.

OK, I have refrained from comment thus far. But this has devolved into idiocy IMO. As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is true. You can skew them however you want, depending on the point you want to prove. Depending on how they are used, stats are opinion-based. They are not necessarily objective. Junk in, junk out. Not saying that they are useless, because they represent the current best effort. But they are certainly not gospel, as some here seem to believe.

Ten years from now, all the stats that are now being spouted as gospel will be denigrated as old, stupid, and misplaced. There will be newer and better stats that prove whatever point someone wants to make. That's how it works. Also, people who think Koufax was the best will continue to think that. People who don't will continue not to believe that. And both will continue to cite whatever stats they contrive that they think prove their point. This discussion is completely pointless.

Koufax was a great pitcher. Grove was a great pitcher. Spahn, Carlton, Plank, Waddell and arguably certain others were great too. Whether one of them is the greatest is completely viewpoint dependent. Is the "greatest" the best peak, the best during his time, the best over his career, the most wins, or something else? I can see each point of view. This whole debate is stupid because there are no parameters.

BTW, the Anson analogy is wholly misplaced because: 1) there was no HOF until way after he played, so the length of time between his death and his election is totally irrelevant; and 2) the first vote was, to say the least confused because none of the voters seemed to understand that there were supposed to be TWO categories of players elected, 10 from the 20th century and 5 from the 19th century. Cy Young split that vote. Anson did too, as I understand it. The claim that the length of time between Anson's death and his election somehow means something is so off base that it doesn't even deserve further comment.

Koufax was the greatest pitcher I have seen in my lifetime. He was also the first pitcher I ever saw in a live game, so I can fairly be accused of some hero worship. I saw Gibson, Marichal, Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Drysdale, and many others too. None blew me away like Koufax. I didn't see Grove, Plank, or the others, so I can't comment on them. Maybe they were better. It doesn't matter. The person who you actually saw that blew you away is likely to be your pick as the best ever I would think. I'm good with that because all of this statistical "comparison" stuff only tells part of the story IMO. Shoot away.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

OK, I have refrained from comment thus far. But this has devolved into idiocy IMO. As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And that is true. You can skew them however you want, depending on the point you want to prove. Depending on how they are used, stats are opinion-based. They are not necessarily objective. Junk in, junk out. Not saying that they are useless, because they represent the current best effort. But they are certainly not gospel, as some here seem to believe.

Ten years from now, all the stats that are now being spouted as gospel will be denigrated as old, stupid, and misplaced. There will be newer and better stats that prove whatever point someone wants to make. That's how it works. Also, people who think Koufax was the best will continue to think that. People who don't will continue not to believe that. And both will continue to cite whatever stats they contrive that they think prove their point. This discussion is completely pointless.

Koufax was a great pitcher. Grove was a great pitcher. Spahn, Carlton, Plank, Waddell and arguably certain others were great too. Whether one of them is the greatest is completely viewpoint dependent. Is the "greatest" the best peak, the best during his time, the best over his career, the most wins, or something else? I can see each point of view. This whole debate is stupid because there are no parameters.

BTW, the Anson analogy is wholly misplaced because: 1) there was no HOF until way after he played, so the length of time between his death and his election is totally irrelevant; and 2) the first vote was, to say the least confused because none of the voters seemed to understand that there were supposed to be TWO categories of players elected, 10 from the 20th century and 5 from the 19th century. Cy Young split that vote. Anson did too, as I understand it. The claim that the length of time between Anson's death and his election somehow means something is so off base that it doesn't even deserve further comment.

Koufax was the greatest pitcher I have seen in my lifetime. He was also the first pitcher I ever saw in a live game, so I can fairly be accused of some hero worship. I saw Gibson, Marichal, Ryan, Seaver, Carlton, Drysdale, and many others too. None blew me away like Koufax. I didn't see Grove, Plank, or the others, so I can't comment on them. Maybe they were better. It doesn't matter. The person who you actually saw that blew you away is likely to be your pick as the best ever I would think. I'm good with that because all of this statistical "comparison" stuff only tells part of the story IMO. Shoot away.

I don't know how you could possibly read my post and take it literally. Obviously the Anson point is idiotic. Devolved into idiocy, you got that right...