Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

Told you, Brian!

[CMIZ5290]

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

If you get the 1955-1961 Koufax to show up, you've lost.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

I assume you mean circa 1965 Koufax, right? Versus RJ who has a lower mound, facing a DH, in the steroid era? I agree!

[stlcardsfan]

Bob Uecker had a 200 lifetime average and hit .429 off Koufax in over 50 ABs. So....

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by stlcardsfan

Bob Uecker had a 200 lifetime average and hit .429 off Koufax in over 50 ABs. So....

So, so what?

[G1911]

Johnson would be my #2 pick. That his first season where he was notably above the league average was at age 29 is largely offset by his great effectiveness over age 40.

There are the 7 best (leaving Kershaw out; it is exceptionally difficult and unbalanced to account a player who is not done. His ERA+ will decline significantly, balanced by his effective innings increasing but who knows exactly how this will balance or when he will stop) + the 2 super short careers

ERA+
Grove - 148
Johnson - 135
Ford - 133
Koufax - 131
Newhouser - 130
Hubbell - 130
Plank - 122
Spahn - 119
Carlton - 115

Innings
Spahn - 5,243
Carlton - 5,217
Plank - 4,495
Johnson - 4,135
Grove - 3,940
Hubbell - 3,590
Ford - 3,170
Newhouser - 2,993
Koufax - 2,324

Black Ink
Grove - 111
Spahn - 101
Johnson - 99
Koufax - 78
Carlton - 69
Hubbell - 51
Newhouser - 47
Ford - 41
Plank - 15

Gray Ink
Spahn - 374
Grove - 319
Plank - 291
Carlton - 285
Johnson - 280
Hubbell - 252
Ford - 234
Newhouser - 180
Koufax - 151


If we have to pick one thing, the most important attribute of a pitcher is to give up as few runs as possible. His effectiveness at doing this is, in the context of an all-time debate, has to be measured relative to the context in which events actually happened, in time and place; which means ERA+. Innings Pitched is the balance to this; a pitcher who hurls a 0.90 ERA for 1 year is clearly not the best ever; how long a pitcher is effective is the other half of the equation.

Black and Gray ink I think are the best of the modern analytics, again in the context of "best all time". Black Ink is preferable, but a player CAN benefit or be hurt by not having their peak align with some other legends (Johnson suffers in black ink due to Maddux). It also matter where the ink comes from; I wouldn't value the categories in the same 1/2/3/4 point order assigned by the formula. Spahn gains a lot of his from wins, which I don't think are actually an effective metric to determine a pitchers performance.

These aren't everything, but I think these should be the starting points. Grove's ERA and league domination + a good, but not great, inning count puts #1 pretty easily in my book. Johnson seems to me pretty clearly the #2 as well. Spahn wins #3 without much difficulty, I think. After that, it gets harder to pick.

How one weighs different values, any of these 3 can reasonably be assigned the title of the greatest lefty of all time. Johnson and Spahn have excellent cases. The statistical and logically consistent reasons to pick between these three, and not anecdotal, emotional, and logically contradictory arguments based on what seems to currently favor the pitcher we want to win, are what the real debate should be.

If I have a bias for any of these pitchers, it is in favor of Randy Johnson.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Randy Johnson versus Sandy Koufax in a one win for all?? Please......KOUFAX

If you are picking that based on Koufax getting to pitch off a higher mound, with a bigger strike zone, with a less lively ball, and vs a lineup with less threats up and down....and Johnson having none of those advantages...then yes, not only do you pick Koufax:

Then you also pick all these guys from 1968 over Johnson too:
Bobby Bolin 1.99
Bob Veale 2.05
Stan Bahnsen 2.05
Steve Blass 2.12
Ray Washburn 2.26
Jim Nash 2.28
Joe Horlen 2.37
Etc..Etc...Etc..

"The regular changing of mound height was eventually prohibited. In 1950, teams settled on a height of 15 inches for the mound. Despite this regulation, some teams were accused of using a higher than regulation height mound; Dodger Stadium was particularly notorious for having a high mound. Following the incredibly low scoring in 1968, the rules were changed to reduce the mound to the contemporary 10 inch height. Some accusations of gamesmanship with mounds continue, usually with visiting teams complaining that the mounds in the visitor's bullpen don't match the mound of the field, so that relievers entering the game aren't properly adapted to the game mound." -Baseball reference.

I think everyone knows the advantage a higher mound gives a pitcher.

It is the same advantage, that nobody in their right mind is going to pass up on a pitcher(Johnson) who is ten inches taller, throws harder, has greater command...and also is superior in all the other pitching tools and mental capacities. Nobody takes the inferior(Koufax)pitcher there....unless a person is fooled because that inferior pitcher is being judged on extreme advantages that give him the ILLUSION of superior effectiveness.

No Brainer.

If that is anyone's rationale, great, your choice...but then:

Would you also be willing to partake in a home run hitting contest against me if I got to use the live ball from last season, and you had to use a ball from 1965...and I got to hit in Coors field and you had to hit in Dodger Stadium? Also, the pitcher you are facing is six foot ten inches tall and throwing 85MPH, and the pitcher I am facing is five foot eight and throwing 75MPH.

I'm willing to bet that people would immediately change their tune on the context once it was applied to them directly


PS If Aaron Judge is on this board, I'm changing the context in our home run contest, that I get to hit in the field they play the Little League World Series on, and you have to hit in Old(DiMaggio) Yankee Stadium.

Then I can walk around saying I am a better home run hitter than Aaron Judge...just like the people saying that Koufax is better than Randy Johnson.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

If you are picking that based on Koufax getting to pitch off a higher mound, with a bigger strike zone, with a less lively ball, and vs a lineup with less threats up and down....and Johnson having none of those advantages...then yes, not only do you pick Koufax:

Then you also pick all these guys from 1968 over Johnson too:
Bobby Bolin 1.99
Bob Veale 2.05
Stan Bahnsen 2.05
Steve Blass 2.12
Ray Washburn 2.26
Jim Nash 2.28
Joe Horlen 2.37
Etc..Etc...Etc..

"The regular changing of mound height was eventually prohibited. In 1950, teams settled on a height of 15 inches for the mound. Despite this regulation, some teams were accused of using a higher than regulation height mound; Dodger Stadium was particularly notorious for having a high mound. Following the incredibly low scoring in 1968, the rules were changed to reduce the mound to the contemporary 10 inch height. Some accusations of gamesmanship with mounds continue, usually with visiting teams complaining that the mounds in the visitor's bullpen don't match the mound of the field, so that relievers entering the game aren't properly adapted to the game mound." -Baseball reference.

I think everyone knows the advantage a higher mound gives a pitcher.

It is the same advantage, that nobody in their right mind is going to pass up on a pitcher(Johnson) who is ten inches taller, throws harder, has greater command...and also is superior in all the other pitching tools and mental capacities. Nobody takes the inferior(Koufax)pitcher there....unless a person is fooled because that inferior pitcher is being judged on extreme advantages that give him the ILLUSION of superior effectiveness.

No Brainer.

If that is anyone's rationale, great, your choice...but then:

Would you also be willing to partake in a home run hitting contest against me if I got to use the live ball from last season, and you had to use a ball from 1965...and I got to hit in Coors field and you had to hit in Dodger Stadium? Also, the pitcher you are facing is six foot ten inches tall and throwing 85MPH, and the pitcher I am facing is five foot eight and throwing 75MPH.

I'm willing to bet that people would immediately change their tune on the context once it was applied to them directly


PS If Aaron Judge is on this board, I'm changing the context in our home run contest, that I get to hit in the field they play the Little League World Series on, and you have to hit in Old(DiMaggio) Yankee Stadium.

Then I can walk around saying I am a better home run hitter than Aaron Judge...just like the people saying that Koufax is better than Randy Johnson.

Isn't it odd hat his great performances happened during the chemical enhancement era? He was dominant during 1995 to 2004 at the height of the steroid use.I know runs and home runs were way up during this period and yet he, clemens, martinez put up some ungodly numbers. We know Clemens was a cheater. Maybe the whole story has not come out.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by cammb

Isn't it odd hat his great performances happened during the chemical enhancement era? He was dominant during 1995 to 2004 at the height of the steroid use.I know runs and home runs were way up during this period and yet he, clemens, martinez put up some ungodly numbers. We know Clemens was a cheater. Maybe the whole story has not come out.

I wouldn't put it past anyone.


However, in Johnson's case it was simply a matter of harnessing his control....that is all well documented. I'm not going to bother going through that entire history, both story-wise or statistical wise.

He always had the 100 MPH heat.

Unless steroids made him grow six inches from 1992 compared to 1995?

However, if you bring the steroids up and Johnson was NOT doing them(which it is very unlikely he was, and there is zero suspicion of him), and many of his pitching peers were? That only makes Johnson even more impressive!

For instance, Johnson lost the Cy Young to Clemens in 2004! I appreciate you bringing that up. Johnson gets another Cy Young award...according to your premise.

He also came in second to Clemens in 1997. There is another Cy Young for the Big Unit!

[cammb]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

I wouldn't put it past anyone.


However, in Johnson's case it was simply a matter of harnessing his control.

He always had the 100 MPH heat.

Unless steroids made him grow six inches from 1992 compared to 1995?

However, if you bring the steroids up and Johnson was NOT doing them, and many of his pitching peers were? That only makes Johnson even more impressive!

For instance, Johnson lost the Cy Young to Clemens in 2004! I appreciate you bringing that up. Johnson gets another Cy Young award...according to your premise.

He also came in second to Clemens in 1997. There is another Cy Young for the Big Unit!

As one baseball writer put it, "we don't vote for Clemens but we accept the accomplishments of other power pitchers that time". You like comparisons, so I like to compare him to Barry Bonds. Both got better with age.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by cammb

As one baseball writer put it, "we don't vote for Clemens but we accept the accomplishments of other power pitchers that time". You like comparisons, so I like to compare him to Barry Bonds. Both got better with age.

I'm personally undecided how to treat Clemens or Bonds. If you disregard steroids they are the best pitcher and best hitter ever respectively. However, I have no interest in getting into that debate

However, if you are going to ding Bonds and Clemens, then that just makes guys like Randy Johnson shine even brighter. Johnson gets a couple more Cy Youngs. I'll take this debate every day for the rest of the summer though. Maybe not every day...


I do want to point out, that as much as I am hailing Johnson over Koufax, I do agree that Koufax gets dinged a little too much by many sabermatricians for his home ballpark. It is definitely a factor, but the degree of which is indeed still up for debate.

[G1911]

Yes, Johnson pitching against a bunch of steroided up hitters in an offensively dominated era should count against him.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Told you, Brian!

Good call