Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[cammb]

I think Koufax has received more accolades from his contemporaries and sportswriters of this time than any pitcher I have read about. His last four years are incredible. The guy was inducted to the Hall at the age of 37!!! If that doesn't sway you, nothing will.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by cammb

I think Koufax has received more accolades from his contemporaries and sportswriters of this time than any pitcher I have read about. His last four years are incredible. The guy was inducted to the Hall at the age of 37!!! If that doesn't sway you, nothing will.

I guess I'd appreciate my all-time pitcher to still be pitching at a high level at age 37 instead of having 5 summers of sitting on a shelf, but maybe I'm off base??

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I guess I'd appreciate my all-time pitcher to still be pitching at a high level at age 37 instead of having 5 summers of sitting on a shelf, but maybe I'm off base??

LOL he actually retired at 30. And he wasn't very good until he was 25. He had a phenomenal 6 year run (probably better characterized as 5, the first year was only very good) and that was it.

At his zenith, was he as good as anyone? I guess that depends how much weight you put on the disparity between his home and road stats.

But I think there are a lot of externalities that have enhanced his reputation.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I was coming on to point out that people act like Koufax took forever to develop when he was actually incredibly young when he started and stuck on a major league roster because of his bonus baby status, same as his 1954 classmate Harmon Killebrew. Both likely would've benefited by a couple of years in the minors instead of languishing on a major league bench, but both were still a "normal" age when they put it all together.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I was coming on to point out that people act like Koufax took forever to develop when he was actually incredibly young when he started and stuck on a major league roster because of his bonus baby status, same as his 1954 classmate Harmon Killebrew. Both likely would've benefited by a couple of years in the minors instead of languishing on a major league bench, but both were still a "normal" age when they put it all together.

So forgetting whether someone is left or right handed for a minute, does what you're saying mean anything in determining who was a better overall pitcher when comparing say Koufax, who took several years to really develop as a pitcher, to Bob Feller, who literally seemed to walk off an Iowa farm and directly into into ball parks and blow away major league hitters from day one, while still a teenager?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I don't know how you would get that out of my post. In which I made no comparisons nor ranked Koufax. I was pointing out an interesting fact that may have kept him from becoming even greater (or greater for a longer period) Of course the minors could have also backfired, maybe he has to retire even earlier if he pitches more as a youngster, who knows?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I don't know how you would get that out of my post. In which I made no comparisons nor ranked Koufax. I was pointing out an interesting fact that may have kept him from becoming even greater (or greater for a longer period) Of course the minors could have also backfired, maybe he has to retire even earlier if he pitches more as a youngster, who knows?

Hey Scott,

My apologies, wasn't meant to disparage you or as any type of a put down. Also wasn't a comment for or against Koufax, just that was who you referenced in your post, and I just continued using the same reference. Your comment just got me thinking how players can more quickly or slowly develop at different ages and times, and merely wondered if that could have some impact on how good a player may be perceived as being by others. Was hoping to hear what you and others think, that was all.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

I think Koufax has received more accolades from his contemporaries and sportswriters of this time than any pitcher I have read about. His last four years are incredible. The guy was inducted to the Hall at the age of 37!!! If that doesn't sway you, nothing will.

Koufax is in the majors but not producing much at age 19, which I really wouldn't hold him against as he was developing like most players this age. The bonus baby rule kept him on the roster, as someone else noted.

Koufax became an above average player at 25.

Koufax broke out into a star at age 26 the next year.

Koufax was truly great, from ages 26-30.

He was done at age 30.


Meanwhile:

Grove entered the majors at 25, held hostage in Baltimore. He was not very good that season.

He became a star at age 26, when he led the league in ERA for the first time. The same exact time Koufax did.

Grove was great from ages 26-30.

At this point there careers are very similar, Sandy's years probably slightly greater. Koufax has a 167 ERA+ from 26-30, Grove has a 157. Both are absolutely dominating their leagues. This is the point of comparison in their careers most favorable to Koufax, and he is barely winning.

After age 30, Grove won 6 more ERA crowns, career years in which Koufax was producing absolutely nothing. He went 185-84 with a 150 ERA+ after age 30. He was a truly great pitcher at age 39, above average at 40, done at 41.

I guess if Grove had been sitting at home retired instating of leading the league in ERA 6 times and dominating the AL, he could be the GOAT.

By what rational standard can this, that Sandy's early retirement and his career ending at 30, possibly be a point in favor for Koufax? I don't see a winning argument for Koufax, but there are much, much better arguments than this kind of absurd trolling. Can we not ask ourselves "does this make any sense whatsoever?" before making a claim?


If press headlines and sportswriters are our determining factor, lets see this applied to every player and position. Jeter is the GOAT shortstop, Dimaggio the greatest CF, Jackie the best 2B of all time by a country mile. The most famous is the best.

If it's based on accolades and awards, it's still not Koufax, it's Randy Johnson, 5 time Cy Young winner, 10 time all star, 97.3% Hall of Fame vote receiver (Koufax only got 86.9%), the most decorated lefty in baseball history. This is simply not a point for Koufax if you want to go by the hardware.

If it is based on their peers, players from the 30's thought Grove was the toughest lefty they faced, players in the 60's Koufax, and players in the 00's Johnson. Nobody wins this.

These arguments are silly and even if they weren't, still don't show Koufax as #1.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Spahn won …. wait for it.... 250+ games after age 30 lol. Of course, everyone here knows wins don't matter. And he didn't refuse to pitch on Yom Kippur or (as far as I know) make the cover of LIFE.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Spahn won …. wait for it.... 250+ games after age 30 lol. Of course, everyone here knows wins don't matter. And he didn't refuse to pitch on Yom Kippur or (as far as I know) make the cover of LIFE.

This brings to mind another question. Okay, lets say wins don't matter, they are heavily overrated but let's just completely dismiss them entirely. How many pitchers have 363 or more total decisions but are only "above average, at best"? Maybe a handful at most.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

This brings to mind another question. Okay, lets say wins don't matter, they are heavily overrated but let's just completely dismiss them entirely. How many pitchers have 363 or more total decisions but are only "above average, at best"? Maybe a handful at most.

To be sure, in a short stretch, pitchers can win games without being very good and lose games while being outstanding. But over a long period of time, it being baseball, these things I think tend to average out. So wins at least in the complete game era end up being at least a decent proxy for a combination of longevity and quality even if other metrics are even better.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To be sure, in a short stretch, pitchers can win games without being very good and lose games while being outstanding. But over a long period of time, it being baseball, these things I think tend to average out. So wins at least in the complete game era end up being at least a decent proxy for a combination of longevity and quality even if other metrics are even better.

Personally, I agree. I think wins are a pretty decent stat in the complete game era, not as good as many others or ERA, but hardly without value. In today's game, I think the win is a nearly meaningless statistic.

nobody won 300 games without being an excellent pitcher. No one won 200 games without being pretty darn good. There's some edge cases of good pitchers on bad teams having a bad record (Bob Friend stands out off the top of my mind), but a pitcher with a lot of wins correlates well to the other value stats.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by G1911

Koufax is in the majors but not producing much at age 19, which I really wouldn't hold him against as he was developing like most players this age. The bonus baby rule kept him on the roster, as someone else noted.

Koufax became an above average player at 25.

Koufax broke out into a star at age 26 the next year.

Koufax was truly great, from ages 26-30.

He was done at age 30.


Meanwhile:

Grove entered the majors at 25, held hostage in Baltimore. He was not very good that season.

He became a star at age 26, when he led the league in ERA for the first time. The same exact time Koufax did.

Grove was great from ages 26-30.

At this point there careers are very similar, Sandy's years probably slightly greater. Koufax has a 167 ERA+ from 26-30, Grove has a 157. Both are absolutely dominating their leagues. This is the point of comparison in their careers most favorable to Koufax, and he is barely winning.

After age 30, Grove won 6 more ERA crowns, career years in which Koufax was producing absolutely nothing. He went 185-84 with a 150 ERA+ after age 30. He was a truly great pitcher at age 39, above average at 40, done at 41.

I guess if Grove had been sitting at home retired instating of leading the league in ERA 6 times and dominating the AL, he could be the GOAT.

By what rational standard can this, that Sandy's early retirement and his career ending at 30, possibly be a point in favor for Koufax? I don't see a winning argument for Koufax, but there are much, much better arguments than this kind of absurd trolling. Can we not ask ourselves "does this make any sense whatsoever?" before making a claim?


If press headlines and sportswriters are our determining factor, lets see this applied to every player and position. Jeter is the GOAT shortstop, Dimaggio the greatest CF, Jackie the best 2B of all time by a country mile. The most famous is the best.

If it's based on accolades and awards, it's still not Koufax, it's Randy Johnson, 5 time Cy Young winner, 10 time all star, 97.3% Hall of Fame vote receiver (Koufax only got 86.9%), the most decorated lefty in baseball history. This is simply not a point for Koufax if you want to go by the hardware.

If it is based on their peers, players from the 30's thought Grove was the toughest lefty they faced, players in the 60's Koufax, and players in the 00's Johnson. Nobody wins this.

These arguments are silly and even if they weren't, still don't show Koufax as #1.

Well since you declared these arguments to be silly, I guess we will not hear from you again.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cammb

Well since you declared these arguments to be silly, I guess we will not hear from you again.

…I don’t think you read that right…

[5-Tool Player]

Warren Spann