Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

HistoricNewspapers · #1 11-17-2021, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

This is a fascinating subject. I really enjoy analyzing baseball history and player performance.

There seem to be a few disconnects in this debate.

One disconnect is how much weight to place on counting stats. Pro-Spahn posters in this thread rely on longevity and counting stats with what appears to be a decent peak, with a pretty good ERA+ across his peak years etc. Anti-Spahn posters believe he was a pretty average pitcher in regard to �stuff� since his K/9 doesn�t blow your hair back and wins are team dependent. He pitched a lot of innings and a lot of years, but innings eaters can�t get to GOAT status if they don�t provide elite innings. Essentially that Spahn�s peak is not enough to be the best lefty ever, even with all the counting stats. Koufax�s stats are obviously much different. One very good year, 5 off the charts years, some mediocre years, early retirement and nowhere near the overall counting stats of Spahn. Anti-Koufax posters essentially dismiss him outright because his lack of counting stats eliminate him from lefty GOAT status. He essentially didn�t pitch long enough to even be in the conversation. I tend to agree that the weaknesses of both Spahn and Koufax as described above eliminate them from lefty GOAT status. Both clearly were great pitchers though.

Another disconnect here is how to compare players by era. Snowman appears to be arguing that Grove�s pitching competition was weak and therefore his stats should be discounted a great deal. The ERA titles, ERA+ etc is tainted by weak pitching competition. Essentially that Grove was much better than his pitching peers, but since his pitching peers were very bad, him being much better than them should not be as impressive as the stats appear. I have always wondered about this, but I have no way of figuring out how to crunch the numbers to argue one way or the other. The 1920s / early 1930s batting averages went nuts. Hitters went crazy. How much of this was a result of bad pitching during those years? Anyway, Snowman, I am curious how stats can help us figure out which time periods were strong and which time periods are weak. It has always been something of a mystery to me. On a similar note, WAR is a bit misleading to me since it seems to value relative to replacement where replacement level is determined differently every year. The value of a replacement level player could be very different in a time period where quality of play overall is very high as compared to a time period where quality of play was lower. But how in the world can we figure out relative quality of play?

Randy Johnson is best lefty of all time and is in serious discussion for best pitcher of all time as well.

To get to your question, any argument to be made that Koufax's peers were better than Grove's also means that Randy Johnson's were better than Koufax's. Johnson's were indeed better than Koufax's, as were Koufax's better than Grove's.

The measurable's such as running speed, throwing speed, height, strength, bat speed, all show that players have gotten continually better generation after generation. This is fact. I can show more charts in another post. It is not a matter of evolution, although selective breeding is a factor. Most of it is a result from the sheer number of population growth and the addition of more parts of the world to draw players from.

Realize that we are on the cusp of having 8 billion people in the world right now to draw from, compared to 2001 where there were 6.2 billion, to 1965 where there were only 3.8 billion people in the world to draw from...and in 1935 appx 2.3 billion.

In reality, Grove and Koufax's population in the US and world wide viability of players to choose from, were closer in comparison. Wheras Johnson had it tougher, and anyone after Johnson even tougher.

People from yesteryear don't like to hear that. I'm from yesteryear, but the reality is the reality.

When you add the selective breeding of people who have found mates with the purpose of creating athletic off spring to make millions, and the advances in sports science to train them at a young age to maximize their MPH(with command) and their bat speed, that creates a vast difference between generations above and beyond what the logic of more people to draw from creates.

Of course Grove's generation actually excluded minorities from the US, making his peers even more worse than Koufax's.

However, in 1965 the league was still 78% white. In 2001 it was only 60% white so it is clear that the pool of players reached further out in 2001 than in even 1965. 1965 was still more homogonized than 2001.

That is X many more people in the world who can throw 95 MPH(with control) for Johnson and modern players to compete against, X many more people who can hit 430 foot home runs, X many more people who can throw a cannon from the hole at SS, etc...

There is more of that to expound upon and I will in a week, but Johnson does not even need that aspect to best Koufax. It really isn't that close, and I address some of the common things the Koufax camp says(and have addressed them earlier in the thread).

Best ERA+ seasons:
Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify

Johnson had unrivaled physical tools. No pitcher in MLB history can match his physical tools. He was six foot eleven and threw over 100 MPH with a ridiculous slider....WITH COMMAND(after a few year learning curve). Some pitchers had one or two of those tools, but nobody had ALL of those tools like he did.

Let me explain why the physical tools are of such importance. Why would you take another pitcher over Johnson if the other pitcher was ten inches shorter, threw three miles an hour slower, had lesser command, and similar or less breaking pitches? The only other factor would be mental make up. Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES.

Environments a player plays in severely muddles or hides statistical measurements, but the tools are concrete. The tools are a known. A lot of the statistical measurements are unknowns because environment muddles them. An environment can give false perceptions of ones true ability. Six foot eleven cannot be muddled. 100 MPH cannot be muddled. Nasty slider cannot be muddled. Command cannot be muddled. The only other obstacle is mental make up and thrive to succeed. He obviously passed that only unknown hurdle.

So when you are weighing all this, the physical tools play a vital role in solving the dilemma of cross era comparison.

Johnson had the results to back it up.

Johnson was umpire proof. He didn't need the inches off the plate like Maddux and Glavine often did to excel to the levels they did.

He was era proof. He didn't need lineups in the league where numbers six through nine were zero threats and hit basically zero power...like which occurred in other eras where scoring was depressed, or era's like the 30's where only the elite few were legit power threats.

In fact, he pitched in probably the toughest era to be a pitcher, with the live ball, DH, and steroids. Any pitcher that can handle the toughest environment to pitch in, surely would have no problem in the eras where it was pitcher friendly.

He didn't need a dead ball to excel or last a long time.

Johnson was stadium proof. He didn't need to rely on a certain stadium to make him dominant. Make no doubt, DOdger stadium helped Koufax tremendously.

Johnson had peak dominance and longevity dominance.

He was the guy that if you lined all these historic pitchers up at a local baseball field standing shoulder to shoulder, then watched him unleash what he had, he would be the guy every single coach would pick. Coaches would be drooling.

If you want to play the "what if" game people do with Koufax, realize that JOhnson missed two plus seasons worth of starts in his prime too. What if johnson didn't get hurt?

What if Clemens was not taking steroids and then the second place finisher(randy johnson) adds TWO MORE Cy Youngs?

My favorite what if? What if Johnson got to pitch off an eight inch higher mound, and had strikes called at the chest??

What if Koufax pitched in Coors Field half his career games...then there wouldn't even be this thread because Koufax's numbers would look much different, even though his ability would not be any different

G1911 · #2 11-17-2021, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Best ERA+ seasons:
Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify

First, I don't entirely disagree. If we abandon "who had the best contextual career" framing to make it "what pitcher, if in their prime, was dropped in 2021 without any preparation would do the best", it's probably Randy Johnson. His career numbers are amazing, and he was a power pitcher who didn't put it together until he was 29 years old. Imagine if he figured it out at 25. Putting things in context of time and place, I would put Randy #2 behind Grove, though he is my #1 favorite and personal preference, as he is the one I grew up watching and we share a hometown.

I do think this chart, which I believe has been posted a few times now, is extremely misleading, at best. It just stops tabulating for Grove half way down Grove pitched more than 8 full seasons that are included here, he won 9 ERA crowns alone plus other full seasons. It's just factually wrong and really should stop being used. I think any reasonable person here should agree. I'm open to being the fool if there is any good reason this chart, which ignores much of Grove's career and implies he played 8 seasons, is somehow valid.

HistoricNewspapers · #3 11-17-2021, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

First, I don't entirely disagree. If we abandon "who had the best contextual career" framing to make it "what pitcher, if in their prime, was dropped in 2021 without any preparation would do the best", it's probably Randy Johnson. His career numbers are amazing, and he was a power pitcher who didn't put it together until he was 29 years old. Imagine if he figured it out at 25. Putting things in context of time and place, I would put Randy #2 behind Grove, though he is my #1 favorite and personal preference, as he is the one I grew up watching and we share a hometown.

I do think this chart, which I believe has been posted a few times now, is extremely misleading, at best. It just stops tabulating for Grove half way down Grove pitched more than 8 full seasons that are included here, he won 9 ERA crowns alone plus other full seasons. It's just factually wrong and really should stop being used. I think any reasonable person here should agree. I'm open to being the fool if there is any good reason this chart, which ignores much of Grove's career and implies he played 8 seasons, is somehow valid.

The chart was more in relation to Koufax....Grove was just added for peak comparison....hence not all filled in for Grove and so I could have room to emphasize that Koufax was not contributing anything while Johnson was(while Grove was too).

No question Grove had a better career than Koufax.

There is no sensible argument that puts Koufax ahead of either Grove or Johnson. They both had Koufax's peak and they added a couple more four year peaks on top of that.

It really does come down to Grove and Johnson, but when you take into account the population factor of available VIABLE humans to compete against, and the fact that Grove's era actually went out of its way to eliminate a segment of the population to compete....and when you consider that Johnson had superior physical attributes that are the only known 100% measureables, then Johnson walks away as number one.

Johnson had tougher peers to outdistance.

Mark17 · #4 11-17-2021, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Randy Johnson is best lefty of all time and is in serious discussion for best pitcher of all time as well.

Randy led the league in ERA 4 times and in wins once. His post season record was just 7-9. He was a solid pitcher and deserves to be in the conversation, but I'll still take Grove, then Spahn of the lefties, and Walter for best overall.

If you lined up all the pitchers in the game in 1960, the guy who all the coaches and scouts would be drooling over, concerning raw ability and potential, wouldn't be Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, Gibson, Pierce, Ford, Pascual, or any of those guys. It would've been a fellow named Steve Dalkowski.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 11-17-2021, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Randy led the league in ERA 4 times and in wins once. His post season record was just 7-9. He was a solid pitcher and deserves to be in the conversation, but I'll still take Grove, then Spahn of the lefties, and Walter for best overall.

If you lined up all the pitchers in the game in 1960, the guy who all the coaches and scouts would be drooling over, concerning raw ability and potential, wouldn't be Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, Gibson, Pierce, Ford, Pascual, or any of those guys. It would've been a fellow named Steve Dalkowski.

You're cherry picking on Johnson. Don't forget 5 Cy Youngs, 3 2nds and a 3rd. Solid pitcher is just a bit of an understatement.

Mark17 · #6 11-17-2021, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're cherry picking on Johnson. Don't forget 5 Cy Youngs, 3 2nds and a 3rd. Solid pitcher is just a bit of an understatement.

How many would Grove have won, had the award existed?

Since some want to discount or dismiss win-loss stats, is ERA to be considered the best gauge? Johnson, against his peers, led his league in that stat exactly 4 times in his 22 year career. Grove led his league in ERA 9 times in his 17 year career.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 11-17-2021, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

How many would Grove have won, had the award existed?

Since some want to discount or dismiss win-loss stats, is ERA to be considered the best gauge? Johnson, against his peers, led his league in that stat exactly 4 times in his 22 year career. Grove led his league in ERA 9 times in his 17 year career.

Where did I say a single word against Grove? I ranked him first and have not backed off that.

cjedmonton · #8 11-17-2021, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

How many would Grove have won, had the award existed?

Since some want to discount or dismiss win-loss stats, is ERA to be considered the best gauge? Johnson, against his peers, led his league in that stat exactly 4 times in his 22 year career. Grove led his league in ERA 9 times in his 17 year career.

Has a �Cypothetical Young Award� thread or poll ever been tossed around here for pre-1956?

Mark17 · #9 11-17-2021, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

Has a �Cypothetical Young Award� thread or poll ever been tossed around here for pre-1956?

That's a neat idea. They have veterans committees to consider former ballplayers for exclusion in the Hall. There could likewise be some sort of committee to retroactively award Cy Young awards for pre- 1956 seasons.

It would be fun to pick a specific season and have a poll, as you suggest, to decide who the Cy winner would've/should've been.

Carter08 · #10 11-17-2021, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

That's a neat idea. They have veterans committees to consider former ballplayers for exclusion in the Hall. There could likewise be some sort of committee to retroactively award Cy Young awards for pre- 1956 seasons.

It would be fun to pick a specific season and have a poll, as you suggest, to decide who the Cy winner would've/should've been.

I like it

Snowman · #11 11-17-2021, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

How many would Grove have won, had the award existed?

Since some want to discount or dismiss win-loss stats, is ERA to be considered the best gauge? Johnson, against his peers, led his league in that stat exactly 4 times in his 22 year career. Grove led his league in ERA 9 times in his 17 year career.

No. Even ERA is highly subject to variance (read "luck"), which league they pitched in, and whether or not they pitched in a pitchers park.

Just go pick your favorite pitching seasons by your 10 random favorite pitchers. Then scroll down to the advanced stats section and look at the corresponding BABIPs for those seasons. I guarantee you those BABIPs will all be super low. In other words, those were the seasons they got the luckiest, not necessarily the seasons where they had the best stuff.

John1941 · #12 11-18-2021, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

No. Even ERA is highly subject to variance (read "luck"), which league they pitched in, and whether or not they pitched in a pitchers park.

Just go pick your favorite pitching seasons by your 10 random favorite pitchers. Then scroll down to the advanced stats section and look at the corresponding BABIPs for those seasons. I guarantee you those BABIPs will all be super low. In other words, those were the seasons they got the luckiest, not necessarily the seasons where they had the best stuff.

That is true, but it's more to helpful to look at this individual case. Using ERA+ eliminates the bias of park effects. Here's Johnson and Grove (100 is average):

Career #Led League
Randy Johnson 135 6
Lefty Grove 148 9

Because FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) only looks at strikeouts, walks, and home runs allowed, it eliminates the bias of BABIP.

Career #Led League
Randy Johnson 3.19 6
Lefty Grove 3.20 8

These two put Grove ahead.

Snowman · #13 11-17-2021, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Randy led the league in ERA 4 times and in wins once. His post season record was just 7-9. He was a solid pitcher and deserves to be in the conversation, but I'll still take Grove, then Spahn of the lefties, and Walter for best overall.

If you lined up all the pitchers in the game in 1960, the guy who all the coaches and scouts would be drooling over, concerning raw ability and potential, wouldn't be Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, Gibson, Pierce, Ford, Pascual, or any of those guys. It would've been a fellow named Steve Dalkowski.

Here you go again with the Wins and Losses records as if they mean anything at all. Who cares if he was 7-9 in the post season or if he only led the league in Wins one time? You might as well be criticizing his hair color or number of tattoos. Please stop with this nonsense. Wins attributed to a pitcher do not matter. At all.

cjedmonton · #14 11-17-2021, 07:12 PM

This has been a truly enjoyable thread, even if I�m out of my depth with much of the analysis.

Can�t help but wonder how the narrative would�ve unfolded with just the slightest tweak to the title:

~~Best~~ Most revered lefty of all time? My vote is (still) Koufax!

Despite the iron clad arguments for Robert Moses, Warren Edward, and Randall David, none�and I mean none carried the mystique and the aura of Sanford. Metrics cannot adequately quantify that.

Also, his peak fell during a perfect storm of West Coast expansion, the end of the Golden Era, and the ushering in of the pitching era. It was the right time and the right place for a guy like Koufax to dominate the scene like he did. There were so many great pitchers during his time, but Koufax�s artistry was unmatched�even if his stats don�t support it.

G1911 · #15 11-17-2021, 07:15 PM

Best: Grove

Best if everyone was randomly dropped in 2021 at their peak with no preparation and the advantages of modernity only given to the development of modern pitchers: Johnson

Most revered and worshipped: Koufax

Most interesting story: Dalkowski

Peter_Spaeth · #16 11-17-2021, 07:16 PM

Johnson gets no hobby love. His RCs in the same sets sell for a fraction of Griffey's.

cjedmonton · #17 11-17-2021, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Johnson gets no hobby love. His RCs in the same sets sell for a fraction of Griffey's.

Sad, but so true.

To be fair, pitcher-hitter hobby disparity aside, Johnson was a late blooming 25 year old still trying to find himself in �89�and was a solid 4 years away from resembling anything like the Big Unit.

Meanwhile, Griffey hit the ground running as a teenager the same year and never looked back.

Both eventually became titans at their position, but the hobby loves the long ball. That much cannot be argued.

Carter08 · #18 11-17-2021, 07:34 PM

Randy Johnson won MLB�s Warren Spahn Award as the best lefty the first four times it was issued. Not the Grove Award or the Koufax Award. Just sayin�.

cjedmonton · #19 11-17-2021, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Randy Johnson won MLB’s Warren Spahn Award as the best lefty the first four times it was issued. Not the Grove Award or the Koufax Award. Just sayin’.

Touche.

Love that Spahn has his own award, but the list of winners is somewhat dubious beyond Johnson, Kershaw, and Sabathia. Then again, so is the Cy Young Award. Mike Flanagan and Willie Hernandez anyone?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Spahn_Award

EDIT: Hot off the press…add Robbie Ray to the list of lefty Cy Young and likely Spahn Award winners.

bnorth · #20 11-17-2021, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Johnson gets no hobby love. His RCs in the same sets sell for a fraction of Griffey's.

Some of the 89 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro versions have gone crazy. I know of one that recently went for $13,000. Even the more normal versions have greatly increased in price over the last year.

Peter_Spaeth · #21 11-17-2021, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

Some of the 89 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro versions have gone crazy. I know of one that recently went for $13,000. Even the more normal versions have greatly increased in price over the last year.

OK, but can't you get his Upper Deck RC in PSA 10 for not much more than $100?

bnorth · #22 11-17-2021, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK, but can't you get his Upper Deck RC in PSA 10 for not much more than $100?

Yes it is just the 89 Fleer Marlboro versions that have taken off and it wasn't too long ago they went for a couple bucks each.

BobC · #23 11-17-2021, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

This has been a truly enjoyable thread, even if I’m out of my depth with much of the analysis.

Can’t help but wonder how the narrative would’ve unfolded with just the slightest tweak to the title:

~~Best~~ Most revered lefty of all time? My vote is (still) Koufax!

Despite the iron clad arguments for Robert Moses, Warren Edward, and Randall David, none…and I mean none carried the mystique and the aura of Sanford. Metrics cannot adequately quantify that.

Also, his peak fell during a perfect storm of West Coast expansion, the end of the Golden Era, and the ushering in of the pitching era. It was the right time and the right place for a guy like Koufax to dominate the scene like he did. There were so many great pitchers during his time, but Koufax’s artistry was unmatched…even if his stats don’t support it.

CJ

Great points and interesting thought by slightly changing the question like that. Problem I can see in answering it though is that it gives an unfair bias/advantage to modern pitchers, like a Koufax, who we may have grown up with, or maybe our Father did and told us how great he was. We can read and learn about earlier players, but I fear for the vast majority of people, they're much more likely to throw their reverence towards a player they'd actually seen and grew up watching. Just basic human nature. And you can't really base a question like this on just people here on this forum. Let's face it, we're mostly a bunch of pre-war baseball card collecting nerds, and an extreme outlier when talking about the public in general. LOL

cjedmonton · #24 11-18-2021, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

CJ

Great points and interesting thought by slightly changing the question like that. Problem I can see in answering it though is that it gives an unfair bias/advantage to modern pitchers, like a Koufax, who we may have grown up with, or maybe our Father did and told us how great he was. We can read and learn about earlier players, but I fear for the vast majority of people, they're much more likely to throw their reverence towards a player they'd actually seen and grew up watching. Just basic human nature. And you can't really base a question like on just people here on this forum. Let's face it, we're mostly a bunch of pre-war baseball card collecting nerds, and an extreme outlier when talking about the public in general. LOL

You�re spot on with this take, Bob. By and large, the players we admired and revered the most are those we have a direct (firsthand) or semi-direct connection with (through a parent�s or grandparent�s direct connection). Recency bias in full effect.

But there are only a handful of players whose reverence endures across generations�even if the vast majority of us never saw them play (or if we did, only a small percentage have a vivid and meaningful recollection). Seeing Roberto
patrol RF at Forbes Field in �66 as a 5 year old does not really count, as cool as that may be.

IMO, the list is a short one:

Babe
Lou
Jackie
Roberto
Willie
Mickey
Hank
Sandy

Not a slight to any of the other bonafide legends, but these 8 have a staying power in our consciousness and imagination like no others.

Then again, sentimentality has no place in this thread�even if we are all just fan(atics) at heart!

BobC · #25 11-18-2021, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjedmonton

You’re spot on with this take, Bob. By and large, the players we admired and revered the most are those we have a direct (firsthand) or semi-direct connection with (through a parent’s or grandparent’s direct connection). Recency bias in full effect.

But there are only a handful of players whose reverence endures across generations…even if the vast majority of us never saw them play (or if we did, only a small percentage have a vivid and meaningful recollection). Seeing Roberto
patrol RF at Forbes Field in ‘66 as a 5 year old does not really count, as cool as that may be.

IMO, the list is a short one:

Babe
Lou
Jackie
Roberto
Willie
Mickey
Hank
Sandy

Not a slight to any of the other bonafide legends, but these 8 have a staying power in our consciousness and imagination like no others.

Then again, sentimentality has no place in this thread…even if we are all just fan(atics) at heart!

Makes perfect sense, and that is a great list. But the majority of people on your list are still recent enough that we, or a family member, would possibly still be affected by that familiarity bias. Ruth and Gehrig (and possibly Robinson) are back enough that we wouldn't likely have that familiarity bias. But those earlier players have movies and shows about them to keep them in the public eye long after they were done playing. So that helps as well.

Snowman · #26 11-17-2021, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Randy Johnson is best lefty of all time and is in serious discussion for best pitcher of all time as well.

To get to your question, any argument to be made that Koufax's peers were better than Grove's also means that Randy Johnson's were better than Koufax's. Johnson's were indeed better than Koufax's, as were Koufax's better than Grove's.

The measurable's such as running speed, throwing speed, height, strength, bat speed, all show that players have gotten continually better generation after generation. This is fact. I can show more charts in another post. It is not a matter of evolution, although selective breeding is a factor. Most of it is a result from the sheer number of population growth and the addition of more parts of the world to draw players from.

Realize that we are on the cusp of having 8 billion people in the world right now to draw from, compared to 2001 where there were 6.2 billion, to 1965 where there were only 3.8 billion people in the world to draw from...and in 1935 appx 2.3 billion.

In reality, Grove and Koufax's population in the US and world wide viability of players to choose from, were closer in comparison. Wheras Johnson had it tougher, and anyone after Johnson even tougher.

People from yesteryear don't like to hear that. I'm from yesteryear, but the reality is the reality.

When you add the selective breeding of people who have found mates with the purpose of creating athletic off spring to make millions, and the advances in sports science to train them at a young age to maximize their MPH(with command) and their bat speed, that creates a vast difference between generations above and beyond what the logic of more people to draw from creates.

Of course Grove's generation actually excluded minorities from the US, making his peers even more worse than Koufax's.

However, in 1965 the league was still 78% white. In 2001 it was only 60% white so it is clear that the pool of players reached further out in 2001 than in even 1965. 1965 was still more homogonized than 2001.

That is X many more people in the world who can throw 95 MPH(with control) for Johnson and modern players to compete against, X many more people who can hit 430 foot home runs, X many more people who can throw a cannon from the hole at SS, etc...

There is more of that to expound upon and I will in a week, but Johnson does not even need that aspect to best Koufax. It really isn't that close, and I address some of the common things the Koufax camp says(and have addressed them earlier in the thread).

Best ERA+ seasons:
Johnson....Koufax.....Grove
197........190............217
195........186............189
193........160............185
188........159............185
184........143............175
181........122............165
176........105............160
152........101............160
135.........93
135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify
112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify

Johnson had unrivaled physical tools. No pitcher in MLB history can match his physical tools. He was six foot eleven and threw over 100 MPH with a ridiculous slider....WITH COMMAND(after a few year learning curve). Some pitchers had one or two of those tools, but nobody had ALL of those tools like he did.

Let me explain why the physical tools are of such importance. Why would you take another pitcher over Johnson if the other pitcher was ten inches shorter, threw three miles an hour slower, had lesser command, and similar or less breaking pitches? The only other factor would be mental make up. Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES.

Environments a player plays in severely muddles or hides statistical measurements, but the tools are concrete. The tools are a known. A lot of the statistical measurements are unknowns because environment muddles them. An environment can give false perceptions of ones true ability. Six foot eleven cannot be muddled. 100 MPH cannot be muddled. Nasty slider cannot be muddled. Command cannot be muddled. The only other obstacle is mental make up and thrive to succeed. He obviously passed that only unknown hurdle.

So when you are weighing all this, the physical tools play a vital role in solving the dilemma of cross era comparison.

Johnson had the results to back it up.

Johnson was umpire proof. He didn't need the inches off the plate like Maddux and Glavine often did to excel to the levels they did.

He was era proof. He didn't need lineups in the league where numbers six through nine were zero threats and hit basically zero power...like which occurred in other eras where scoring was depressed, or era's like the 30's where only the elite few were legit power threats.

In fact, he pitched in probably the toughest era to be a pitcher, with the live ball, DH, and steroids. Any pitcher that can handle the toughest environment to pitch in, surely would have no problem in the eras where it was pitcher friendly.

He didn't need a dead ball to excel or last a long time.

Johnson was stadium proof. He didn't need to rely on a certain stadium to make him dominant. Make no doubt, DOdger stadium helped Koufax tremendously.

Johnson had peak dominance and longevity dominance.

He was the guy that if you lined all these historic pitchers up at a local baseball field standing shoulder to shoulder, then watched him unleash what he had, he would be the guy every single coach would pick. Coaches would be drooling.

If you want to play the "what if" game people do with Koufax, realize that JOhnson missed two plus seasons worth of starts in his prime too. What if johnson didn't get hurt?

What if Clemens was not taking steroids and then the second place finisher(randy johnson) adds TWO MORE Cy Youngs?

My favorite what if? What if Johnson got to pitch off an eight inch higher mound, and had strikes called at the chest??

What if Koufax pitched in Coors Field half his career games...then there wouldn't even be this thread because Koufax's numbers would look much different, even though his ability would not be any different

^^^This guy knows what he's talking about.

And while I say that I don't "know" who was best (because I haven't run the calculations necessary), gun to my head I'm picking Randy Johnson as well.

Tabe · #27 11-18-2021, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES.

I wouldn't give Johnson TOO MUCH credit for his mental makeup and toughness. We're talking about a guy who intentionally tanked half a season to force a trade out of Seattle.

Snowman · #28 11-19-2021, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

I wouldn't give Johnson TOO MUCH credit for his mental makeup and toughness. We're talking about a guy who intentionally tanked half a season to force a trade out of Seattle.

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

mrreality68 · #29 11-19-2021, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

+1 Agreed well said

BobbyStrawberry · #30 11-19-2021, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports.

You must not be familiar with the New York Knickerbockers.

Peter_Spaeth · #31 11-19-2021, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You must not be familiar with the New York Knickerbockers.

The Orioles aren't exactly spending up to win for their fans.

BobbyStrawberry · #32 11-19-2021, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Orioles aren't exactly spending up to win for their fans.

Agreed, the Rockies are also horribly run. They won't spend enough to win, and refuse to tank to get better in the long term.

Snowman · #33 11-19-2021, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You must not be familiar with the New York Knickerbockers.

Ahem...

The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it.

They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME.

Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners.

When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close.

BobbyStrawberry · #34 11-19-2021, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ahem...

The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it.

They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME.

Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners.

When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close.

Sounds like we have different criteria for defining "worst franchise in all of sports"–ask any New York sports fan about Jim Dolan and watch them as they try in vain to suppress their outrage...

darwinbulldog · #35 11-19-2021, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ahem...

The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it.

They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME.

Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners.

When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close.

Mariners have won 47% of their games and 0 World Series games since 1977.

Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969.

I'd say it's quite close.

egri · #36 11-19-2021, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Mariners have won 47% of their games and 0 World Series games since 1977.

Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969.

I'd say it's quite close.

I wish The Founder had included the part where Ray Kroc used the PA system to chastise the Padres during a game.

Kzoo · #37 11-19-2021, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Mariners have won 47% of their games and 0 World Series games since 1977.

Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969.

I'd say it's quite close.

As bad as those 2 franchises might be, the Detroit Lions are not too far behind. Granted, they won a few NFL championships from the 1930's to 1950's, but they have only won 1 playoff game since 1957, and hold the current distinction as the oldest NFL franchise to never appear in a Super Bowl.

My Dad and I gave up on them a few years ago after wasting too many Sunday afternoons watching them create new and creative ways to lose games.

Season after season of watching them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory each week felt bad for our health.

We're much happier now.

Tabe · #38 11-19-2021, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

I would say if you don't blame a guy for faking an injury and intentionally tanking games, it says a lot about your character let alone the character of the guy doing it.

Snowman · #39 11-19-2021, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would say if you don't blame a guy for faking an injury and intentionally tanking games, it says a lot about your character let alone the character of the guy doing it.

The idea that one needs to try to win at all costs while playing for a team that has made it abundantly clear that they intend to lose at all costs is pretty silly. Especially if he was being treated like shit in the process. Kudos to Randy Johnson for getting himself out of a bad situation.

Mark17 · #40 11-19-2021, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

The idea that one needs to try to win at all costs while playing for a team that has made it abundantly clear that they intend to lose at all costs is pretty silly. Especially if he was being treated like shit in the process. Kudos to Randy Johnson for getting himself out of a bad situation.

This comment has made me decide to not pay Snowman $500,000 to develop that statistical analysis he brags he could build. I think he'd be likely to take the money and give a half-@ss effort.

BobC · #41 11-19-2021, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

This comment has made me decide to not pay Snowman $500,000 to develop that statistical analysis he brags he could build. I think he'd be likely to take the money and give a half-@ss effort.

Half?!?!?!

I'm thinking you're being way to generous there. Maybe a third-@ss, or even a quarter-@ss effort?

Tabe · #42 11-19-2021, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

The idea that one needs to try to win at all costs while playing for a team that has made it abundantly clear that they intend to lose at all costs is pretty silly. Especially if he was being treated like shit in the process. Kudos to Randy Johnson for getting himself out of a bad situation.

When you're already in a hole, stop digging.

BobC · #43 11-19-2021, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe

I would say if you don't blame a guy for faking an injury and intentionally tanking games, it says a lot about your character let alone the character of the guy doing it.

Excellent point, couldn't agree more.

And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either.

Snowman · #44 11-19-2021, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Excellent point, couldn't agree more.

And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either.

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

Mark17 · #45 11-19-2021, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

Tell me how Joe Jackson's stats in the 1919 World Series would clue you in to the fact he was on the gamblers' payroll, paid to lose.

Carter08 · #46 11-19-2021, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

All of this talk is irrelevant though if it actually never happened. I, for one, have never even heard this rumor before about Randy Johnson throwing games or faking injuries. I'm just saying kudos to him for finding a way out of Seattle if he did. But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, so I'm not so sure I buy it. If he were actually throwing games, that would show up in his stats, and if he were faking injuries, he would have been missing starts, no?

Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man.

You sound kind of like a dick sometimes. No one else does.

Tabe · #47 11-20-2021, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

But if you look at his stats from the year he got traded, and even the year before that, he didn't appear to miss any time and his stats were in line with what he was doing in the years just prior to that, .

His ERA was over 2 full runs higher in 1998 before the trade compared to 1997 but, sure, his stats were right in line.

Mark17 · #48 11-19-2021, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we really blame him for that though? The Mariners are the worst franchise in all of sports. Not just the MLB. All major sports. As someone who grew up in Seattle, he gets a standing ovation from me for that move. The Mariners are the only Seattle sports team that I don't root for. They basically gave the fans a big middle finger for decades, so I gave one back.

If you take the paychecks, you owe 100% effort. Period.

BobC · #49 11-19-2021, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you take the paychecks, you owe 100% effort. Period.

Couldn't agree more!

And along those lines, can't remember if it was Dimaggio, Mantle, or some other player who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that they always went out and played every game as hard/well as they could, even if they were hurting or slightly injured, because they knew some kid/person had paid for their ticket to come and watch him play that day. And that's the kind of person/player you put into a conversation of greatest of all time. It's that intangible human factor that statistics can't measure.

bnorth · #50 11-19-2021, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Couldn't agree more!

And along those lines, can't remember if it was Dimaggio, Mantle, or some other player who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that they always went out and played every game as hard/well as they could, even if they were hurting or slightly injured, because they knew some kid/person had paid for their ticket to come and watch him play that day. And that's the kind of person/player you put into a conversation of greatest of all time. It's that intangible human factor that statistics can't measure.

My favorite give it all guys are Derek Jeter in baseball and Alonzo Mourning in basketball. They both seemed to give all they had all the time.

Randy being a quitter that year could be why he has such a small fan base and the reason his cards are dirt cheap.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lefty Grove = Lefty Groves... And Lefty's 1921 Tip Top Bread Card	leftygrove10	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	10-15-2019 01:55 AM
62 koufax ,59 mays,72 mays vg ends monday 8 est time sold ended	rjackson44	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	3	05-22-2017 06:00 PM
Final Poll!! Vote of the all time worst Topps produced set	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	22	07-28-2015 08:55 PM
Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig?	wheels56	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	05-17-2015 05:25 AM
It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time!	iggyman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	68	09-17-2013 01:42 AM