Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, it was as I said. 97. Take offense if you wish, though.

Yes, we didn't hit against him. Nobody hit against all the great lefties. Which is EXACTLY why some of us are using math and verifiable facts here; something besides completely subjective testimony of people who did not face the others discussed and so have no useful relevance.

The math suggests it WAS largely due to Chavez Ravine, as he did not have excellent numbers outside of his home park. See previous breakdowns.

Yes, I am taking a clinical approach using math and things that can be verified, instead of an emotional attachment to Koufax. The question posited was who is the best of all time, not who your favorite is.

Oh hey, there are no bad vibes. I wasn't at all offended. It just seemed like there were a string of a couple of sarcastic remarks by a couple of the guys, and when I saw the one I responded to, I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. This is a great discussion, and I have learned a lot from it. I will acknowledge that Chavez Ravine was an asset for Koufax, but not the reason for his greatness.

After we spoke last night, I decided to look a bit more at the stats, and I came up with what I feel is statistical proof that bears out my point.

If you break down Koufax's home and away E.R.A's year by year, they go like this:

1955

Home 2.25
Away 4.08


1956

Home 7.50
Away 3.76


1957

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1958

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1959

Home 2.71
Away 5.50


1960

Home 5.27
Away 3.00


1961

Home 4.22
Away 2.77



1962

Home 1.75
Away 3.53



1963

Home 1.38
Away 2.31



1964

Home 0.85
Away 2.93



1965

Home 1.38
Away 2.72



1966

Home 1.52
Away 1.96



Okay. If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

'I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.


1.96, his last year.


To make the claim that Chavez Ravine was largely responsible for Koufax's improvement, as evidenced by the significant improvement of Koufax's record on the road, where he had to deal with everything every other visiting pitcher had to deal with in those parks, makes the claim that Chavez Ravine made Koufax the pitcher he was, preposterous. Again, look at Koufax's stats on the road from 1955-1960, and then from 1961 onward. Koufax became a better pitcher because he changed his approach toward pitching. His stats may have been helped somewhat at home by pitching at Chavez, but given his overall improvement, as evidenced by what his E.R.A. was on the road, the argument that Chavez was responsible for his improvement, collapses.

Also, one should take into account that he struck out 269 batters in 1961, which was the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine, and took place after the Norm Sherry conversation.

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

That's right, because he was great and they were not. If they hadn't been in the league he would have posted great numbers as well.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Mark17

And, as I mentioned earlier, in 1962, two really feeble expansion teams were added to the N.L., and from 1962-1966, Sandy was 31-4 against them. That had to help, too.

This really isn't an argument. Expansion was necessary because of the influx of minority talent. The Angels went 86-76 and finished 3rd in the AL their 2nd season. Expansion really only applies to a season or maybe two, after that it is management, like any other team, that determines if they are good or bad and there are going to be bad teams in every era. After all, why did Maris set the HR record in 1961 and then Mantle or someone else come along the next season and break it or come close? Players had huge jumps in performance in the AL in 1961 and then regressed back to the norm after that.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Oh hey, there are no bad vibes. I wasn't at all offended. It just seemed like there were a string of a couple of sarcastic remarks by a couple of the guys, and when I saw the one I responded to, I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from. This is a great discussion, and I have learned a lot from it. I will acknowledge that Chavez Ravine was an asset for Koufax, but not the reason for his greatness.

After we spoke last night, I decided to look a bit more at the stats, and I came up with what I feel is statistical proof that bears out my point.

If you break down Koufax's home and away E.R.A's year by year, they go like this:

1955

Home 2.25
Away 4.08


1956

Home 7.50
Away 3.76


1957

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1958

Home 3.70
Away 4.10


1959

Home 2.71
Away 5.50


1960

Home 5.27
Away 3.00


1961

Home 4.22
Away 2.77



1962

Home 1.75
Away 3.53



1963

Home 1.38
Away 2.31



1964

Home 0.85
Away 2.93



1965

Home 1.38
Away 2.72



1966

Home 1.52
Away 1.96



Okay. If your argument is that Chavez Ravine, largely created the phenomenon that was Sandy Koufax, look at his away E.R.A's. You'll notice that from 1955 - 1959, they were really quite high. He brought things down a bit in 1960, but obviously with an 8-13 Won/Loss Record, and an overall 3.91 E.R.A. for the year, it wasn't exactly a banner year.

Then look at 1961, which was a year before Koufax and the Dodgers played at Chavez. Koufax' away E.R.A. is down below 3.00 for the first time, at 2.77. His Won/Loss Record goes up to 18-13.

Interestingly, in the spring of that year, catcher Norm Sherry spoke with Koufax about his control. In an interview, he said:

'It was 1961 in Orlando, where we went to play the Twins in an exhibition game. We’d talked on the plane going over there, and he said, “I want to work on my change-up and my curveball.” We went with a very minimal squad because one of our pitchers missed the plane. Gil Hodges went as our manager. [Koufax] couldn’t throw a strike, and he ended up walking the first three guys. I went to the mound and said, “Sandy, we don’t have many guys here; we’re going to be here a long day. Why don’t you take something off the ball and just put it in there? Don’t try to throw it so hard. Just put it in there and let them hit it.”'

'I went back behind the plate. Good God! He tried to ease up, and he was throwing harder than when he tried to. We came off the field, and I said, “Sandy, I don’t know if you realize it, but you just now threw harder than when you were trying to.” What he did was that he got his rhythm better and the ball jumped out of his hand and exploded at the plate. He struck out the side. It made sense to him that when you try to overdo something, you do less. Just like guys who swing so hard, they can’t hit the ball. He got really good.'


Koufax himself said, 'I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it.'

Now if you look at his record going forward, the next year, yes, the Dodgers moved to Chavez, and his record improved. But his away record improved also. The 3.53 E.R.A he posted on the road in 1962, is misleading. His last legitimate start was on July 12th where he pitched 7 innings beating the Mets 1-0. However, by this point, the pain in his pitching due to a crushed artery in his left palm, put him on the disabled list after a one-inning outing at Crosley Field on July 17th, a game in which he was tagged for the loss, and was credited with an 18.00 E.R.A.

He attempted to pitch again in September and October, getting into four games. Three out of those four were on the road. His E.R.A for the month of September was 8.22 and for October, ws 27.00. He only pitched a total of 8.2 innings in September and October. And if you add the inning he pitched on July 17th, that's a total of 9.2 innings. Four out of five of those games were on the road. If you eliminate the E.R.A.'s from those games, his away E.R.A. goes down significantly. It would be interesting to calculate that. Maybe we could do that in a bit.

Then you go on the 1963 -1966 run. And we all know what Koufax did there. His E.R.A.'s on the road respectively are 2.31, 2.93, 2.72, 1.96.


1.96, his last year.


To make the claim that Chavez Ravine was largely responsible for Koufax's improvement, as evidenced by the significant improvement of Koufax's record on the road, where he had to deal with everything every other visiting pitcher had to deal with in those parks, makes the claim that Chavez Ravine made Koufax the pitcher he was, preposterous. Again, look at Koufax's stats on the road from 1955-1960, and then from 1961 onward. Koufax became a better pitcher because he changed his approach toward pitching. His stats may have been helped somewhat at home by pitching at Chavez, but given his overall improvement, as evidenced by what his E.R.A. was on the road, the argument that Chavez was responsible for his improvement, collapses.

Also, one should take into account that he struck out 269 batters in 1961, which was the year before the Dodgers moved into Chavez Ravine, and took place after the Norm Sherry conversation.

You can argue that the confluence of events such as the widened strike zone and Chavez played a role in boosting his stats at home. But there is absolutely no doubt that Koufax improved in a stunning way, largely determined by his change in his approach toward pitching. His significantly improved stats on the road, bear this out.

When I brought up the road argument, it is because another poster said his road numbers were good, not great, and then the Koufax advocates tried to claim that he was being labelled as good, not great, overall. I clarified the distinction that was explicit from the first.

For the record, I think Koufax was a great pitcher from 1962-1966. He was a good pitcher in 1961 (and in the 41 innings he pitched in 1955, actually). He was mediocre 1956-1960 (actually, he was terrible in 1956). If Babe Ruth had 4 or 5 great years, he wouldn't be the greatest of all time either.

The math is compelling on the road though. His away ERA in his turning year you highlight of 1962 was actually higher than the 2 previous years. In 1964 his road ERA is 300% more than his home. It is only 1963 and 1966 that his road ERA is significantly better than it was 'before' the magic turn that just happened to coincide perfectly with adjustments to his park and context that greatly favored him. He pitched in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in one of the most pitcher-friendly periods of baseball history, and his home/road splits are drastic. It is difficult not to link the two.

When you take his road/home splits which are drastic, and factor in context (very low run league, pitchers era, high mound, ballpark extremely favorable to pitchers, expansion era, very short peak) the math does not suggest that he was the greatest ever, that his road performance was anywhere near his home performance, and highlights exactly why he put up such great numbers.

Context matters, it would be remiss to look at Bonds' stats and ignore that they happened on steroids during an offensive era that dominated baseball. It would be remiss to ignore Helton put up his numbers at Coors, even if to place into context does not mean that he was not an excellent player. It doesn't mean Sandy wasn't a great pitcher, though for a short time, or he shouldn't be someone's favorite. If the discussion is "best of all time", then it needs to be supported by the math in context or we are just praising whoever we like. No math suggests that Koufax's 4 years were more dominating than Grove's 9, or that his home ballpark was not a massive factor in his favor.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

When I brought up the road argument, it is because another poster said his road numbers were good, not great, and then the Koufax advocates tried to claim that he was being labelled as good, not great, overall. I clarified the distinction that was explicit from the first.

For the record, I think Koufax was a great pitcher from 1962-1966. He was a good pitcher in 1961 (and in the 41 innings he pitched in 1955, actually). He was mediocre 1956-1960 (actually, he was terrible in 1956). If Babe Ruth had 4 or 5 great years, he wouldn't be the greatest of all time either.

The math is compelling on the road though. His away ERA in his turning year you highlight of 1962 was actually higher than the 2 previous years. In 1964 his road ERA is 300% more than his home. It is only 1963 and 1966 that his road ERA is significantly better than it was 'before' the magic turn that just happened to coincide perfectly with adjustments to his park and context that greatly favored him. He pitched in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in one of the most pitcher-friendly periods of baseball history, and his home/road splits are drastic. It is difficult not to link the two.

When you take his road/home splits which are drastic, and factor in context (very low run league, pitchers era, high mound, ballpark extremely favorable to pitchers, expansion era, very short peak) the math does not suggest that he was the greatest ever, that his road performance was anywhere near his home performance, and highlights exactly why he put up such great numbers.

Context matters, it would be remiss to look at Bonds' stats and ignore that they happened on steroids during an offensive era that dominated baseball. It would be remiss to ignore Helton put up his numbers at Coors, even if to place into context does not mean that he was not an excellent player. It doesn't mean Sandy wasn't a great pitcher, though for a short time, or he shouldn't be someone's favorite. If the discussion is "best of all time", then it needs to be supported by the math in context or we are just praising whoever we like. No math suggests that Koufax's 4 years were more dominating than Grove's 9, or that his home ballpark was not a massive factor in his favor.

Longevity seems to be what's at issue for many here. The early part of Koufax's career seems to cancel out for many, any claims Koufax would have to being the greatest of all-time. I understand the argument. If everybody wants to go for Grove, that's fine. I'm not saying Grove wasn't great. He of course, was. I'm just arguing against those who seem to want to downplay just how great Koufax was by overplaying the Chavez angle, the mound, strike zone, and expansion.

I have said Chavez was an asset. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on it, rather than the conscious change on Koufax's part as to how he pitched. And 1961 was the year he changed direction.

I don't care by what percentage his road E.R.A was higher in 1964 over his home E.R.A. You want to say how easy it was to pitch at Chavez. Don Drysdale was no slouch, and his E.R.A that year was 2.02. He was a great pitcher. Why wasn't he down at 0.85? I guess one could go on and on trying to uncover the nuances of just went into all of these statistics. You seem to want to concentrate on the park. I am not saying the park wasn't a factor. But it was not the cause. If Koufax hadn't become a better pitcher, Chavez Ravine wouldn't have helped him.

Also in regard to guys like Grove and Walter Johnson: they enjoyed the same strike zone Koufax did. The height of the mounds varied in those days, as the rules only stipulated that they couldn't be more than 15". But who's to say some of them weren't 15".

The 1960's were a pitching dominant era, because there were great pitchers, who pitched with the strike zone that had existed for the better part of baseball's history up until that time. Some of the game's greatest hitters played then as well who had great offensive numbers. If it's referred to as the second dead ball era, it is not because the ball itself was dead, but because it is much too lively today and everything benefits the hitters.

If you want to use expansion to try to eclipse what Koufax did well what can I say? Knock yourself out, I guess. But you can start throwing in all sorts of intangibles like traveling and night baseball, as well the broadening of the talent pool with the inclusion of black and Latino players.

Looking at Grove's E.R.A.'s I'm surprised that he's getting a pass on winning over 20 games a couple of years with E.R.A.'s over 3.00.

Finally again, I understand the longevity argument if you're going to argue for a best of all-time. I think Koufax's case is unique for consideration with a short career. Many players take a couple of years to get off the ground. Koufax took a little longer for the reasons I explained. But once he did, what he did was phenomenal. What makes his peak so interesting, is that it stopped at it's height, unlike most players, who usually go downhill. Koufax struggled and surmounted his control issues, and dazzled more and more each year. Three times his E.R.A. was under 2.00. It's looks like we're going to disagree as to why he was as great as he was and just how great. But that's okay. I've really enjoyed discussing this with you.

Really quick, when speaking about context, I agree that one can't ignore that Bonds took steroids. But that was cheating. Koufax was a champion in every sense of the word.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Longevity seems to be what's at issue for many here. The early part of Koufax's career seems to cancel out for many, any claims Koufax would have to being the greatest of all-time. I understand the argument. If everybody wants to go for Grove, that's fine. I'm not saying Grove wasn't great. He of course, was. I'm just arguing against those who seem to want to downplay just how great Koufax was by overplaying the Chavez angle, the mound, strike zone, and expansion.

I have said Chavez was an asset. But I think too much emphasis is being placed on it, rather than the conscious change on Koufax's part as to how he pitched. And 1961 was the year he changed direction.

I don't care by what percentage his road E.R.A was higher in 1964 over his home E.R.A. You want to say how easy it was to pitch at Chavez. Don Drysdale was no slouch, and his E.R.A that year was 2.02. He was a great pitcher. Why wasn't he down at 0.85? I guess one could go on and on trying to uncover the nuances of just went into all of these statistics. You seem to want to concentrate on the park. I am not saying the park wasn't a factor. But it was not the cause. If Koufax hadn't become a better pitcher, Chavez Ravine wouldn't have helped him.

Also in regard to guys like Grove and Walter Johnson: they enjoyed the same strike zone Koufax did. The height of the mounds varied in those days, as the rules only stipulated that they couldn't be more than 15". But who's to say some of them weren't 15".

The 1960's were a pitching dominant era, because there were great pitchers, who pitched with the strike zone that had existed for the better part of baseball's history up until that time. Some of the game's greatest hitters played then as well who had great offensive numbers. If it's referred to as the second dead ball era, it is not because the ball itself was dead, but because it is much too lively today and everything benefits the hitters.

If you want to use expansion to try to eclipse what Koufax did well what can I say? Knock yourself out, I guess. But you can start throwing in all sorts of intangibles like traveling and night baseball, as well the broadening of the talent pool with the inclusion of black and Latino players.

Looking at Grove's E.R.A.'s I'm surprised that he's getting a pass on winning over 20 games a couple of years with E.R.A.'s over 3.00.

Finally again, I understand the longevity argument if you're going to argue for a best of all-time. I think Koufax's case is unique for consideration with a short career. Many players take a couple of years to get off the ground. Koufax took a little longer for the reasons I explained. But once he did, what he did was phenomenal. What makes his peak so interesting, is that it stopped at it's height, unlike most players, who usually go downhill. Koufax struggled and surmounted his control issues, and dazzled more and more each year. Three times his E.R.A. was under 2.00. It's looks like we're going to disagree as to why he was as great as he was and just how great. But that's okay. I've really enjoyed discussing this with you.

Really quick, when speaking about context, I agree that one can't ignore that Bonds took steroids. But that was cheating. Koufax was a champion in every sense of the word.

Responding with numbered points to make this a little easier:

1) The math suggests that too much emphasis is not being placed on the change in ballpark. If it was how he pitched, then his road era would not be 300% higher in 1964. It would not be essentially the same as it was in his 'before' period for most of the years after the magic change. These are things we can actually look at, with data. The data does not support the allegation. At all.


2) If you "don't care" what the math suggests and the fact that his road/home splits are extremely abnormal, well, what is the point? If we ignore verifiable data in favor of narratives we like, there is nothing to say. The decision is made before the examination. I don't care about people's narratives, I care about things that actually check out as true. One pitchers case is based on data and things that are verifiable as true. The other is based on dismissing such data.


3) Your strike zone allegation is also demonstrably false. It was redefined in the rules before the 1963 season, expanded from the armpits to the top of the shoulder. The knees were also adjusted. Again, this is not a narrative, it is actual, verifiable fact. Sandy responded by cutting almost a full run off his ERA from his excellent 1962 season, his first really good year, and posting his mind-boggling 4 year peak between 1963-1966 with this expanded strike zone in place. His peak aligns EXACTLY with a material change in the strike zone in favor of pitchers. And it also aligns with a pronounced change across MLB, as run production fell and pitching dominated the 60's.


4) As for the mound, the rule was that the mound had to be 15 inches or less. In 1950, it was changed so that it had to be 15 inches, an advantage to the pitcher.


5) If folks are going to try and use integration as a reason to dismiss pre-1947 pitchers, than it is absolutely fair to point that as the talent pool widened, more and more teams were quickly added to the league and Sandy's numbers were absolutely helped by beating up on new expansion teams that performed terribly. He was not alone in this, Gibson and Marichal's impressive numbers were also run up in this environment.


6) Grove's ERA's are higher, because he pitched in a high offensive context. Compared to the league average, Grove outpaced Koufax by a wide margin, 148 to 131 ERA+'s, which account for league and park. Context. Do we seriously not think there is a difference between offense in the AL in 1930, and the NL in 1963? Again, this is not a narrative. It is verifiable fact, we can look at what occurred over the course of the entire league during their careers (a huge sample size of batters), we can easily prove the 1930's AL is a much higher run environment. If context doesn't matter and we don't care about longevity, then Ferdie Schupp is the greatest lefty of all time. But nobody will make that argument, only for Koufax is the argument that we should ignore context and time.


7) If we are going to ignore verifiable data, ignore context, and pretend major rule changes simply did not occur that are clearly in the rule books there is no point into any actual examination. Those looking for concrete evidence do not find narratives to provide any actual evidence, and those relying on narratives that run counter to the demonstrable facts will never be convinced by any amount of data. There is a significant difference between players we like and who the best was. I have a sentimental attachment to Ferris Fain, and he was an excellent ballplayer, but he isn't better than Lou Gehrig. I have a sentimental attachment to Joe Dimaggio, but he isn't better than Willie Mays or Ty Cobb, because a preponderance of the data does not suggest that he was, but suggests the opposite. I think we should recognize these as two separate things. Data should guide to the conclusion, not make the conclusion and then try to form the argument after the fact.


Koufax was great for 4 years, in a time and place heavily advantageous to the pitcher, in which pitchers dominated, and had failed to produce until the conditions were in place and the rules re-written in his favor. Grove was great for twice as long in a context in which batters were heavily favored and dominated his entire career. I don't think it's close, when you look at the totality of the data. If data to the contrary exists, I would change my conclusion. I have no attachment to Grove, and the era he played is one of the periods of baseball history I am least interested in, but the data in context is compelling.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Responding with numbered points to make this a little easier:

1) The math suggests that too much emphasis is not being placed on the change in ballpark. If it was how he pitched, then his road era would not be 300% higher in 1964. It would not be essentially the same as it was in his 'before' period for most of the years after the magic change. These are things we can actually look at, with data. The data does not support the allegation. At all.


2) If you "don't care" what the math suggests and the fact that his road/home splits are extremely abnormal, well, what is the point? If we ignore verifiable data in favor of narratives we like, there is nothing to say. The decision is made before the examination. I don't care about people's narratives, I care about things that actually check out as true. One pitchers case is based on data and things that are verifiable as true. The other is based on dismissing such data.


3) Your strike zone allegation is also demonstrably false. It was redefined in the rules before the 1963 season, expanded from the armpits to the top of the shoulder. The knees were also adjusted. Again, this is not a narrative, it is actual, verifiable fact. Sandy responded by cutting almost a full run off his ERA from his excellent 1962 season, his first really good year, and posting his mind-boggling 4 year peak between 1963-1966 with this expanded strike zone in place. His peak aligns EXACTLY with a material change in the strike zone in favor of pitchers. And it also aligns with a pronounced change across MLB, as run production fell and pitching dominated the 60's.


4) As for the mound, the rule was that the mound had to be 15 inches or less. In 1950, it was changed so that it had to be 15 inches, an advantage to the pitcher.


5) If folks are going to try and use integration as a reason to dismiss pre-1947 pitchers, than it is absolutely fair to point that as the talent pool widened, more and more teams were quickly added to the league and Sandy's numbers were absolutely helped by beating up on new expansion teams that performed terribly. He was not alone in this, Gibson and Marichal's impressive numbers were also run up in this environment.


6) Grove's ERA's are higher, because he pitched in a high offensive context. Compared to the league average, Grove outpaced Koufax by a wide margin, 148 to 131 ERA+'s, which account for league and park. Context. Do we seriously not think there is a difference between offense in the AL in 1930, and the NL in 1963? Again, this is not a narrative. It is verifiable fact, we can look at what occurred over the course of the entire league during their careers (a huge sample size of batters), we can easily prove the 1930's AL is a much higher run environment. If context doesn't matter and we don't care about longevity, then Ferdie Schupp is the greatest lefty of all time. But nobody will make that argument, only for Koufax is the argument that we should ignore context and time.


7) If we are going to ignore verifiable data, ignore context, and pretend major rule changes simply did not occur that are clearly in the rule books there is no point into any actual examination. Those looking for concrete evidence do not find narratives to provide any actual evidence, and those relying on narratives that run counter to the demonstrable facts will never be convinced by any amount of data. There is a significant difference between players we like and who the best was. I have a sentimental attachment to Ferris Fain, and he was an excellent ballplayer, but he isn't better than Lou Gehrig. I have a sentimental attachment to Joe Dimaggio, but he isn't better than Willie Mays or Ty Cobb, because a preponderance of the data does not suggest that he was, but suggests the opposite. I think we should recognize these as two separate things. Data should guide to the conclusion, not make the conclusion and then try to form the argument after the fact.


Koufax was great for 4 years, in a time and place heavily advantageous to the pitcher, in which pitchers dominated, and had failed to produce until the conditions were in place and the rules re-written in his favor. Grove was great for twice as long in a context in which batters were heavily favored and dominated his entire career. I don't think it's close, when you look at the totality of the data. If data to the contrary exists, I would change my conclusion. I have no attachment to Grove, and the era he played is one of the periods of baseball history I am least interested in, but the data in context is compelling.

Just real quick - I do care about statistics. My point about Koufax's 1964 E.R.A. spread was that his home E.R.A. was much lower than the other major ace on the staff. With an E.R.A that low, it was going to be much lower percentage-wise than his away E.R.A. which was also very good. Yes, I know you say it was the park. But Koufax's home E.R.A. improved year to year with a 1.75 in '62, a 1.38 in '63, and a 0.85 in '64. And then the last two years were below 2.00. Saying something increased 300% is misleading. If one person is in the room and another one enters, I can say the population increased by 100%.

Regarding the strike zone, I read that it was changed to the armpits to the knees in 1950 from where it had been previously since 1887, which was from the shoulders to the knees. I read that off a site called Baseball Almanac. Maybe they're wrong? If they are, I would be glad to be directed to the correct history. As to the change in the height of the mound, I cited the change in earlier posts.

I was only poking fun about Grove's E.R.A due to the seemingly selective hysteria about Koufax's.

At this point, I think you're making a bit of a fetish out of statistics and completely ignoring the fact that Koufax changed his approach to pitching in 1961 and started to get better results. You've never acknowledged that. Did bringing back the strike zone to it's pre-1950 level help? Yes, I think it was an advantage for all pitchers. Did Chavez help? Yes. But again, it was an asset, not a cause. If it were, then all the Dodger pitchers should have had years like Koufax. Koufax grew as a pitcher. He had a long apprenticeship where he didn't put up the numbers. But he learned and got better. That shouldn't be ignored in your analysis.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Just real quick - I do care about statistics. My point about Koufax's 1964 E.R.A. spread was that his home E.R.A. was much lower than the other major ace on the staff. With an E.R.A that low, it was going to be much lower percentage-wise than his away E.R.A. which was also very good. Yes, I know you say it was the park. But Koufax's home E.R.A. improved year to year with a 1.75 in '62, a 1.38 in '63, and a 0.85 in '64. And then the last two years were below 2.00. Saying something increased 300% is misleading. If one person is in the room and another one enters, I can say the population increased by 100%.

Regarding the strike zone, I read that it was changed to the armpits to the knees in 1950 from where it had been previously since 1887, which was from the shoulders to the knees. I read that off a site called Baseball Almanac. Maybe they're wrong? If they are, I would be glad to be directed to the correct history. As to the change in the height of the mound, I cited the change in earlier posts.

I was only poking fun about Grove's E.R.A due to the seemingly selective hysteria about Koufax's.

At this point, I think you're making a bit of a fetish out of statistics and completely ignoring the fact that Koufax changed his approach to pitching in 1961 and started to get better results. You've never acknowledged that. Did bringing back the strike zone to it's pre-1950 level help? Yes, I think it was an advantage for all pitchers. Did Chavez help? Yes. But again, it was an asset, not a cause. If it were, then all the Dodger pitchers should have had years like Koufax. Koufax grew as a pitcher. He had a long apprenticeship where he didn't put up the numbers. But he learned and got better. That shouldn't be ignored in your analysis.

1) This appears to be your source on the Strike Zone. Note the section under "1963" stipulating the referenced change, expanding the strike zone. You an compare it to the 1950 adjustment and see that it enlarged the strike zone. this can be verified in literally hundreds of sources, the 1963 adjustment is not some minor footnote but defined the hitter/batter context until 1969, when some pitcher advantages were removed because pitchers were dominating the league by a wide margin with the ruleset: https://www.baseball-almanac.com/art..._history.shtml


2) I did acknowledge it. I explained at length that the math does not suggest this is actually true, as his road numbers stayed about the same and his home park performance drastically improved. If it was not the park (how then, is his ERA 300% higher elsewhere if its not the park?), then it would be a similar improvement everywhere. It is factually not.

That Koufax is a better pitcher than his teammates is, again, irrelevant narrative that has 0 to do with the question. I am and have been arguing that Koufax is not the greatest lefty ever, or even the second or third really. I have no idea why people want to argue against a position that Koufax was a bum, worse than his teammates at the time, or something else which I nor anyone else has made. I even referred to his peak in my last post as "mind boggling" and included him on my short list of the best, which is the first reply to this entire thread. You keep ignoring the verifiable facts, actual data, to argue against a point which I do not hold and have never made.


3) Yes, I'm a fetishist because I don't care about unsourced narrative claims that contradict verifiable fact. You've just put the nail in my coffin, I concede. Koufax = GOAT. You won with this stellar analysis of the data.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

1) This appears to be your source on the Strike Zone. Note the section under "1963" stipulating the referenced change, expanding the strike zone. You an compare it to the 1950 adjustment and see that it enlarged the strike zone. this can be verified in literally hundreds of sources, the 1963 adjustment is not some minor footnote but defined the hitter/batter context until 1969, when some pitcher advantages were removed because pitchers were dominating the league by a wide margin with the ruleset: https://www.baseball-almanac.com/art..._history.shtml


2) I did acknowledge it. I explained at length that the math does not suggest this is actually true, as his road numbers stayed about the same and his home park performance drastically improved. If it was not the park (how then, is his ERA 300% higher elsewhere if its not the park?), then it would be a similar improvement everywhere. It is factually not.

That Koufax is a better pitcher than his teammates is, again, irrelevant narrative that has 0 to do with the question. I am and have been arguing that Koufax is not the greatest lefty ever, or even the second or third really. I have no idea why people want to argue against a position that Koufax was a bum, worse than his teammates at the time, or something else which I nor anyone else has made. I even referred to his peak in my last post as "mind boggling" and included him on my short list of the best, which is the first reply to this entire thread. You keep ignoring the verifiable facts, actual data, to argue against a point which I do not hold and have never made.


3) Yes, I'm a fetishist because I don't care about unsourced narrative claims that contradict verifiable fact. You've just put the nail in my coffin, I concede. Koufax = GOAT. You won with this stellar analysis of the data.

1) Duh. We all know that strike zone was changed in 1950 and then in 1963. The fact that you feel compelled to point that out shows you are missing completely what I am saying. Everybody knows that. But doesn't the site which you posted, and was the one I was referencing, also say:

"1887

The batter can no longer call for a 'high' or 'low' pitch.

A (strike) is defined as a pitch that 'passes over home plate not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulders."

And:

"1907

A fairly delivered ball is a ball pitched or thrown to the bat by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman that passes over any portion of the home base, before touching the ground, not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulder. For every such fairly delivered ball, the umpire shall call one strike."

???

There are NO adjustments until 1950 when the strike zone is change to armpits to the top of the knees.


So unless Lefty Grove was pitching for anyone between 1950 and 1963, he enjoyed the same strike as did pitchers from 1963 - 1968. The only difference was the 1950 stipulation that the mound had to be at 15".


2) No, not really. You haven't acknowledged the human element. Koufax changed his style. The bricks at Chavez had nothing to do with that. And his road numbers did NOT stay the same. His E.R.A. on the road goes down beginning in 1961. 1962's E.R.A. would have been lower if he hadn't pitched those last four starts trying to recover from the crushed artery in his left palm.


3) And I didn't call you a "fetishist". I said you were making "a bit of a fetish" out of the statistics. Not quite the same thing. It wasn't a personal attack. In my opinion, you aren't reading the away stats correctly and are ignoring or downplaying information that doesn't correspond with your pre-conceived ideas. It's too bad you've resorted to making petty remarks.

All along, I have not been arguing that Koufax was the GOAT. I have been saying that the period of time you acknowledge is "mind boggling" was not due primarily to the factors you cite. I didn't say the factors you cite didn't play a role. Koufax improved independently of those factors as well. That's the difference in our opinion. If you want to deny that aspect of the story, go right ahead.