Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by cammb

Forgot to add that Koufax had virtually no run support

Park effect - partially why his numbers are also so good.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yet, the same argument is being made for Grove because he won more ERA titles. The difference is that Koufax did that against much tougher competition. To be unanimous over Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, Bunning, Perry and Sutton is far more impressive. He did that by winning the pitching triple crown each year as well as leading in most other stats. Grove was the best lefty of his era, but if he was truly great, why could he only pitch 35 shutouts in 17 seasons?

I'd like to focus on stats that are important to you, so please help me:
WHIP, SHUTOUTS, and STRIKEOUTS: most important

ERA and WINS: maybe; wins subjective to team

WAR: Made-up and useless

What about ERA+?


Also, era discrepancies like vastly different batting averages and runs scored when compared between the early 1930's and mid-1960's are because the pitching was so deep and talented in the 1960's, correct? Even though you listed the amazing hitters Koufax had to pitch to?

Does the fact that Grove was often called in as an effective reliever matter?

[999Tony]

As others gave said, Grove’s four year peak is equal or better than koufax, and his peak and career about twice the length of koufax. Koufax had some great years but Grove was just as dominant and for much longer. Les the league in strikeouts seven straight years, wins several years, complete games three years in a row, even led the league in saves one year. More than twice the war and even bigger individual seasons.

Didn’t just lead in era, also in era plus and fip so he really was that dominant.

[packs]

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

[earlywynnfan]

Googled "best left handed pitchers of all time" to see what others were writing. Sites I heard of like yardbarker and ESPN, some I've never heard of. Clicked the first 8-10, several chose Grove, several chose Koufax. Saw a Spahn and an RJ, but no love for Hubbell, Carlton, or Plank, at least not as their #1.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess it really comes to who was Grove leading? Hubbell is a worthy adversary (though not in the AL) but after that it becomes a wash of low tier HOFers and non-HOFers. Guys like Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Wes Ferrell, etc.

Koufax was putting up his numbers against Gibson, Marichal, Spahn, Bunning, Drysdale. I feel like for Koufax to still be seen as potentially the best pitcher of his time in addition to the best lefty of all time while pitching among that crowd elevates him over Grove.

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

[packs]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Not sure Drysdale or Bunning are any better than Pennock, Ruffing, or Gomez?? Heck, take some of these guys and put them on the old White Sox teams and they're Ted Lyons! But that's for another thread. I'll put Hubbell and Dizzy Dean in the same breath as Marichal, Gibson, and Spahn. And Grove overlapped Dazzy Vance, who was a beast on some of the crappiest teams ever.

What about hitting? You're saying hitting stats looked terrible in Koufax's era because pitching was so awesome, but then named some of the best hitters ever. Which is it?

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of season as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher. Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

Isn't the Koufax argument that WAR is useless though because it rewards longevity? I think Drysdale was an excellent pitcher and is not an undeserving Hall of Famers, but this argument does contradict the Koufax arguments.

Vance won the ERA crown at 39 and is most famous for being a late bloomer, and 1931 is pretty deep into Grove's career. At age 40, Vance led the league in FIP still.

Vance: 1915, 1918, 1922-1935
Grove: 1925-1941

Vance's real first full year in the majors was 1922 (he pitched 30 innings in 1915, 2 in 1918), Grove's was 1925, 3 years later.

If these are not contemporaries, then Babe Ruth wasn't Lou Gehrig's contemporary either. Mike Trout is not Miguel Cabrera's.

[packs]

Contemporaries in the sense that they were in their primes at the same time. I would not say Gehrig and DiMaggio are contemporaries just because some seasons overlapped. And like I said, Drysdale and Gomez pitched the same number of seasons.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Contemporaries in the sense that they were in their primes at the same time. I would not say Gehrig and DiMaggio are contemporaries just because some seasons overlapped.

1922-1935
1925-1941

They overlapped for 11 seasons. Vance's peak years were 1924-1931. Only one of them was Grove not in the Majors as a full time pitcher too. Grove's peak was 1926-1939; his peak began 2 years after Vance's, overlapped for 6 seasons, and then Grove had a long, productive career that Vance did not. Most of their best seasons overlap, and pretty much all of Vance's productive career except for one season.

Gehrig: 1923-1939
Dimaggio: 1936-1951

Grove started 3 years after Vance, Dimaggio 13 years after Gehrig.

There have to be better arguments than here than denying timelines which are easily available.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

1922-1935
1925-1941

They overlapped for 11 seasons. Vance's peak years were 1924-1931. Only one of them was Grove not in the Majors as a full time pitcher too. Grove's peak was 1926-1939; his peak began 2 years after Vance's, overlapped for 6 seasons, and then Grove had a long, productive career that Vance did not. Most of their best seasons overlap, and pretty much all of Vance's productive career except for one season.

Gehrig: 1923-1939
Dimaggio: 1936-1951

Grove started 3 years after Vance, Dimaggio 13 years after Gehrig.

There have to be better arguments than here than denying timelines which are easily available.

Haha ok. Let's talk about time. Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Don't need quotes for that, the numbers tell us.

QUOTE=Robbie;1998316]
The Anti-Koufax Arguement:
Ignores that most Hall of Famers would say Koufax was the greatest lefty they had ever seen or played against. This includes HOFers who were still alive in the early to mid 1960's who had faced great pitchers from the past. THAT is the greatest compliment there is. Statistics can be bent and used in many different ways. Sometimes you have to look at other measures. JMO

That makes no sense. The statistics tell us what happened.

The guys you're talking about aren't discussing Koufax's entire career. They're not giving us big picture. They're remembering the four years where he dominated and ignoring the rest. Their stories are great, and add to the picture, but they don't tell us everything.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Haha ok. Let's talk about time. Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

Vance had a short career, like Koufax (though for very different reasons and in a very different pattern). This is what keeps him form being in the conversation of the best ever.

However, as all of his good years except for 1 overlap with Grove's career, how can we pretend he is not a contemporary?

[packs]

I just explained it to you. Unless you think Grove's prime was in the 20s and not the 30s.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I just explained it to you. Unless you think Grove's prime was in the 20s and not the 30s.

Grove's prime begins in 1926, when he won the ERA crown. It ended in 1939, because he had a very long prime (hence why many of us rank him higher than 5 years of Koufax. Vance is a contemporary, though Vance burned out sooner (because he didn't reach the majors for real until he was 31 years old).

Vance's career is shorter for Grove's. But for almost all of his prime years, he was an exact direct contemporary of Grove. Are we really going to argue that 1924 alone means he is not a contemporary of Grove?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jgannon

So, after July he pitched a grand total of 8.2 innings. So, I'll stick with his pitching a 1/2 season.

26 starts is more than half a season

Originally Posted by jgannon

You also say that the Dodgers team E.R.A. was 2.95 for the year in 1964. Without Koufax's 1.74 E.R.A added into the mix, the team's E.R.A. would have been somewhat higher, I imagine. If somebody can calculate that that would be good. I don't know just how much higher it would be.

Looks like it would go up to 3.17.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Give the man his due.

I have.

Originally Posted by jgannon

But it's ridiculous to trivialize Koufax's achievements as merely being a product of location.

And yet he didn't reproduce that success *anywhere* else. Of all the ballparks he pitched at more than 5 times, only Connie Mack Stadium in Philly is even close - a 2.16 ERA. *EVERYWHERE* other than Dodger Stadium*, he gave up at least 50% more runs. Nearly half, his ERA was 3.50 or higher - and increase of at least 155%. It's naive to think that location didn't have a BIG part in his success.

* - among ballparks with at least 6 starts.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Also, in response to the expanded league: Koufax had to face the great black and Latino players of his era, something the players of previous eras didn't have to contend with, sadly and unfortunately.

Yeah, those Mets and Astros teams were powerhouses

In all seriousness, this is definitely a big plus in Koufax's favor.

[packs]

Vance was a guy who was still pitching. He was no longer Dazzy Vance. Grove is clearly the pitcher of the 30s, because that is the decade dominated. No one refers to Grove as the pitcher of the 20s. You COULD make an argument that Vance was one of the best pitchers of the 20s. There is no argument for Vance in the 30s. Therefore, prime years are obviously different.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

The left field fence at the LA Coliseum was 251 feet from home plate. Dodger Stadium a normal 330 feet and you wonder why Koufax was better in Dodger Stadium?

This is an intentional misstatement/misinterpretation of what I've said:

I specifically excluded Koufax's LA Coliseum numbers earlier for the very reason you mentioned.

I don't wonder why Koufax was better in Dodger Stadium vs the Coliseum. It's obvious.

HOWEVER...

Multiple people are in this thread saying (paraphrase) that the ballpark doesn't matter, Koufax was just plain great. Well, if that's the case, why the failures at the LA Coliseum? If the ballpark doesn't matter, you gotta explain his failures at the Coliseum some other way. Obviously, you can't, because the ballpark DOES matter. This is completely accepted when it comes to hitters - remember all the "what if Williams and DiMaggio switched stadiums?" debates? or all the grief thrown at Jim Rice, Larry Walker, and Chuck Klein - but for some reason, it's not for pitchers. Even in cases where it's blatantly obvious, like Koufax.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by packs

Oh come on. I'll give you Bunning, but Drysdale pitched the same number of seasons as Lefty Gomez did and his WAR is almost 30 points higher (not a typo). Give Don some credit for being as good as he was.

I didn't mention any hitters. When Grove won his MVP in 1931 Dazzy Vance was already 40 years old. I would hardly call them contemporaries.

Sorry, got you and Rats mixed up. He's arguing Koufax because WAR is garbage. If you want to argue WAR for Drysdale vs Gomez, then you must support Grove over Koufax, because Grove's WAR is higher no matter how you want to look at it: career, peak, top season.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cammb

I wonder how many of you mathematicians have seen Koufax pitch? I have and the players he pitched against say he was the best they had ever seen. The Yankees gave him accolades when they met in the World Series even commenting on his record of 25 and 5 stating "How did he loose 5 games?" I rest my case whether you like it or not

How many of the games you watched Koufax pitch were in Crosley Field or the Coliseum or took place in 1960?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Vance was a guy who was still pitching. He was no longer Dazzy Vance. Grove is clearly the pitcher of the 30s, because that is the decade dominated. No one refers to Grove as the pitcher of the 20s. You COULD make an argument that Vance was one of the best pitchers of the 20s. There is no argument for Vance in the 30s. Therefore, prime years are obviously different.

Except Vance's prime directly overlaps, except for 1 single year. Vance has a short career, and thus Grove's prime extends longer. This does not mean Vance was not Grove's contemporary.

1924: Vance's prime begins, Baltimore won't sell Grove

1925: Grove's career begins, he wins the K crown but it's not actually a great year, Vance leads in Wins, K's, and FIP.

1926: Grove's prime begins in 1926 when he wins the ERA crown. Vance leads the NL in FIP

1927: Grove posts a 132 ERA+ and leads the league in K's. Vance leads the NL in FIP again, and K's as well

1928: Grove leads in FIP, K's and Wins. Vance wins the ERA title and K crown

1929: Grove wins ERA, K's, FIP. Vance has an off year, though well above league average.

1930: Grove wins K crown, ERA title, and Wins with 28. Vance leads the league in ERA and is the best pitcher in the NL again.

1931: Grove has his greatest year, winning 31 games and an ERA over twice as good as the league average, leading in almost everything. Vance has his last prime year, leading in FIP.

1932: Grove dominates the AL again, ERA crown. Vance has his last qualifying year, an average season.

Vance pitches 1933-1935 as partial seasons and hangs up his cleats. Grove continues to dominate as he has one of the longest peak year stretches in baseball history.


This is like saying Bob Gibson and Juan Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax, because their primes lasted longer than Sandy's who burned out early. Are we going to make this argument too, or is Sandy again treated differently?

The dates are clear, and easily verifiable.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...rovele01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...anceda01.shtml

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

How many of the games you watched Koufax pitch were in Crosley Field or the Coliseum or took place in 1960?

Hey, nobody can judge unless they saw Grove pitch too then by his standards. Any takers?

[packs]

You can't use my logic against me because my logic is sound. If you use your logic, you could say Robin Roberts and Sandy Koufax were contemporaries. And you'd be right about seasons overlapping but miss the point entirely when it came to their primes.

[Tabe]

I just wanna chime and say I'm loving the debate. Thanks guys.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

You can't use my logic against me because my logic is sound. If you use your logic, you could say Robin Roberts and Sandy Koufax were contemporaries. And you'd be right about seasons overlapping but miss the point entirely when it came to their primes.

I just gave you a year by year breakdown and source. Vance's PRIME overlaps almost entirely with Grove, except for 1924 alone.

Koufax's prime began 6 years after Roberts' ended (though he was excellent in 1958 as well).

The Gibson/Marichal situation is exactly the same as the Vance/Grove situation. Guy with short career gets his prime going a year or two early (1961 for Koufax, 1961 or 1962 for Gibson, 1963 for Marichal), overlap for the entirety of the shorter career patchers rest of career, and then the longer-lasting pitcher goes for several more years after shorter one burns out.

Holding Sandy, again, to different standards is not logic, it is the absence of it.

[packs]

Not really. You cherry picked some stats that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. What we're talking about is laid out below:

Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Not really. You cherry picked some stats that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. What we're talking about is laid out below:

Grove won 9 ERA titles, 7 in the decade of the 30s. Vance won 3 ERA titles, 1 in the decade of the 30s. Grove won almost 200 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in over 350 of them. Vance won 50 games in the decade of the 30s and pitched in 165 games. Dazzy Vance won 7 straight strike out crowns, 0 in the decade of the 30s.

It is hardly cherry picking, it is literally every single year of Vance's productive career spelled out and sourced. Yes, Grove went longer. That is the point. If Grove doesn't count because he had a long career, then Marichal and Gibson are not contemporaries of Koufax, because he burned out early and they kept posting peak years.

EDIT: I would love to know what prime year of Vance's I did not include, since I was "cherry picking". Please be specific.

[packs]

Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.

When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.

The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles (it's the first thing listed on his plaque). He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Hey I'm glad you brought that up. When Koufax won the CY in 1963, who do I see in the list of names getting MVP votes? Juan Marichal. When Koufax came in 3rd in CY in 1964, who do I see on the list of names getting MVP votes? Marichal, Gibson and Bunning. Sandy wins the CY again in 1965, who do I see on the list of MVP votes? Juan Marichal.

When Koufax retires in 1966 he is 30 years old. Who else is 30 years old in 1966? Bob Gibson.

The stats you cherry picked are advanced metrics that no one ever considered in Vance's lifetime. FIP? Please. Vance is in the HOF for the his streak of 7 straight strikeout titles. He won all of those titles in the 20's, a decade not attributed to Grove's dominance.

So you can't identify a single year to support your claim. No, they didn't have FIP, but it's a quick and handy way to break out the prime years without copying in 30 different stats and taking 2 hours. I gave the source link, you can see for yourself. Vance's prime overlaps with Grove, every year except 1924. They both dominated the late 1920's to 1930, and then Vance washes out, like Koufax.

Vance is older because his career begins at age 31. His overlap with Grove is the SAME as Marichal's with Koufax (actually, Vance and Grove have more career overlap years than Koufax and Marichal or Koufax and Gibson). Grove and Vance were in different leagues, so obviously they did not draw MVP votes against each other. I am sure you are aware that that is terrible argument to make.

Again, different standards for Koufax than everyone else, because we need to show that Koufax had strong competition and Grove pitched against a bunch of nobody pitchers. These arguments are growing increasingly absurd, rather than actually making a reasoned case for the Koufax claims.

[packs]

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The MVP votes are terrible for your argument that Koufax, Marichal and Gibson weren't contemporaries. When people talk about Koufax, they talk about his career in the context of what he did in the 60s. When people talk about Bob Gibson's dominance, it's the 60s they're talking about. The same is true for Marichal. Even though the years aren't exactly the same, as you can see, each pitcher peaked in the 60s.

You're talking about Dazzy Vance, a pitcher who peaked in the 20s and comparing him to Grove, a pitcher who peaked in the 30s. There is no other way to explain this.

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

[packs]

I give in.

[Touch'EmAll]

Just looking at ERA - Home vs Away, Koufax' peak years significantly (over .50) better at Home. Career totals for Grove...Home ERA 3.04, Away ERA 3.05

Then I looked at Bob Gibson, Career ERA Home 3.08, Away 2.76

And Gibson's historic year 1968 Home ERA 1.41, Away 0.81

Wonder what Gibby's numbers would look like if he pitched where Koufax did - Dodger Stadium.

Just a note - mid 1930's NL league batting average about .275 and mid 1960's NL league batting average about .251

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Koufax was indeed awesome, props, kudos and the whole lot. But dig a little deeper in the stats, Grove was the man. And my opinion of Gibson just got better.

Looking up his 1968 again, some stuff:

- Gibson had a 2.14 ERA in his losses. I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that he had 9 losses in 1968.

- He had a four-game losing streak. He had a 1.87 ERA during that streak.

- His ERA after the Sept 2nd game was 0.99.

- His shortest starts were 7 IP, in each of his first two starts. After that, 8 IP minimum in every start, including 11 twice, and 12 once.

- Never once lifted in the middle of an inning. So never once knocked out of a game.

- Tied the record for fewest appearances (34) while throwing 300+ innings.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Tabe

That makes no sense. The statistics tell us what happened.

I guess... if you believe statistics tell the whole story, and sums up baseball.
I don't. There is much more to this beautiful game and individual's greatness than just these numbers being thrown back and forth.

But, for you stat/science heads, if you really want to use your method to "tell what happened..." you forgot to analyze the molecular structure of the infield dirt at each Pitcher's home park (I think each granule was .000000000001229 larger in Lefty Grove's home park than at Dodger Stadium, giving Grove's infielders a significant advantage over time on Koufax by increasing ground-outs), humidity and air pressure, tides and gravitational forces (including the number and average weight of fans at the stadium)... and this should be done for every game pitched for each of these top left-handed pitchers.

In other words... statistics leave things out.

Let me ask a question. Which one of the top 10 mentioned Left-Handed Pitchers specifically worked with ANOTHER PITCHER on the top 10 list to develop their pitching skills?

There is only one... and it is Sandy Koufax. He worked with Clayton Kershaw from very early in Kershaw's career to become the Pitcher he is. Does Kershaw's curve remind you of anyone else's?

Does this add to Koufax's greatness as a Pitcher?... that he can teach greatness to the player who was the young potential great of this era? I say HELL YES!!! But, where are the statistics for this accomplishment that none of the others can claim?

PS... We're all just having fun debate here. Please don't take anything personally.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I guess... if you believe statistics tell the whole story, and sums up baseball.
I don't. There is much more to this beautiful game and individual's greatness than just these numbers being thrown back and forth.

But, for you stat/science heads, if you really want to use your method to "tell what happened..." you forgot to analyze the molecular structure of the infield dirt at each Pitcher's home park (I think each granule was .000000000001229 larger in Lefty Grove's home park than at Dodger Stadium, giving Grove's infielders a significant advantage over time on Koufax by increasing ground-outs), humidity and air pressure, tides and gravitational forces (including the number and average weight of fans at the stadium)... and this should be done for every game pitched for each of these top left-handed pitchers.

In other words... statistics leave things out.

Let me ask a question. Which one of the top 10 mentioned Left-Handed Pitchers specifically worked with ANOTHER PITCHER on the top 10 list to develop their pitching skills?

There is only one... and it is Sandy Koufax. He worked with Clayton Kershaw from very early in Kershaw's career to become the Pitcher he is. Does Kershaw's curve remind you of anyone else's?

Does this add to Koufax's greatness as a Pitcher?... that he can teach greatness to the player who was the young potential great of this era? I say HELL YES!!! But, where are the statistics for this accomplishment that none of the others can claim?

PS... We're all just having fun debate here. Please don't take anything personally.

I don’t think coaching has much to do with who the best pitcher was. Otherwise, we must conclude that Johnny Sain is better than Walter Johnson, for Johnson failed and Sain is legendary as a coach. It’s separate. When ranking 3B, we don’t put John McGraw at the top because of his managerial career.

If we throw out statistics, what is the basis for our reasoning? How do we prove or make a reasoned case for anyone, without numbers or verifiable data? There must be some standard to replace it with

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

1. Grove
2. Kershaw
3. Johnson
4. Carlton
5. Koufax
6. Spahn

Grove - 9 ERA titles is sheer dominance over an extended period of time - no questions asked.

Kershaw - possibly on pace to be the best ever but still falls somewhat short to Grove. His WHIP; K/BB & ERA numbers are incredible.

Johnson - took him a while to figure it out, but when he did, his peak value numbers are top 5-10 of all-time for ALL pitchers

Carlton - great longevity & peak value but a few inexplicable very poor seasons (including 20 losses) place him a notch below Johnson

Koufax - best peak value lefty of all-time but 5 dominating seasons just doesn’t cut it with regard to being the best ever. You can say all you want IF he had longevity he would be the best ever.....true. But, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. “IFs” simply don’t cut it in the world of rankings.

Spahn - VERY underrated. Most southpaw wins of all-time. Issue with Spahn is he could not dominate a lineup at the level of the 5 pitchers above him.

No offense, but for you to place Sandy Koufax below Steve Carlton is laughable....

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

My point is that Marichal and Gibson are obviously contemporaries of Koufax. Just as Vance is obviously a contemporary of Grove. If you are going to allege that Vance is not because he burned out early, and Grove continued to pitch peak years, then Gibson and Marichal are not contemporaries of Koufax either. See how absurd the argument is when it's Koufax?

See post 173 if you still don't understand the timeline. Vance's prime is directly contemporary with the first part of Grove's. This is not hard.

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

No offense, but for you to place Sandy Koufax below Steve Carlton is laughable....

Carlton’s best years of 1972, 1969, 1977 and 1980 are just a bit below Koufax’s 4 year run, though I think Carlton in 72 is probably the best single year either of them had. Carlton pitched over 2x as many innings, which is massive value, and was effective until age 40. Koufax’s bit better peak, or double the amount of good seasons? I can see it either way, but would take Carlton’s large number of good seasons + a peak not that far below, though oddly spaced out and no consecutive (which surely gives Koufax a bit wider gap on the peak).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

Vance was not a contemporary of Grove. Vance pitched in the National League. When you talk about ERA crowns or ERA+ for Grove, what Vance did has no relationship.

I never said he was competing against Vance for league leads. Read it again, it even credits them for winning crows in the same exact year. Vance’s peak directly and absolutely overlaps Grove’s. The claim was that it did not, which is 100% false, as we can see who did what in what year. Grove was starting his run as the best in the AL as Vance had his brief peak as the best NL pitcher.

I am amazed that the year well-documented events happened is so controversial.

[Touch'EmAll]

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Post-season Koufax was big time, people remember that ! Kershaw...well, not so much, and people remember that as well. Perhaps not included in normal analysis is post-season , but boy oh boy, it does matter.

Absolutely does matter, no question. Koufax was great in every single start. Kershaw has been pretty mediocre overall - a bunch of good starts mixed with a bunch of bad starts and a handful of good/awful relief appearances. I do wonder how Sandy would have fared pitching in the current postseason format of 3 rounds.

[Jim65]

Why are we expected to look at Koufax extremely dominant years and disregard his bad years? His 4 year span might be the greatest ever but his career was 12 years not 4. Those bad years were also him pitching and have to be considered when judging him against other all-time greats

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Why are we expected to look at Koufax extremely dominant years and disregard his bad years? His 4 year span might be the greatest ever but his career was 12 years not 4. Those bad years were also him pitching and have to be considered when judging him against other all-time greats

I think we're all debating the "peak." Otherwise, anyone who'd take Koufax's career over Grove, Spahn, Johnson, or Carlton is pretty crazy.

[Edwolf1963]

I vote for Josh Towers ��

.. she-it, he’s a righty. Um, OK, Tippy Martinez then ��

[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.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

26 starts is more than half a season


Looks like it would go up to 3.17.

I have.



And yet he didn't reproduce that success *anywhere* else. Of all the ballparks he pitched at more than 5 times, only Connie Mack Stadium in Philly is even close - a 2.16 ERA. *EVERYWHERE* other than Dodger Stadium*, he gave up at least 50% more runs. Nearly half, his ERA was 3.50 or higher - and increase of at least 155%. It's naive to think that location didn't have a BIG part in his success.

* - among ballparks with at least 6 starts.


Yeah, those Mets and Astros teams were powerhouses

In all seriousness, this is definitely a big plus in Koufax's favor.

Regarding whether 1962 was half a season - yes he pitched more than a half a season! I was just thinking of his stopping pitching July 17th as roughly being mid-season with August and September (and October) still to go.

As to the rest of it, I've said all I have to say!!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Absolutely does matter, no question. Koufax was great in every single start. Kershaw has been pretty mediocre overall - a bunch of good starts mixed with a bunch of bad starts and a handful of good/awful relief appearances. I do wonder how Sandy would have fared pitching in the current postseason format of 3 rounds.

Ok, just one more thing.

I suspect, pretty damn well.