Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is a circular argument. A logical falacy. It's not a valid argument. Dodger Stadium has an average park factor of 95. That means that Koufax benefited 5% from pitching there. 5% is all. The reason he was so good in Dodger Stadium is because he is the best lefty of all time. Dodger Stadium's park factor is in line with other pitchers parks. The Astrodome averaged 94. Candlestick Park averaged 97. Why couldn't Marichal come within 2% of Koufax's home ERA? Or any Astros pitcher match it?

Now let's look at hitters parks. The "Launching Pad" in Atlanta had an average park factor of 105 with a high of 114. So, a hitter in Atlanta got the same bonus that a pitcher did in Dodger Stadium. The Baker Bowl was a little more extreme. From 1921-1937 it averaged 112 with a high of 116. The Rockies average park factor for their entire history...118 with a high of 128. I will let you figure out Fenway, but it is going to be close to 105, the best season was 112. I find it a little hypocritical that you mention Jim Rice. Sure he got a boost from the Green Monster being 310 feet in LF. Why doesn't Koufax get the same respect for pitching 4 seasons with a LF screen 251 feet in LF?

A normal park factor is 100. +/- 5% is a normal range. Denver is way outside of any normal range. That none of the parks in the discussion have had a single season what Denver averages is why home/road spits matter for Rockies players. For Koufax, it is a very minor factor.

So wait, now Park Factor is a legit stat? I'm having a hard time keeping up with you. You told me the only stats that mattered, but didn't respond when others pointed out that those specific stats could be used show others as better than Koufax, like bringing up ERA+ to use against Marichal but ignoring it with Grove.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So wait, now Park Factor is a legit stat? I'm having a hard time keeping up with you. You told me the only stats that mattered, but didn't respond when others pointed out that those specific stats could be used show others as better than Koufax, like bringing up ERA+ to use against Marichal but ignoring it with Grove.

You must not have read my post. Park factor isn't a significant factor. I also never used ERA+ against Marichal, I was giving another poster the benfit of the doubt who was using it, but it is seriously flawed. Its fatal flaw is the assumption that pitching is equal from one era to another which it clearly isn't. People picking deadball era pitchers to compare to Koufax doesn't need a response. I addressed that early in the thread and it should be obvious to any baseball fan why.

[HRBAKER]

I love these type of threads. Throw out a question with no answer and here comes the passion. I always learn a lot.

[aro13]

Brian - Historic Newspapers -

Very well thought out posts. Appreciate both the statistical analysis and the physical points. Unfortunately, the physical stature of an individual is becoming more and more sought out every year in athletics.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

You must not have read my post. Park factor isn't a significant factor. I also never used ERA+ against Marichal, I was giving another poster the benfit of the doubt who was using it, but it is seriously flawed. Its fatal flaw is the assumption that pitching is equal from one era to another which it clearly isn't. People picking deadball era pitchers to compare to Koufax doesn't need a response. I addressed that early in the thread and it should be obvious to any baseball fan why.

ERA+ makes no assumption about eras. People who misuse it do that. ERA+ *only* measures a pitcher against his yearly contemporaries. It's a measure of how great he is relative to his competition.

[HistoricNewspapers]

I also want to point out that Randy Johnson injuries also forced him to miss most of two seasons in the middle of his prime when he won his FIVE CY Youngs and nearly FOUR more.

He also missed most of another season near the end of his career when he was averaging 11.4 K per nine innings.

He also had to retire earlier than his stuff dictated due to injury. He had more years left as he was averaging 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season...and pitching through pain costing him effectiveness as well.

SO if Koufax is getting credit for injuries...don't forget to give that to Randy Johnson as well.

It cost Johnson the all time strikeout record.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

I also want to point out that Randy Johnson injuries also forced him to miss most of two seasons in the middle of his prime when he won his FIVE CY Youngs and nearly FOUR more.

He also missed most of another season near the end of his career when he was averaging 11.4 K per nine innings.

He also had to retire earlier than his stuff dictated due to injury. He had more years left as he was averaging 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season...and pitching through pain costing him effectiveness as well.

SO if Koufax is getting credit for injuries...don't forget to give that to Randy Johnson as well.

It cost Johnson the all time strikeout record.

Eh, he was still 900 Ks short of the record after pitching to 45. He would have needed another 3 full seasons of top-flight effectiveness to get there and he didn't miss that much time.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Eh, he was still 900 Ks short of the record after pitching to 45. He would have needed another 3 full seasons of top-flight effectiveness to get there and he didn't miss that much time.

Point is, if you are going to assume with Koufax, you have to do the same with Randy Johnson. Johnson was averaging around 10 K's a game(it's ten for this exercise to make the math easy . He usually started 34 games a year. Just looking at the years where he missed significant time:


1994/95 missed 15 starts due to the strike......150 k's
1996 he only started 8 games................260 K's
2003 he only started 18 games.............160 K's
2007 he only started 10 games..............240 K's

That is 810 K's right there going into his last season.

2009 he only started 17 games.....?

2010 he retired even though he still had elite K ability having pitched through injury while still maintaining 8.1 K per nine innings in his last season.

So who knows how long he could have gone. A healthy Johnson easily had two or three years left after he retired.

Also, if he is within 100 strike outs when he decided to retire in 2010...seems to be a good chance he sticks it out for more seasons.

I personally don't see the need in adding the what if, but just being fair that if you apply it to one player, make sure you apply it to others as well.

[mdube16]

I always feel the complication with these arguments are you have different criteria for "best ever"

Is it the best overall career statically? (think Jerry Rice)
Is it the most accomplished career? (think Tom Brady)
Is it the best at his absolute peak? (Puts Gooden in the best pitcher argument)
Is it the best peak statistical seasons strung together?
Is it the most talented at peak? (Michael Vick was as scary as there was for a time, but is not in any sort of greatest conversation)

Probably most agree it is a combination I think career statistically combined with peak seasons is how we look at baseball players. Football and basketball have more emphasis on most accomplished which is why they count Rings in the arguments.

Based on this, Its very hard to argue against Randy Johnson as he checks all the boxes.