Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

If you open the 'what if' game, you can play it with anyone.

For instance, in a 12 year stretch, Johnson won five cy Young awards, finished second three other times, third, and 7th.

THat stretch itself is more dominating than anything Koufax every did.

However, if we play the 'what if' game....what if Johnson wasn't injured for two of those seasons during that stretch?

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

Had Johnson gone the Koufax route and put everything he had into a five year stretch, with no concern for his future, he would be putting up 420 strikeouts per year while pitching another 60+ innings a year. However, he didn't do that. He didn't need to do that...but still had a greater peak than Koufax.

Instead, Johnson was still able to throw a perfect game at age 40, win five Cy Young awards, and finish second three more times.

You know what is crazy?

If you remove those FIVE years where Johnson won the Cy Young award, he still has more career wins than Koufax; 204-165.


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


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

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

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

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


He had the results to back it up.

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

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

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

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

He was stadium proof. He didn't need to rely on a certain stadium to make him dominant.

He had peak dominance and longevity dominance.

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

Randy Johnson stats from his 4 consecutive CY Young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

ERA Koufax 1.86 Johnson 2.48
WHIP Koufax .909 Johnson 1.044
FIP Koufax 1.97 Johnson 2.53

Now some counting stats
CG Koufax 89 Johnson 31
ShO Koufax 23 Johnson 11
Wins Koufax 97 Johnson 81
Ks Koufax 1228 Johnson 1417


They are clearly picking Koufax.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by rats60

randy johnson stats from his 4 consecutive cy young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

era koufax 1.86 johnson 2.48
whip koufax .909 johnson 1.044
fip koufax 1.97 johnson 2.53

now some counting stats
cg koufax 89 johnson 31
sho koufax 23 johnson 11
wins koufax 97 johnson 81
ks koufax 1228 johnson 1417


they are clearly picking koufax.

home run!!!!!!

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by cammb

home run!!!!!!

Fielder's choice!


How many birds did Koufax kill?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Fielder's choice!


How many birds did Koufax kill?

Wait... I've seen the video of Johnson hitting that bird and the feathers flying, but did the bird actually die?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Wait... I've seen the video of Johnson hitting that bird and the feathers flying, but did the bird actually die?

The dove died. Thankfully, it probably didn't hurt much to be annihilated by a fastball. A dead dove is the logo for his photography business now

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

Randy Johnson stats from his 4 consecutive CY Young seasons vs. Koufax 63-66

ERA Koufax 1.86 Johnson 2.48
WHIP Koufax .909 Johnson 1.044
FIP Koufax 1.97 Johnson 2.53

Now some counting stats
CG Koufax 89 Johnson 31
ShO Koufax 23 Johnson 11
Wins Koufax 97 Johnson 81
Ks Koufax 1228 Johnson 1417


They are clearly picking Koufax.

Wrong because you are picking Koufax based on those statistics resulting from the low run scoring environment, not based on his abilities.

You also forget the key measurement from those years, ERA+
Johnson 187
Koufax 172

So again, Johnson had a better peak, a longer peak, and a vastly better career. Johnson was also better in every physical measurement and tool. Mentally better too because he didn't quit. Johnson was better. Period.

For example, the environment in the NL in 1965 created a league where the league average ERA was 3.54. Compared to 2001 where it was 4.36.

So what you are saying is that half the pitchers in the league in 1965 were better than every National League pitcher in 2001, except for the 12 in 2001 who who were able to have an ERA below 3.54(the league average of the NL in 1965)?

I guess Vern Law with his 2.15 ERA that year was ALSO better than Randy Johnson and his 2.49 ERA in 2001?

Also the dozens of pitchers with more complete games were better than Johnson too??

From 1964-1968 Joe Horlen had 2.32 ERA. Hmmm.

Seems like there are plenty of choices of low ERA's from that time to choose from, other than Koufax. Can't quite be that dominant if several other players offer similar output

Put Horlen in the HOF I guess.

It is the environment creating those statistics..

Also, Dodger Stadium was responsible for 15-20% of those numbers from Koufax. Again, the environment.




Just because the league was easy to pitch in in the 1960's doesn't make you better. If you flip that around and compare the hitters from the era's without understanding the context, then you are going to get a lot of Colorado players with better peaks than several Hall of Famers from the 1960's.

Vinny Castilla, Hall of Fame, here we come I guess.

Vinny Castilla 162 game average from 1996-1999

41 HR
120 RBI
.301 BA


Ellis Burks 162 game average from 1994-1997
39 HR
110 RBI
.311 BA

Todd Helton 2000-2003
40 HR
133 RBI
.349 BA

Dante Bichette 1995-1999
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Those guys are in a dead heat with Willie Mays from the 1960's. Mays and Aaron are the only ones from the 1960's that can compete with them.

Nobody else from the 1960's can match those peaks.


So if you are going to hold tight to looking at Koufax without the context of the league or stadium, that is fine.

Just don't forget to do the same with the Colorado group above.


If you are out there selecting a team, please let me know if you have two pitchers with equal mental capacity, and one is ten inches taller than the other, throws 5-7 MPH harder, has better command, better movement, and more physical mental toughness in pitching through pain.

I'll take the taller kid. You can have the other one.

[Shoeless Moe]

and although its been mentioned, you can't mention it enough

Johnson pitched in the steroid era......and pitched in the Kingdome and Arizona's park, two very hitter friendly parks.

and still put up those numbers.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

and although its been mentioned, you can't mention it enough

Johnson pitched in the steroid era......and pitched in the Kingdome and Arizona's park, two very hitter friendly parks.

and still put up those numbers.

And more than half of his starts came in the DH league.

Johnson had a better peak than Koufax, a longer peak, and a vastly better career. Johnson was also better in every physical measurement and tool. Mentally better too because he didn't quit. Johnson was better. Period.

[HistoricNewspapers]

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13

Pretty sure the argument for Koufax here will be the same as against Grove: Koufax was the supreme pitcher of his era (and in all honesty, I fully agree with that.) But he had an incredible amount of HOF pitchers he was competing with, making his accomplishments EVEN GREATER!! But Grove had Hubbell and a bunch of stumblebums. I'm not looking, but I'm sure RJ had no competition, that's why he was so much better than his league.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Pretty sure the argument for Koufax here will be the same as against Grove: Koufax was the supreme pitcher of his era (and in all honesty, I fully agree with that.) But he had an incredible amount of HOF pitchers he was competing with, making his accomplishments EVEN GREATER!! But Grove had Hubbell and a bunch of stumblebums. I'm not looking, but I'm sure RJ had no competition, that's why he was so much better than his league.

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a plan.

I'm waiting for the Koufax group to start the Dante Bichette for the Hall of Fame based on his dominant peak offensive years.

If we flip the switch on the peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

It really is easy to get enamored with performances without knowing the full context. I knew a guy who told me he hit 18 home runs one summer league. I was ashamed with my 13....until I noticed his home park was 75 feet smaller in every field.

It is easy to fall in love with Koufax's peak and ERA raw numbers.

However, It is already shown with ERA+ how the context of the league and park show your TRUE level of dominance.

It was simply an easier time to be a pitcher in the 1960's since the rules and environment made it easier for them to get outs and pitch longer into games.

Take the complete games. Everyone is enamored with Koufax's 27 complete games in his final year, and then laugh when they compare it to Randy Johnsons 12 complete games in 1999.

If you dig a little deeper you will see that in 1966 it wasn't that hard to throw a complete game(for several reasons, some of which mentioned above).

How dominant are you really if you are doing something that everyone else can do too?

In fact, the next best nine guys in the league averaged 15.3 complete games in 1966.

In 1999, the next best nine guys in the league averaged only 4.6 complete games.

Now if you want to talk about dominance.

Johnson was 160 percent better at complete games than the next nine best pitchers in the league.

Koufax was only 74 percent better than the nine next best in the league.


Can't argue. 27 is more than 12. Just like that guy's 18 home runs were more than my 13

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

ERA+ measures the domiance vs their peers. That is not misused at all: However, no point beating a dead horse:

So the pitchers were elite in 1900-1915 with all those 2.11 ERA's and 40 complete games a year...then forgot how to pitch in the 1930's, then were elite again in the 1960s....but just a few years later forgot how to pitch again when offense upticked....then got real good in the late 80's/early 90's...then forgot how to pitch again starting in 1994?

Sounds like a good plan.



If we flip the switch onto the hitters and peak dominance:

Dante Bichette 1995-1999, 162 game average:
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Willie Mays best five year stretch in the 1960's when he won an MVP and finished in top five three other of those years.

46 HR
118 RBI
.304 BA

Hank Aaron
40 HR
120 RBI
.313

Bichette beats both in two out of three categories. Raw stats only count remember. If no ERA+, then no OPS+. So if you are championing Koufax and his raw numbers compared to Randy Johnson, then that same method makes Bichette a better hitter at his peak than both Mays and Aaron in the 1960's.

Welcome to the HOF Dante Bichette.



PS The ONLY measurable across eras is:

If you are out there selecting a team, please let me know if you have two pitchers with equal mental capacity, and one is ten inches taller than the other, throws 5-7 MPH harder, has better command, better movement, and more physical mental toughness in pitching through pain.

I'll take the taller kid. You can have the other one.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rats60

You are misusing ERA+. It is irrelevant for comparing pitchers in different eras. The 60s were a low run scoring environment because of the quality of pitchers. It is easy to dominate in a league of lousy pitchers. Also, Johnson didn’t pitch in a DH league those years, he pitched for Arizona the years I listed. Koufax is better in every stat except for strikeouts. 3 pitching triple crowns, 3 unanimous MLB Cy Young, 4 no hitters, more shutouts, 2 WS MVP, those show true dominance, not being better than lousy pitchers.

Told you, Brian!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Wrong because you are picking Koufax based on those statistics resulting from the low run scoring environment, not based on his abilities.

You also forget the key measurement from those years, ERA+
Johnson 187
Koufax 172

So again, Johnson had a better peak, a longer peak, and a vastly better career. Johnson was also better in every physical measurement and tool. Mentally better too because he didn't quit. Johnson was better. Period.

For example, the environment in the NL in 1965 created a league where the league average ERA was 3.54. Compared to 2001 where it was 4.36.

So what you are saying is that half the pitchers in the league in 1965 were better than every National League pitcher in 2001, except for the 12 in 2001 who who were able to have an ERA below 3.54(the league average of the NL in 1965)?

I guess Vern Law with his 2.15 ERA that year was ALSO better than Randy Johnson and his 2.49 ERA in 2001?

Also the dozens of pitchers with more complete games were better than Johnson too??

From 1964-1968 Joe Horlen had 2.32 ERA. Hmmm.

Seems like there are plenty of choices of low ERA's from that time to choose from, other than Koufax. Can't quite be that dominant if several other players offer similar output

Put Horlen in the HOF I guess.

It is the environment creating those statistics..

Also, Dodger Stadium was responsible for 15-20% of those numbers from Koufax. Again, the environment.




Just because the league was easy to pitch in in the 1960's doesn't make you better. If you flip that around and compare the hitters from the era's without understanding the context, then you are going to get a lot of Colorado players with better peaks than several Hall of Famers from the 1960's.

Vinny Castilla, Hall of Fame, here we come I guess.

Vinny Castilla 162 game average from 1996-1999

41 HR
120 RBI
.301 BA


Ellis Burks 162 game average from 1994-1997
39 HR
110 RBI
.311 BA

Todd Helton 2000-2003
40 HR
133 RBI
.349 BA

Dante Bichette 1995-1999
33 HR
137 RBI
.318 BA

Those guys are in a dead heat with Willie Mays from the 1960's. Mays and Aaron are the only ones from the 1960's that can compete with them.

Nobody else from the 1960's can match those peaks.


So if you are going to hold tight to looking at Koufax without the context of the league or stadium, that is fine.

Just don't forget to do the same with the Colorado group above.


If you are out there selecting a team, please let me know if you have two pitchers with equal mental capacity, and one is ten inches taller than the other, throws 5-7 MPH harder, has better command, better movement, and more physical mental toughness in pitching through pain.

I'll take the taller kid. You can have the other one.

Just sayin, Rats has already addressed these arguments:
the 60's has weaker hitting stats because the pitching was so good, although there are incredible hitters that Koufax had to face.
there really isn't a difference between eras, except of course the actual dead ball era, so comparing pitchers is linear post-1920
Don't be bringin' ERA+ or any other of those made-up BS stats, the only ones that count are WHIP, ERA, and strikeouts. Except, of course, when Kershaw is mentioned because he outperforms in all categories (in the vaccuum of "there is no difference between eras"). Then we move on to post-season performance.