Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[howard38]

/

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.

BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.

Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.

Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.

Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by howard38

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road.

That makes sense as Chance pitched in the same home park as Koufax from 1962 to 1965. In 1965 his home ERA edge was even bigger than in 1964, 2.33/4.15. When the Angels moved into their own park in 1966 Chance, for the first time, had a higher ERA at home than on the road, 3.30/2.87.

Funny that.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Billy Wagner..

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Wrong. The reason he didn’t win in 1964 was 20-9, 1.65 ERA, 11 shutouts 2.39 FIP all lead the league by Dean Chance. He also had a 1.07 ERA at home and 2.25 on the road. Koufax probably wins if there was a CY Young award in each league. Also, Koufax had an ERA+ of 186. That led the league by 28%. So there is nothing to see here.

As far as 1965, Koufax 2.04 ERA Marichal 2.13, Koufax 26 wins, Marichal 22, W/L% Koufax .765% Marichal .629, WHIP Koufax .855 Marichal .914, H/9 Koufax 5.792 Marichal 6.826, K/9 Koufax 10.242 Marichal 7.314, IP 335.2 Marichal 295.1, Ks Koufax 382 Marichal 240 CG Koufax 27 Marichal 24 K/BB Koufax 5.380 Marichal 5.217 FIP Koufax 1.93 Marichal 2.59. All led the NL.

Marichal led in shutouts 10-8, BB/9 1.402 -1.904 and your favorite ERA+ 169-160.

This is pretty obvious in Koufax’s favor thus Koufax was the unanimous Cy Young winner. Even the Giants writers voted Koufax. Koufax also led in fWAR 10.0 to Marichal 6.8 although somehow bWAR had Marichal led 10.3 to 8.1 showing how worthless WAR really is.

In 1965 Marichal leads Koufax by 169-160 in ERA+ and that translates into 10.3-8.1 spread in bWAR despite Koufax pitching more inning, setting a record for strikeouts in a season, having a better WHIP, FIP, etc. Yet in 1964 Koufax leads Drysdale in ERA+ 186-147, 41% as well as WHIP and FIP, but Drysdale pitches more innings and has more strikeouts so he has a higher b WAR 7.8-7.3. These stats are just made up, there is no transparency and they makes absolutely no sense. I have been asking for years for someone to give a scientific explanation and I get nothing. I am not a sheep. I think for myself. I am not going to accept something just because someone says trust me. The only stats that are reliable are ones based in math and scientific method, the ones that have reason and can be calculated. That is why I go by ERA, WHIP and FIP.

They say Koufax is the best lefty and the only one close is Kershaw. If he was even decent in postseason, one could make a case, but his dreadful 9 postseason history make it impossible to pick him. Some might want longevity of an above average pitcher,l but I am taking Koufax’s 12 years with 5-6 years of brilliance and championships over 20+ of good but never great and not winning because of it.

There is also a fair argument that Kershaw is not even the best pitcher on his current team!!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Billy Wagner..

2nd among all pitchers for ERA in the live ball era with at least 900 IP (behind Mariano Rivera - 2.21 & 2.31). 14 out of his 15 seasons, he had an ERA under 3.00. He had an incredible career.

[UKCardGuy]

I'd agree that Lefty Grove is probably the best of all time but I can't believe that Whitey Ford has hardly had a mention.

- Ten-time MLB All-Star
- 6 World Series titles
- Cy Young Award and the World Series MVP in 1961

He was the number 1 pitcher for the Yankees for years in a team filled with stars. He was absolutely a pitcher you'd want in a high-pressure game.

I'd certainly have Whitey Ford way above Randy Johnson in my rankings and tied with Sandy Koufax

My top 5 Lefties list is:
1. Lefty Grove
2. Sandy Koufax/Whitey Ford
3. Warren Spahn
4. Steve Carlton

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by howard38

That makes sense as Chance pitched in the same home park as Koufax from 1962 to 1965. In 1965 his home ERA edge was even bigger than in 1964, 2.33/4.15. When the Angels moved into their own park in 1966 Chance, for the first time, had a higher ERA at home than on the road, 3.30/2.87.

Yeah, Chance had a great year, and really at this point, I don't think anyone's arguing that Chavez wasn't a pitcher's park. And throughout this thread I haven't been saying Koufax, or anyone else was "the best". Ultimately it's really impossible to compare eras. I think Johnson, Grove, and Spahn are all excellent candidates for the title. While Koufax, may not have the years to qualify for everyone's all-time great list, I do think his incredible run, and his artistry on the mound occurred because he was truly a great pitcher and not merely a creature of the home park he pitched in. His 1963 - 1966 run stirs the imagination.

It has been noted that Drysdale and Podres' pitching splits show that they enjoyed better home E.R.A.'s. However, neither pitcher's E.R.A. were consistently as low as Koufax's. Drysdale posted great home E.R.A.'s, and his amazing run of six shutouts in 1968, four of which were at home, really lowered his home E.R.A. that year. But with the exception of that year, his home E.R.A.'s were all in the 2.00's. Not too shabby, but not challenging what Koufax's were.

Podres, while also posting better E.R.A.'s at home in 1962 and 1963, his 1963 E.R.A. split was 3.49/3.60 (home/away).

The numbers show that Koufax was one hell of a pitcher, as no Dodger pitcher achieved what he did at Chavez Ravine. You have to be great to pitch as well as he did at Chavez. No other Dodger was posting 0.85.

Dean Chance had his great year there in 1964, for sure. Chance's E.R.A.'s at Chavez were always better than on the road. His home E.R.A. pitching split in 1962 was 2.76/3.22. 1963 was 2.96/3.45. And 1965 again, and here it really is significant, his home E.R.A. was 2.33/4/15. Chavez factor duly acknowledged. The Angels move out of Chavez for 1966, and for the first time, his away E.R.A. is higher.

So Chavez is a factor. But I argue that Koufax's numbers show that he was great even if there is that factor. No one consistently posted stronger E.R.A.'s at Chavez than Koufax. His strikeout totals also speak to his dominance. And the idea that Koufax was less than stellar on the road, takes a significant hit when you go out with a 1.96 away E.R.A. Koufax was a great pitcher in Chavez Ravine, but not because of Chavez Ravine.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Yeah, Chance had a great year, and really at this point, I don't think anyone's arguing that Chavez wasn't a pitcher's park. And throughout this thread I haven't been saying Koufax, or anyone else was "the best". Ultimately it's really impossible to compare eras. I think Johnson, Grove, and Spahn are all excellent candidates for the title. While Koufax, may not have the years to qualify for everyone's all-time great list, I do think his incredible run, and his artistry on the mound occurred because he was truly a great pitcher and not merely a creature of the home park he pitched in. His 1963 - 1966 run stirs the imagination.

It has been noted that Drysdale and Podres' pitching splits show that they enjoyed better home E.R.A.'s. However, neither pitcher's E.R.A. were consistently as low as Koufax's. Drysdale posted great home E.R.A.'s, and his amazing run of six shutouts in 1968, four of which were at home, really lowered his home E.R.A. that year. But with the exception of that year, his home E.R.A.'s were all in the 2.00's. Not too shabby, but not challenging what Koufax's were.

Podres, while also posting better E.R.A.'s at home in 1962 and 1963, his 1963 E.R.A. split was 3.49/3.60 (home/away).

The numbers show that Koufax was one hell of a pitcher, as no Dodger pitcher achieved what he did at Chavez Ravine. You have to be great to pitch as well as he did at Chavez. No other Dodger was posting 0.85.

Dean Chance had his great year there in 1964, for sure. Chance's E.R.A.'s at Chavez were always better than on the road. His home E.R.A. pitching split in 1962 was 2.76/3.22. 1963 was 2.96/3.45. And 1965 again, and here it really is significant, his home E.R.A. was 2.33/4/15. Chavez factor duly acknowledged. The Angels move out of Chavez for 1966, and for the first time, his away E.R.A. is higher.

So Chavez is a factor. But I argue that Koufax's numbers show that he was great even if there is that factor. No one consistently posted stronger E.R.A.'s at Chavez than Koufax. His strikeout totals also speak to his dominance. And the idea that Koufax was less than stellar on the road, takes a significant hit when you go out with a 1.96 away E.R.A. Koufax was a great pitcher in Chavez Ravine, but not because of Chavez Ravine.

Noone is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher outside of Chavez Ravine either though. I have gone to great pains to make it clear that Koufax was most likely the best pitcher in baseball from 1962-1966 if you just double his road numbers. And that fact, along with the corresponding insane strikeout numbers, likely gets him into the HOF under the "Kirby Puckett what if rule" even if you just double the road numbers and forget all about his performance at Chavez Ravine.

And also nobody is arguing about Koufax vs Drysdale or Podres and that isn't the standard of this thread anyway. This is about best ever.

All I am saying is that Koufax was a great pitcher, likely a Hall of Famer simply for his road performance, but that he was GREATLY helped by his home park. Those years you speak of, that legendary five year performance, was a perfect storm of immense talent meeting a way to harness and control said talent coupled with the opening of one of the best pitchers parks in the history of baseball. All three were the reason for those unbelievable seasons but only the first two are ever mentioned.

[brian1961]

Ya know, Tom, I get what you are saying in regard to Sandy Koufax being greatly helped by his home stadium. However, the way you're stressing the issue, you would think Walter O'Malley designed his beautiful ball field with Don and Sandy in mind. Following your line of belief, ANY opposing pitcher would have been greatly helped by pitching in Chavez Ravine. How much do we throw away players' careers then?

Guys have whined that Roger Maris would not have broken Babe Ruth's record if Mickey Mantle was not looming in the on-deck circle. For that matter, Yankee Stadium WAS designed to benefit Babe Ruth. So, do we throw out Babe Ruth too?

Ernie Banks had the benefit of batting in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. So, do we throw him out of the HOF because he had it too easy?

All those spitball pitchers that relied on their humid ball when it was perfectly legal----do we throw them out of the HOF because they should not have done such dastardly pitching. The nerve of them!!!!!

You guys can isolate all the baseball dope isotope you want, ad nauseam. I fully realize the OP insisted he believes Sandy Koufax was the greatest left-handed pitcher of all time. Well, I seem to remember the eloquent words of the late Vin Skully as he reminesced about Mr. Koufax in Ken Burns history of baseball. Vin convinced me; Koufax was the greatest lefty, period. Maybe he only had six seasons of greatness, but that was enough for Skully, and that's enough for me.

--- Brian Powell

P.S. I well remember upon the announcement in the spring of 1969 that Mickey Mantle was retiring, the esteemed Chicago Tribune sports editor, Dave Condon, penned a glowing tribute to Mickey, and said he believed that Mantle was the greatest Yankee of all time. It wasn't as if Mr. Condon had only seen Mick play a few times. How much he had seen the Babe play in his prime, I don't know; however, he was fully aware of what he was writing, putting Mick above the Babe.

I suppose, in the end, on Net54baseball we have a hot stove league going on 365 days a year!

[btcarfagno]

Not saying anything gets "tossed out". It's all about context. Larry Walker is now a HOFer. What is the first thing you hear when that gets brought up?

"Yeah but....".

And it's true. Context matters.

What I am asking is...where's the "yeah but" for Koufax? Statistically speaking, his home/road splits over that five year period might be even more extreme than those of Walker. But there never is a "Yeah but" with him. And there should be.

Great talent. Unbelievable pitcher for five years. Obvious HOFer. Strikeout numbers that make your head spin.

Yeah but...

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Noone is arguing that Koufax wasn't a great pitcher outside of Chavez Ravine either though. I have gone to great pains to make it clear that Koufax was most likely the best pitcher in baseball from 1962-1966 if you just double his road numbers. And that fact, along with the corresponding insane strikeout numbers, likely gets him into the HOF under the "Kirby Puckett what if rule" even if you just double the road numbers and forget all about his performance at Chavez Ravine.

And also nobody is arguing about Koufax vs Drysdale or Podres and that isn't the standard of this thread anyway. This is about best ever.

All I am saying is that Koufax was a great pitcher, likely a Hall of Famer simply for his road performance, but that he was GREATLY helped by his home park. Those years you speak of, that legendary five year performance, was a perfect storm of immense talent meeting a way to harness and control said talent coupled with the opening of one of the best pitchers parks in the history of baseball. All three were the reason for those unbelievable seasons but only the first two are ever mentioned.

Where I am disagreeing with you and some of the others is about how much his home park had an effect on his numbers. By citing Drysdale and Podres, I wasn't going off topic, but wanted to illustrate how much more brilliant Koufax was at home than they were. The park is only going to do so much for you.

As far as the Kirby Puckett allusion, we don't need to know "what if" with Koufax. Yes, it would have been great if he had been able to compete longer. But he established himself as a Hall-of-Famer in the time he played. Given how much better he was at home than his Dodger contemporaries at the time, doubling Koufax's road numbers is unnecessary to justify his induction into the Hall.

[jgannon]

I'll just add to all my other statements on this thread, that while the topic is "Who Was The Greatest Lefty?", during the discussion, I felt Koufax's greatness was being made into a caricature, which is to do this legendary pitcher a disservice.

[brian1961]

It's ok, Tom. Let's face it, bro, if you put each HOFer under the hot lamp of scrutiny, the far majority of them would have a context that shadows their career.

I remember being so furious when the powers that be elected Chicago Cub great Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame about a year after the poor man died. Ron had so wanted to be elected while he was still alive to enjoy it. I penned a strong piece about the matter, as well as my rich memories of Ron, that Sports Collectors Digest ran. The crux of my article was that Ron Santo should have been a first ballot unanimous Hall of Famer due to the fact he played his entire career with Type I blood sugar diabetes. Before I got to see a photo of Santo's HOF plaque, I wrote that his plaque should say loud and clear he played at the all-star level even though he was afflicted with diabetes that required his constant attention and care. Months after I wrote my Santo article, I saw his plaque. They did him right in expressing his "context" in the first sentence. Well done. "YEAH, BUT" ya should've elected Ron Santo when he was alive, stupid!

Happy collecting, fellas. Try to keep cool in these dog days of summer.

--- Brian Powell

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Where I am disagreeing with you and some of the others is about how much his home park had an effect on his numbers. By citing Drysdale and Podres, I wasn't going off topic, but wanted to illustrate how much more brilliant Koufax was at home than they were. The park is only going to do so much for you.

As far as the Kirby Puckett allusion, we don't need to know "what if" with Koufax. Yes, it would have been great if he had been able to compete longer. But he established himself as a Hall-of-Famer in the time he played. Given how much better he was at home than his Dodger contemporaries at the time, doubling Koufax's road numbers is unnecessary to justify his induction into the Hall.

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

[G1911]

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by brian1961

It's ok, Tom. Let's face it, bro, if you put each HOFer under the hot lamp of scrutiny, the far majority of them would have a context that shadows their career.

I remember being so furious when the powers that be elected Chicago Cub great Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame about a year after the poor man died. Ron had so wanted to be elected while he was still alive to enjoy it. I penned a strong piece about the matter, as well as my rich memories of Ron, that Sports Collectors Digest ran. The crux of my article was that Ron Santo should have been a first ballot unanimous Hall of Famer due to the fact he played his entire career with Type I blood sugar diabetes. Before I got to see a photo of Santo's HOF plaque, I wrote that his plaque should say loud and clear he played at the all-star level even though he was afflicted with diabetes that required his constant attention and care. Months after I wrote my Santo article, I saw his plaque. They did him right in expressing his "context" in the first sentence. Well done. "YEAH, BUT" ya should've elected Ron Santo when he was alive, stupid!

Happy collecting, fellas. Try to keep cool in these dog days of summer.

--- Brian Powell

I was calling for Santo to be elected for decades. Offense and defense at a sparsely populated HOF position. One of the 10-12 best ever at the position.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I'd agree that Lefty Grove is probably the best of all time but I can't believe that Whitey Ford has hardly had a mention.

- Ten-time MLB All-Star
- 6 World Series titles
- Cy Young Award and the World Series MVP in 1961

He was the number 1 pitcher for the Yankees for years in a team filled with stars. He was absolutely a pitcher you'd want in a high-pressure game.

I'd certainly have Whitey Ford way above Randy Johnson in my rankings and tied with Sandy Koufax

My top 5 Lefties list is:
1. Lefty Grove
2. Sandy Koufax/Whitey Ford
3. Warren Spahn
4. Steve Carlton

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but there isn't one stat that backs up Whitey being better than Randy Johnson.

Whitey was very good but he wasn't even a first ballot HOFer, 2nd greatest lefty of all time? No way.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

What is the Puckett rule?

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Jim65

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but there isn't one stat that backs up Whitey being better than Randy Johnson.

Whitey was very good but he wasn't even a first ballot HOFer, 2nd greatest lefty of all time? No way.

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

[howard38]

/

[FrankWakefield]

What G1911 said.... +++

Mr Koufax was a great, dominant, Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. He falls just a tad bit short of the Lefty ever. I saw Koufax pitch... and Spahn and R Johnson and A Pettitte and S Carlton... I still think Lefty Grove was the best.

Whitey Ford has been mentioned. My understanding (based on what I think I've read, heard and maybe dreamed) was that the Yankee management didn't want him winning 20+ games a season (he only did twice) was because management didn't want his wins thrown out at them as a reason to justify a salary increase. A biproduct was that Jim Turner and Casey Stengel wanted him rested for important games. I think Mr. Ford was a great pitcher, but would you really to pick him to win a game for you if you had Grove, Koufax, Spahn, ro R Johnson rested and ready on the bench?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by howard38

I don't know if it's true or not but supposedly some writers didn't vote for Ford in 1973 because they thought he should be elected with Mickey mantle in 1974.

If its true, he only received 29 more votes in 1974 to put him over the top. He barely got in at 77.8%

[cammb]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

Also, Mr. Ford was a yankee on teams that had temendous hitting. So if we are going to nitpick about a pitcher on where he pitched, how high the mound was, how wide was the strike zone and expansion teams, this should also be pointed out. In addition, M. Ford had Arroyo cleaning up

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

This might be the worst argument in this thread. Then I looked where you are from....London! This isn't cricket pal!!

RJ blows Whitey off the map. Go back to your tea and crumpets!

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This might be the worst argument in this thread. Then I looked where you are from....London! This isn't cricket pal!!

RJ blows Whitey off the map. Go back to your tea and crumpets!

Wow! I'm not sure whether to be hurt or laugh. For the record, I grew up in NY and Texas during the 70s where my childhood was all baseball. I like to think that I've seen some great pitchers play.

Whether I've been corrupted by tea and crumpets or simply suffered long term damage from too many fully loaded hot dogs and pretzels at Yankee Stadium - I can't say.

Ford, Koufax and Spahn were just before my time but I was well schooled by my father and uncles. I really love Sandy Koufax but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for Whitey. I think he's hugely under-rated (clearly not everyone agrees).

FrankWakefield, I've heard similar stories about Whitey. Based on recordings of old games that I've watched, stats and interviews - my dream team lefty pitching rota would start with Grove, Koufax Ford, Spahn and Carlton long before I'd go to Johnson.

[G1911]

I don't think Whitey is the greatest, or the second greatest, but he deserves more consideration than he usually gets.

I think his .690 winning percentage is a poor argument, because it is largely a reflection that he played on a team that was, by several miles, the best in the league for most of his career.

However, Ford's 2.75 ERA, a 133 ERA+ over 3,100 innings is quite impressive and has nothing to do with his team. In fact, if the stories are true that Stengel really did tend to save Ford to face the better teams in the league (I haven't done an in depth check of the game logs), his ERA is hurt by this and still exceptional. 133 ERA+ is 29th all time, and many of those ahead are relief pitchers that I would argue should be considered in a separate category.

Even in his waning years, his ERA is fantastic. He posts a 3.24 in his last full season, his poorest showing as this looks excellent but was only 5% better than the league that year, and then his last 2 partial seasons he posts 135 and 192 ERA+'s.

His peak years are great, though his famous 1961 is actually one of his worst seasons, 25-4 is amazing but his percentages are not. Again, pitching for a team that annihilated the league with ease makes his record highly misleading.

3,170 innings is not very many in the context of all-time rankings and hurts him greatly, I think. At his best, he is equal to Spahn and his averages are a good deal better in many ways, but Spahn must rank over him for pitching 2,000 more innings and doing so very effectively. Johnson should rank better, Plank is probably ahead on innings. Grove and Hubbell are ahead, I think. I'm not sure I'd take Carlton over Ford with Carlton's inconsistency and Ford's clocklike consistency.

I have a very difficult time seeing why he barely squeaked into the Hall. He is not the best ever, but he has always appeared as an obvious hall of famer to me. Easy top 10 lefty, I think.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I know that Whitey Ford wouldn't be everyone's 2nd greatest lefties. But there are loads of stats that back up Whitey being far better than Johnson.

I suppose it depends on the criteria you use. Strikeouts or absolute wins are great stats but they I'd argue that wins % is the better stat here.

At .690 Ford has the best winning percentage of any lefty in history. I'd argue that winning games is THE most important stat.

Ford's stats would have been even better but Casey Stengel used to save Ford for big games. So Ford didn't get as many games in the rotation. So not only did Ford not get as many opportunities, when he did pitch he was pitching against the toughest opposition. That makes his win percentage even more remarkable.

Johnson might have more strikeouts but he still allowed runs. That doesn't do the team a lot of good. Whitey Ford would let batters get on first on second but not to home plate. Ford averaged 2.22 hits per game vs Johnson's 2.76

Ford's career ERA of 2.75 is way better than Johnson's 3.29

In a 16 year major league career, Ford posted an ERA under 3.00 in 11 of those seasons.

Ford's career 2.75 ERA is the 2nd lowest of starting pitchers in the live-ball era.

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.
Johnson's.

Whitey's raw ERA looks better until you take context into, well, context.

ERA+:

Johnson - 135
Ford - 133

I don't much care about winning % since it's a team stat and Ford pitched for loaded teams. I mean, his winning % went down from 65-67...

The "Casey held him back for big games" also doesn't hold much water to me. If anything, that's a negative against Ford. That's Stengel saying "yeah, this guy isn't durable enough to pitch regularly." The "he was saving Ford" argument also loses weight when you realize that Ford had multiple relief appearances almost every season until Houk came along.

Johnson pitched 1000 more innings than Ford, while simultaneously maintaining a higher ERA+. He led his league in ERA+ 6 times, Ford just once. Johnson also won 4 ERA titles to 2 for Ford. If you like WAR - I'm not exactly a fan - then Ford's BEST season would be Randy's EIGHTH best. Ford's postseason heroics are often cited but he had an ERA over 4.00 in over half (6 of 11) his postseasons. Randy was over 4.00 in 5 of his 11. Randy also had a lower FIP (3.19) than Ford (3.26), while leading the league 6 times to Ford's 1.

I honestly don't see much of a case for Ford over Johnson. Randy had a higher peak, pitched 1000 innings more, dominated more, and had a higher ERA+.

[howard38]

"If anything, that's a negative against Ford. That's Stengel saying "yeah, this guy isn't durable enough to pitch regularly."

This is a reach. Ford proved his durability as soon as the Yankees let Stengel go. In Ford's first & third seasons w/o Stengel as his manager he led the league in IP & over his last five seasons he led in total IP.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Wow! I'm not sure whether to be hurt or laugh. For the record, I grew up in NY and Texas during the 70s where my childhood was all baseball. I like to think that I've seen some great pitchers play.

Whether I've been corrupted by tea and crumpets or simply suffered long term damage from too many fully loaded hot dogs and pretzels at Yankee Stadium - I can't say.

Ford, Koufax and Spahn were just before my time but I was well schooled by my father and uncles. I really love Sandy Koufax but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for Whitey. I think he's hugely under-rated (clearly not everyone agrees).

FrankWakefield, I've heard similar stories about Whitey. Based on recordings of old games that I've watched, stats and interviews - my dream team lefty pitching rota would start with Grove, Koufax Ford, Spahn and Carlton long before I'd go to Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlcpDVlsJjg

40 years old.....97 mph.....Perfect! Tally Ho!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by howard38

"If anything, that's a negative against Ford. That's Stengel saying "yeah, this guy isn't durable enough to pitch regularly."

This is a reach. Ford proved his durability as soon as the Yankees let Stengel go. In Ford's first & third seasons w/o Stengel as his manager he led the league in IP & over his last five seasons he led in total IP.

If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlcpDVlsJjg

40 years old.....97 mph.....Perfect! Tally Ho!

In the NINTH inning!

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

[G1911]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

I've read this in many books, including by teammates. The claim is frequently made in the literature on the 50's Yankees. After taking a look at the statistics and his innings by opponent, lifetime and during the individual systems in the mid-late 50's when Ford was established, and Stengel was the manager, the claim is not really true.

He DID start inordinately against the White Sox, but there's not much else in the individual team matchups to support this.

He pitched 1,707 innings against teams greater than .500, 1,463 against teams under. The discrepancy actually mostly comes from the 60's, after Stengel had been fired. He did pitch better against successful teams than poor ones, 2.68 against winnings clubs, 2.83 against.

The specific claim, that Stengel's saved Ford to face the good teams, checks out as generally false (I would be shocked if this did not occasionally happen, as it does with many pitchers), BUT this does reflect well on Ford. He did pitch a bit more against good teams than bad, and, unusually, he performed better against winning teams over his career than bad ones.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

I read it that Stengel had pitchers in the bullpen that could beat the easier opponents and didn't want to risk his best pitcher.

I mean, why play Ford against Kansas City when Bob Turley could do the job against the worst team in baseball at the time

Well, in 1958, for example, Ford had 5 starts against KC out of only 29 all year. In 1959, he had 4 starts out of 29. In other words, exactly the number you'd expect him to have when facing 7 different opponents all season. Other years, he had less. A review of his career starts against various opponents shows the quantity to be pretty bunched together other than the White Sox (his most-frequent opponent).

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If Stengel thought he could do it, he would have. Any other explanation is just a way of saying Stengel wasn't trying his best to win as many games as possible. "Ford is available but I'll go ahead and pitch this other guy who isn't as good".

I'm sure Stengel was trying his best to win but that doesn't mean he was always right.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Ya know, Tom, I get what you are saying in regard to Sandy Koufax being greatly helped by his home stadium. However, the way you're stressing the issue, you would think Walter O'Malley designed his beautiful ball field with Don and Sandy in mind. Following your line of belief, ANY opposing pitcher would have been greatly helped by pitching in Chavez Ravine. How much do we throw away players' careers then?

Guys have whined that Roger Maris would not have broken Babe Ruth's record if Mickey Mantle was not looming in the on-deck circle. For that matter, Yankee Stadium WAS designed to benefit Babe Ruth. So, do we throw out Babe Ruth too?

Ernie Banks had the benefit of batting in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. So, do we throw him out of the HOF because he had it too easy?

All those spitball pitchers that relied on their humid ball when it was perfectly legal----do we throw them out of the HOF because they should not have done such dastardly pitching. The nerve of them!!!!!

You guys can isolate all the baseball dope isotope you want, ad nauseam. I fully realize the OP insisted he believes Sandy Koufax was the greatest left-handed pitcher of all time. Well, I seem to remember the eloquent words of the late Vin Skully as he reminesced about Mr. Koufax in Ken Burns history of baseball. Vin convinced me; Koufax was the greatest lefty, period. Maybe he only had six seasons of greatness, but that was enough for Skully, and that's enough for me.

--- Brian Powell

P.S. I well remember upon the announcement in the spring of 1969 that Mickey Mantle was retiring, the esteemed Chicago Tribune sports editor, Dave Condon, penned a glowing tribute to Mickey, and said he believed that Mantle was the greatest Yankee of all time. It wasn't as if Mr. Condon had only seen Mick play a few times. How much he had seen the Babe play in his prime, I don't know; however, he was fully aware of what he was writing, putting Mick above the Babe.

I suppose, in the end, on Net54baseball we have a hot stove league going on 365 days a year!

We need to throw out Hank Aaron too. The first half of his career he played in a stadium that for all but 1 year was in the top half of the NL in HRs allowed. From 1966-1974 Aaron played in the easiest stadium to hit HRs in. And in 1969 the Braves moved the fences in to make it easier for Aaron to hit home runs, moving the fences back in 1974 when his career was pretty much over and he was about to break Ruth's HR record. Why isn't there an asterisk by Aaron?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Ford was consistent throughout his career. Ford had a 1.64 ERA in 1967 (his final season). While Johnson posted a 4.32 ERA in his last 5 seasons.

Ford was an amazing pitcher, but he readily admits to becoming Harris from Major League with the baseball in his later years.

There was someone above who considered Clemens to be the antichrist because he cheated. Well, obviously some of the old-timers did too. Most of it was just accepted back then (and ignored by anyone looking back today.)

That's why it's never made any sense to just forget what guys like Ford did when it comes to the subject, and focus only on Clemens, Bonds, etc. As far as HOF credentials or otherwise

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

Bumgarner

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

This is a well reasoned and well researched response. That you for that.

BR has his home/road ERA splits as 0.85 vs 2.93 so I am sticking with that.

Just about every advanced metric has Marichal ahead. RA9 2.38 vs 2.41. RAopp 3.98 vs 3.99. RA9def -0.02 vs 0.30 (Koufax had a much better defense behind him that year), PPFg 102.5 vs 93 (Here is that dreaded park factor. Koufax benefitted greatly, Marichal was hurt by his), RA9avg 4.17 vs 3.49 (What an average pitcher would do against these opponents, in these parks, with these defenses...massive massive stat), RAA 58 vs 40, WAA 7.4 vs 4.9, RAR 86 vs 72, waaWL% .690 vs .613.

Marichal was better. I understand the writers wouldn't have known this back in the day. Most don't know it now. But it's simply true. Koufax had an obscene park factor in 1965 coupled with a well above average performing defense that year. Marichal had a park detriment that year and a very slightly below average performing defense behind him.

Edit: I see you meant Chance splits not Koufax. My bad. The fact that Chance played in Koufax home ballpark, however, does help to prove my point though. Thanks for that.

But did it really? In 1961 Candlestick had a park factor of 94. The Giants played 40 years in Candlestick and it had a park factor under 100 30 of those seasons. Candlestick was always known as a pitchers park. So was Marichal really hurt or was 1965-1966 an anomaly? Those just happened to be two of the worst six seasons for pitchers in Candlestick history.

Even if you go by ERA+, Marichal is only ahead 9%.Does that really out weigh a better WHIP and FIP? 40 more innings pitched? And the real deciding factor, Koufax setting a MLB record with 382 strike outs? This is my problem with bWAR, it doesn’t add up. Even if you mainly rely on ERA+, the difference should be .5 or less. There has to be some value to pitching more innings and allowing fewer base runners. I think today, even with advanced metrics, Koufax still wins. Remember he led Marichal by 3.2 in fWAR, which is just as ridiculous as bWAR in 1965.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Ford was an amazing pitcher, but he readily admits to becoming Harris from Major League with the baseball in his later years.

There was someone above who considered Clemens to be the antichrist because he cheated. Well, obviously some of the old-timers did too. Most of it was just accepted back then (and ignored by anyone looking back today.)

That's why it's never made any sense to just forget what guys like Ford did when it comes to the subject, and focus only on Clemens, Bonds, etc. As far as HOF credentials or otherwise

This is a good point against Ford. At the end of his career he had a ring that he used to cut baseballs with to give his pitches extra movement. Ford was cutting balls in the 1963 World Series and Koufax still beat him twice.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

+1 big time. Early arguments about Whitey Ford are laughable, look at his line up hitting behind him! I will ask this again... For one game win or lose for the Series Title, what lefty would you take over Koufax? Anybody that says Kershaw I'm going to throw up....

Harry Breechen has a better post-season, 0.83 ERA. His regular season ERA+ is better than Koufax too. In a similar amount of innings.

If we are pretending a players best is who they are and ignoring everything else and their poor seasons or the context, by the Koufax logic Ferdie Schupp is still the best lefty all time regular-season.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by G1911

Harry Breechen has a better post-season, 0.83 ERA. His regular season ERA+ is better than Koufax too. In a similar amount of innings.

If we are pretending a players best is who they are and ignoring everything else and their poor seasons or the context, by the Koufax logic Ferdie Schupp is still the best lefty all time regular-season.

Bumgarner!

Bumgarner is unhittable in the World Series. In five career appearances, he has a microscopic 0.25 ERA, which is the lowest of any pitcher in history with at least 25 World Series innings pitched.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Bumgarner!

Bumgarner is unhittable in the World Series. In five career appearances, he has a microscopic 0.25 ERA, which is the lowest of any pitcher in history with at least 25 World Series innings pitched.

You’d already cited Bumbarner. My point is the ridiculousness of the standards for Koufax that are not applied to anyone but him.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really, Clayton Kershaw has a greater home/road gap for his career.

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each). Ask any fan of a team that has 0 or 1 championship in their lifetime. Do you want a pitcher who has a 5 year peak where you win 2 World Championships because of Koufax, win a 3rd pennant but lose the World Series when your offense has the worst World Series in history hitting .142 with 2 runs scored and Koufax would have pitched a shutout except for your poor defense and you finish tied for 1st in a 4th season but lose out on another championship because Koufax gets hurt while leading the league in wins, ERA, strikeouts, FIP and WHIP? If you value winning at all, Koufax is the only answer. You can have any other lefty and be mediocre because no one has had a 5 year peak like Koufax.

That's certainly a fair point, and hits close to home as a fan of a team that has sucked ass for a long long time (Pirates). What does one value more? Excellence over a longer period or outright dominance over a short period? To me it needs to come as close as possible to both criteria, which is why a Niekro at one end of the extreme or Koufax at the other would never get my vote.

But I certainly understand the sentiment.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot fathom why the Koufax side is still arguing against strawmans they have made up instead of what has directly and explicitly been argued over and over again. Nobody has said any of Koufax’s teammates were better, or that he is not a HOFer. Not even 1 post has alleged any of this. He is simply not the best lefty all time by any reasonable measure, and his numbers are heavily inflated by time and place in a way few others have been. It is exceptionally difficult to find pitchers who have such drastic road/home gaps. The stars aligned for Koufax, widening the strike zone, expansion creating terrible teams he (and his contemporaries) beat up on, pitching in the most pitcher friendly park in the most pitcher friendly context in the last century of baseball. He still had to deliver, and did so. He had 4 great years that’s not a single person herein denies. There is a difference between not being the best ever and a total bum, as has been pointed out numerous times. This is growing into complete absurdity with increasingly ridiculous strawmans that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the thread or what those who don’t think 4 years of Koufax triumphs guys with equal peaks and double the longevity have actually said.

The reason I cited the other Dodger pitchers, specifically Drysdale was to show that while their E.R.A.'s were also lower at Dodger Stadium, Koufax,'s were MUCH lower than theirs. In other words, he was down in the 1.00's and even below 1.00 while Drysdale was doing very well in the 2.00's. The point is, while the stadium may have been a factor, that Koufax did so well there also had to be due to his ABILITY.

And I want to reiterate that while yes, the 1960's favored the pitcher, this dismissing of the 1960's as being weak on hitting or a second deadball era, is unfair. It gives short shrift to the many great hitters who played back then, and doesn't take into account the more rugged and aggressive style of the game. Hitters had to face brush back pitches and the threat of being knocked down without all the protective gear of today. Calling it a second deadball era is such an inaccurate term. It reminds me of placing Mantle's record of 18 World Series home runs, down the list under the heading of "post-season home runs". The cheapness of the more modern statistics in ballparks that are smaller, with a much livelier ball, doesn't make the ball that was used in Koufax's day dead, nor the hitting weak. The modern outlook doesn't acknowledge the great hitters who had to play a truer game and face some of the greatest pitchers who ever played, under much more arduous circumstances. Guys like Koufax didn't dominate because the hitters were weak, but because the pitchers were good.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Koufax numbers as they are certainly are worthy of enshrinement without qualifications. I agree. Only if we throw out his home numbers during that five year period and instead replace them by doubling his road numbers does he possibly need the "Pucket rule" to get into the Hall.

He was a great pitcher over those five years regardless of where he pitched.

But he is immortal because of the combination of that talent and his home stadium. His home/road splits over that five year period are obscene. They would make Larry Walker blush.

And for the millionth time is likely a Hall of Famer even with taking his home park away from his numbers. He was a great pitcher.

Yeah but...

If Chavez Ravine was a factor, no one was able to capitalize on the conditions there like Koufax. That had to do with Koufax's amazing ability. I don't think the doubling of his away numbers is useful, and I don't think the Larry Walker analogy is fair, as Walker played in an environment with no gravity or atmosphere, lol. I think Coors Field was a much more extreme thing. And Koufax's road E.R.A.'s were still great.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

The simplest argument comes down to do you want to win or not. Ask Ty Cobb or Ted Williams (0 Championships each) Ask Willie Mays or Hank Aaron (1 Championship each)

And Barry Bonds.

Obv another discussion in itself, but it's always fascinated me that this dynamic hasn't been considered a lot more in those guys' legacy. You have five of the best eight or so hitters to ever step on the diamond, and just two combined titles.

It's hard for me to believe that it's ALL a function of just subpar teams at the wrong time for those guys.

Common denominators there are sullen/unlikeable personalities and maybe not much team leadership by your superstar. But then, Dimaggio was a jerk who wasn't the rally the troops type, and he won like crazy. Maybe that era's Yankees was still enough regardless.