Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

Not saying pitchers had it easy in any era, but that 10-year stretch that coincided with Koufax' dominance is known as the "second deadball era" pretty much universally.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Not saying pitchers had it easy in any era, but that 10-year stretch that coincided with Koufax' dominance is known as the "second deadball era" pretty much universally.

Really? Well, that's news to me. Maybe I've been out of the loop. The way I've always seen it, is that that ball was of course much livelier than the dead ball of "The Dead Ball Era". Today's ball is just hopped up. Boring home runs, and the game almost looks like a video game. The only thing that might be exciting about it, to me, is there can sometimes be some excellent infield play.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Stats don't tell everything. Koufax was a formidable, money pitcher. As mentioned by another poster he went the distance and was a champion. The players of his era were in awe of him. And it wasn't a deadball era. It just wasn't a "cough on it and watch it go" era. To dismiss Koufax and other pitchers as having it easy is revisionist history.

Many other lefties were formidable. Many other lefties were champions. Many others had batters of their era in awe of them. It was a deadball era, look at the league ERA. It is frequently referred to as the "second deadball era".

It is not revisionist history to say he is not the greatest lefty of all time. He has never been the consensus pick (there isn't a consensus pick at all, really).

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many other lefties were formidable. Many other lefties were champions. Many others had batters of their era in awe of them. It was a deadball era, look at the league ERA. It is frequently referred to as the "second deadball era".

It is not revisionist history to say he is not the greatest lefty of all time. He has never been the consensus pick (there isn't a consensus pick at all, really).

Low E.R.A. doesn't mean the ball was dead. If you miss the ball completely, it doesn't matter how live or dead it is! But as pointed out earlier by rats60, there were a lot of great hitters in the N.L. who hit a lot of home runs, and hit for high averages. And if the league E.R.A. was low during that time, I'd like to see how some of today's hitters would have fared against the likes of Koufax, Gibson, etc. Maybe the the E.R.A. would have been even lower!

Again, my original advocating for Koufax was not to definitively say he was the greatest lefty of all time. It's really impossible to say who was "the best". Why do we have to have a "best" anyway? At any rate, you have the different eras and so many different factors affecting how the players performed. I just think there was a bit of disparagement toward Koufax on the thread, and that Koufax wasn't getting his due.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Low E.R.A. doesn't mean the ball was dead If you miss the ball completely, it doesn't matter how live or dead it is! But as pointed out earlier by rats60, there were a lot of great hitters in the N.L. who hit a lot of home runs, and hit for high averages. And if the league E.R.A. was low during that time, I'd like to see how some of today's hitters would have fared against the likes of Koufax, Gibson, etc. Maybe they the E.R.A. would have been even lower!

Again, my original advocating for Koufax was not to definitively say he was the greatest lefty of all time. It's really impossible to say who was "the best". Why do we have to have a "best" anyway? At any rate, you have the different eras and so many different factors affecting how the players performed. I just there was a bit of disparagement toward Koufax on the thread, and that Koufax wasn't getting his due.

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by G1911

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

I've heard guys say, and I quote, "I think Mickey Mantle might have even been able to play today". Maybe i'm a little out of step with modern thinking. But to me, pitcher dominated doesn't mean a dead ball. I'd say it was a fair ball. And it was a better game when the runs were actually earned, instead of given out like Hostess Twinkies via the hopped up ball. Today's small parks and players wearing enough protective equipment to make a football player blush also favor the batter. Brushing back batters is not a part of the game the way it was. You do make a good point a couple posts back, that if a pitcher does well in this environment, that is to his credit. But today's pitchers only go 6 or 7 innings. Koufax went out there and pitched complete games through pain. You say there were other formidable pitchers. Not many like Koufax. He was one of baseball's greatest pitchers. That's why he was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his brief peak. His greatness was undisputed and universally recognized. There was enough of a consensus then.

[cardsagain74]

I agree with taking the playoffs (and titles) a lot more into consideration too.

This obviously greatly favors Koufax. In addition to the other numbers and WS championships mentioned, he gave up just one earned run each in his only playoff losses. Unreal. Lefty Grove was great in the postseason too.

On the flip side, Randy Johnson had the one dominating run for two playoff series and got the one ring from it. Other than that, he struggled badly in the postseason and went 2-9. Carlton would labor in the playoffs and walk some guys that he normally wouldn't, and was 6-6 with a 3.26.

And naturally Kershaw's awful playoff troubles don't need further mention.

Then there's Spahn, who naturally was the exact same guy in the playoffs as otherwise. That guy was a robot set to win 6 of every 10 games and give you a 3.00 ERA, regardless of what planet he was on.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I've heard guys say, and I quote, "I think Mickey Mantle might have even been able to play today". Maybe i'm a little out of step with modern thinking. But to me, pitcher dominated doesn't mean a dead ball. I'd say it was a fair ball. And it was a better game when the runs were actually earned, instead of given out like Hostess Twinkies via the hopped up ball. Today's small parks and players wearing enough protective equipment to make a football player blush also favor the batter. Brushing back batters is not a part of the game the way it was. You do make a good point a couple posts back, that if a pitcher does well in this environment, that is to his credit. But today's pitchers only go 6 or 7 innings. Koufax went out there and pitched complete games through pain. You say there were other formidable pitchers. Not many like Koufax. He was one of baseball's greatest pitchers. That's why he was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his brief peak. His greatness was undisputed and universally recognized. There was enough of a consensus then.

There was a consensus that he was deserving of the hall of fame, and was a great pitcher. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Nobody is arguing against that position. Yes, my position is that there are other formidable pitchers. Is this a controversial statement? Koufax is not in a league of his own.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

The term is not one I created; it has been referred to by countless other by this monikers. The 60's, especially the NL, was a pitcher dominated league. Are we really going to dispute this and its affect on stats? I'd love to hear a fact based argument that the 60's NL was a hitter's or balanced era.

It is hardly disparagement to say he is not the best lefty ever.

Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were one and two in the NL (2 and 3 in the majors behind Killebrew) for HR's in the 1960's with 375 and 350 respectively. Those totals would have led the majors in the 1940's, 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. They would have been second in the majors in the 1920's, and 1930's.

The 1960's were the first decade to produce 5 300 home run hitters adding Frank Robinson and Willie McCovey. So you get 3 exclusive NL players hitting over 300 in the decade and one who played half the decade in the NL.

If you look for 250 Home run hitters you add Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard, and Ron Santo (Billy Williams hit 249) to the ranks of NL players (Howard about half his total as a teammate of Koufax's but making the argument that the league wasn't weak) All of the aforementioned players would have finished top 6 in the 1950's and top 5 in the 1970's in all of MLB.

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

The average home runs hit by a player in the Majors (approximations since I had to read them off a graph that didn't label it's data points)

1920's 6.8, 1930's 9, 1940's 8.5, 1950's 15.5, 1960's 16.1, 1970's 14.2, 1980's 14.5

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

All of this isn't true. I'm looking at the data on baseball reference right now, and the highest major league BA for any year in the 1960s was .258. The stretch from 1963-1972 had the lowest runs scored in the league for any time period in the entire live ball era.

It's not a myth that offense was at a low point in the '60s.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were one and two in the NL (2 and 3 in the majors behind Killebrew) for HR's in the 1960's with 375 and 350 respectively. Those totals would have led the majors in the 1940's, 1950's, 1970's and 1980's. They would have been second in the majors in the 1920's, and 1930's.

The 1960's were the first decade to produce 5 300 home run hitters adding Frank Robinson and Willie McCovey. So you get 3 exclusive NL players hitting over 300 in the decade and one who played half the decade in the NL.

If you look for 250 Home run hitters you add Ernie Banks, Orlando Cepeda and Frank Howard, and Ron Santo (Billy Williams hit 249) to the ranks of NL players (Howard about half his total as a teammate of Koufax's but making the argument that the league wasn't weak) All of the aforementioned players would have finished top 6 in the 1950's and top 5 in the 1970's in all of MLB.

League-wide batting average in the 1940's was .275, 1950's .276, 1960's .272, 1970's .272 and 1980's .273.

The average home runs hit by a player in the Majors (approximations since I had to read them off a graph that didn't label it's data points)

1920's 6.8, 1930's 9, 1940's 8.5, 1950's 15.5, 1960's 16.1, 1970's 14.2, 1980's 14.5

This myth that the 1960's was a desert of great hitting league wide is just that. There was, in essence, one anomalous year, at which time Koufax was already retired (can you imagine what he would've done that year???)

I'm not saying this makes Koufax the greatest lefty of all time. I am merely pointing out a fallacy that seems to persist for some reason not even remotely backed up by facts.

Look at the runs scored per game. Home Runs remained; total offense declined significantly. I am not the first, or even the 10,000th to refer to it as a second deadball era as a result. Is it LITERALLY a deadball era? No, but neither was the original. We can call it whatever word you want to denote a low run environment. During Koufax's peak years, NL offense was in a decline. This is a fact. Ty Cobb hit almost .400 every year, but that doesn't mean the deadball era wasn't a low run environment.

Runs per game per team in the NL during the postwar era, using 1963 as Koufax's breakout mega season (though he had an excellent 1962 as well, it breaks down very similarly each year you use as he had a very short peak and all of it was in a pitching dominated era):
1953: 4.8
1963: 3.8
1973: 4.15
1983: 4.1
1993: 4.49
2003: 4.61
2013: 4.00

Can we stop debating things that are easily proven by even a cursory look at the numbers in this thread?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by G1911

Koufax is being taken quite seriously. The issue is that no mathematical argument has him coming out on top; to do so relies on emotional arguments like this one that dismiss stats, the old kind or the new kind. Those looking for some subjective metrics to support their conclusions are never going to buy into the Koufax claim

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

Ignoring context completely. All the best pitchers are in the deadball eras, or context matters. Do we really believe the top 30 or so pitchers were in just two short periods of baseball history? You have to completely ignore longevity, and completely ignore context and era in order to come out with Koufax on top. That you are citing that Grove played in an offensive era as a negative is strange. If we are ignoring context and longevity, whichever left had the single greatest season in the deadball era is the permanent best lefty ever. 5 years of Koufax or 9 of Grove? I'm taking 9 of Grove without even having to stop and think. Koufax pitched in an environment perfectly suited for pitchers and was great for 5 years. Grove was great for more than twice as long in a context NOT friendly at all to pitchers.

Kershaw > Koufax. Spahn > Koufax. Johnson > Koufax.

ERA+
Grove 148
Koufax 131

ERA crowns
Grove 9
Koufax 5

FIP crowns
Grove 8
Koufax 6

WHIP crowns
Grove 5
Koufax 4

Strikeout Crowns
Grove 7
Koufax 4

Innings Pitched
Grove 3,940
Koufax 2,324

WAR
Grove 106.7
Koufax 48.9

[BlueDevil89]

You'd be hard pressed to find a pitcher lefty or righty who had as good a season as this man did in 1972...and with a team that won only 59 games no less.

Steve Carlton 1972 Topps #751 BVG 7 NM.jpg

[timn1]

Give me a break. This type of comparison is just plain silly if you don’t take the eras into account. ERAs in the two pitchers’ eras are so different it’s almost like a different game. And there never was a pitcher’s park like Dodger Stadium in the 1960s.

The clincher for me is the nine ERA titles Grove won. I think that’s the most amazing pitching record in baseball history.
Maybe you can explain how all the great hitters on Grove’s teams enabled him to do that.


Oh yeah, one more thought about those strikeout totals. All Grove did was lead thie league in Ks seven straight years.

Originally Posted by rats60

ERA Koufax 2.76 Grove 3.06
WHIP Koufax 1.106 Grove 1.278
FIP Koufax 2.69 Grove 3.62
K/9 Koufax 9.3 Grove 5.2
K/BB Koufax 2.93 Grove 1.91
Shutouts Koufax 40 Grove 35
Strikeouts 2396 Grove 2266
No Hitters Koufax 4 Grove 0

All the stats support Koufax except wins which are a team based stat and longevity. Grove played on loaded offensive teams for most of his career. Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons in Philly and Williams, Foxx and Cronin in Boston. From 1958-1966 Koufax had a top 10 offensive player 4 times in 9 years, Wally Moon was 8th in 1958, Tommy Davis 4th in 1962, Maury Wills 5th in 1962 and Jim Gilliam 9th in 1963. Koufax was better than Grove and it is not close.

[packs]

On a purely talent level I still think Waddell was the best lefty to ever pitch. He needed nothing but his arm to propel himself into the HOF. He lacked the mental capabilities to really pitch, but it ultimately didn't matter.

When you put it all together, I don't see how anyone could argue against Randy Johnson. He pitched at the height of the steriod era and against players who were by and large cheating, yet it didn't matter. Imagine him in a clean game. There wouldn't have even been a game.

All due respect to Koufax, but he was no Randy.

[Touch'EmAll]

If there had been the Cy Young Award when Grove pitched, how many would he have won? Somewhere between minimum 5 to as many as 7 , perhaps ?

[Jason19th]

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Jason19th

One of my all time stats which comes from Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract in the early 1980’s

As of the early 1980’s Warren Spahn had more 20 win seasons than all of the New York Yankee lefties combined. Not more then all of the current Yankees, but more then all of the Yankees lefties for the entire history of the franchise.

I have always thought this stat shows both how great Spahn was and how rare great lefties are

I see three more seasons for Pettite and Sabathia, I wonder how close this is now? (I'm too lazy to research.)

Cool stat!!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I see three more seasons for Pettite and Sabathia, I wonder how close this is now? (I'm too lazy to research.)

Cool stat!!

I count 17 20 win seasons by a Yankee/Highlander, perusing Baseball Reference:

Lefty Gomez, 26 (1934)
Whitey Ford, 25 (1961)
Ron Guidry, 25 (1978)
Lefty Gomez, 24 (1932)
Whitey Ford, 24 (1963)
Herb Pennock, 23 (1926)
Tommy John, 22 (1980)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1931)
Lefty Gomez, 21 (1937)
Ed Lopat, 21 (1951)
Herb Pennock, 21 (1924)
Tommy John, 21 (1979)
Ron Guidry, 21 (1983)
Andy Pettite, 21 (1996)
Andy Pettite, 21 (2003)
C.C. Sabathia, 21 (2010)
Fritz Peterson, 20 (1970)


Warren Spahn retired with 13 20 win seasons. The Yankees Lefties tied Spahn in 1980 with John's season, and passed him in 1983 with Guidry's.

Without Lefty Gomez, the Yankees would be tied with Spahn today.