Sandy Koufax

[rugbyfreak]

I'm sorry but all of the 5 I ranked ahead of Spahn had some major semblance of a great peak. Spahn only had 2 individual seasons of ERA+ over 130. Koufax had 5, despite pitching about half as long as Spahn. And Koufax went over 300 IP in 3 of those 5 peak ERA+ seasons. Spahn only pitched over 300 IP twice in his whole career, one time less than Koufax, despite the longer career. And he didn't surpass 300 IP in either of those high ERA+ seasons.

So, as a peak guy, it's hard for me to rank him above those 5 others because he just didn't have dominance like they did. He was good for a very long time but that just doesn't impress me as much as the guy that was clearly the best while he was doing it. Same reason that I am not all that impressed with Tom Glavine among modern LHP. He just didn't dominate people. I know he won a couple CYA but he never led the league in ERA even once. But he piled up a truckload of wins pitching on great Braves teams so he will eventually be a HOFer.

If we are going to point out Spahn's great year at 42, why not mention Koufax pitching 335 IP the year after he was diagnosed with the arm problem that would eventually force his retirement and 323 IP the next year?


I understand you want to support your guy, the same as I do with Koufax. We just prefer a different type of pitcher it seems. You prefer the career value while I prefer peak. Nothing wrong with either side. And trust me, I am just as dismayed when I see people rank Koufax out of their top 20 as you must be that I have Spahn 6th among LHP.

No, problem, Flash, you're a thoughtful baseball man and as such, I got ya covered!

In addition, I think I made it clear that I'm also a huge Koufax guy and am fascinated by his legacy, which is unique in so many ways.

However, I am, and remain, a Spahn man, so let me just add one more thing for all those out there who view him as a muddler, "above average" (as one poster moments earlier said), and, most horribly, compare him to Don Sutton. Go back to the records and see that there is almost nothing he did not lead the league in several times. Being a league leader is not being "above average." It is being top dog.

freak

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Right, and BHN, my only problem is that I doubt Kaplan was privy to this recondite (and vital) information in choosing Grove over all others (including a discussion of peak, in which he choose Grove over Koufax).

How is presenting the facts about players "result oriented"? You say it in a pejorative way, which I don't understand. This is the case with Cobb and what his contemporaries had to say about him, and it's also the truth about Grove's usage pattern during his peak.

First, the "usage pattern" evidence has been presented in partial--and, I think, tendentious--form around here. There is an undeniable, or at least it should be undeniable, tendency around here to want to deflate Grove's immense statistical feats. There is a parallel desire to inflate Cobb. I tread lightly about Cobb because of this, and also because I consider him one of 3 MLB players for whom a rational argument can be made as the greatest ever: chronologically, Cobb, Ruth and Mays--no, not Wagner, and certainly not Bonds. Anyone who knows the stats cold and comes to this site anew will note immediately the pro-Cobb sentiment and the anti-Grove sentiment. When you see a site which has picked the "Top 3" pitchers of all time, and Grove is not among them, it is rather startling.

But as LittleJoe has acknowledged, one steps gingerly around here to speak ill of Cobb, and I can sure see why, though I honestly have a MUCH higher opinion of Cobb-the-ballplayer than any of my real-life acquaintances does. The reverse goes for Grove: except in my presence, one is loath indeed to speak well of him, because minimizing his--Sultan, please pardon the term, but I know of none better--Ruthian stats is no mean feat.

Anyway, presenting and fairly analyzing all of the relevant facts is NOT result-oriented. It is the antithesis of result-orientation and it is what I admire most. But not much of that goes on around here in regard to Cobb or Grove. NONE of it will go on in any post of Mr. Jackman's regarding Grove.

And CSH, I'm sure you've read Alexander's book on Cobb. It's one of the all-time great sports bios, its only notable vice being that it's not Creamer's bio of Ruth. There are a lot of places in that book where Alexander notes different ways in which Cobb, especially through his own stats-obsessions, hurt his team. I have never seen one word of that stuff discussed here, because it goes against the site's orthodoxy.

What do you suppose are the chances one could ever learn, from reading 500,000 words of Mr. Jackman's writings, that Grove won four ERA titles after his 35th birthday, as a southpaw in Fenway Park--arguably the most incredible feat in baseball history? If someone else pointed it out, and Mr. Jackman were forced to confront it, he might discover that in one of those years, Grove didn't pitch much against the team that came in second place. And that would be the subject of the discussion.

THAT is what I mean by "result-oriented" analysis. You start with your fixed goal in mind, call it "Point A," and everything you ultimately write will lead toward that point. It's the vice which permeates Henry Thomas's laughable biography of Walter Johnson. To be honest, I think there's a meaningful element of it present in Kaplan's bio of Grove, too, because he definitely wrote that book to tell people Grove is the greatest pitcher ever. Since there are TONS of stats which prove that point, why not just tell the story, lay out the stats, and let the readers draw their own conclusions? But Kaplan's book is nothing in this regard like Thomas's book. Thomas's book is like reading a 15-year-old's book about Secretariat, or, better yet, Man O' War.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

No, problem, Flash, you're a thoughtful baseball man and as such, I got ya covered!

In addition, I think I made it clear that I'm also a huge Koufax guy and am fascinated by his legacy, which is unique in so many ways.

However, I am, and remain, a Spahn man, so let me just add one more thing for all those out there who view him as a muddler, "above average" (as one poster moments earlier said), and, most horribly, compare him to Don Sutton. Go back to the records and see that there is almost nothing he did not lead the league in several times. Being a league leader is not being "above average." It is being top dog.

freak

Let me add something to this one.

You can go to www.baseball-reference.com and, after entering Spahn's name and bringing up his main page, scroll down to the bottom and get lists of the times he was in the league's Top 10 in about a zillion different pitching categories. Or you can let me spare you the trouble by telling you it was ALL THE TIME.

Bill James rated Spahn as the #2 career value lefty in his great 1985 abstract, but not among his Top 10 in peak value, and said Spahn wasn't close to the Top 10. He then went on and on about how great Spahn's career was, and in fact not only rated Spahn ahead of every lefty but Grove, but also rated him ahead of EVERY SINGLE RIGHTY. He rated Grove as the #3 total player of all time, and Spahn as #11. Walter Johnson was #12. This was back before James was a slave to his numbers, with a limit to how much he would let himself adjust those numbers.

Anyway, pull up Sutton's page and check out how often he was in the Top 10, year by year, throughout his very long career. And check out how high he was in the Top 10 in each of those years. Then do the same for Spahn. I suggest you start with "Wins," a fairly meaningful stat.

That will put an end to this silly parallel.

BHN

[rugbyfreak]

Dear RugbyFreak,

Burger was incapable of anything that witty. Justice Potter Stewart made that classic remark.

Anyway, let me still some of your concerns by giving you my lefties list. I think you'll like it a lot better, even though it's not quite up to date (see below). And let me preface it by saying this is a CAREER-based lefties list, because that's where my emphasis ultimately goes, though I'm not oblivious to the significance of a great run of years.

Were I to make a peak-based list for southpaws, Koufax would be much higher, and Spahn would be a great deal lower. In fact, my top 3 in peak probably would be Grove, Koufax and Johnson, and just maybe might be Koufax, Grove and Johnson (not likely). And the Big Unit had a hellacious peak in his own right.

But it seems to me career value is what one ultimately should talk about, unless one is talking about a guy like Don Sutton, who strung together a farrago of vanilla years. Warren Spahn was no Don Sutton. So, with that said, here were my Top 8 lefties, in order, the last time I studied the issue:

1. Lefty Grove
2. Warren Spahn
3. Randy Johnson
4. Carl Hubbell
5. Steve Carlton
6. Whitey Ford
7. Sandy Koufax
8. Eddie Plank

These additional comments warrant making:

(A) Spahn vs. Johnson: I vacillated a lot over whether to put Spahn or Johnson at #2. I easily could be persuaded to change my mind on this one.

(B) Hubbell vs. Carlton The same is true of Carlton and Hubbell for #4. What I came down to was the question of whether I should punish Carlton for those atrocious years at the end of his career. I decided I should. Had I not, I would have rated Carlton--even with those mediocre and bad years in his prime--ahead of Hubbell. When Carlton was on, he was a much better pitcher than Hubbell, IMO. After I posted the list, someone made a detailed and intelligent response about why I should NOT punish Carlton for his terrible denouement. In retrospect, I think he/she was right, so when I next do this list, "Lefty" goes ahead of "The Meal Ticket."

(C) Whitey Ford SABR Matt and I got into an extended discussion about Whitey Ford after I had made this list the first time. The result of that discussion--and research I did on other lefties who started significant numbers of games for the Yankees during any season in the 1950's, at which time they had a phenomenal defense--was that we decided any left-handed doofus could have put up great numbers pitching for that team, in that park, in those years. Now, that makes it sound like more of a cooperative thing than it was. Basically, Matt told me about what a cushy thing Ford had with that great defense, then I looked up these other lefties to see if they supported what Matt thought about Ford. When they backed up his view of Ford, he was grateful to me for my research and said he would incorporate that into his next book. Anyway, his cogent remarks and my ensuing research helped persuade me that Whitey Ford is one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball history. Were I to make the list anew, Ford would be deleted, Koufax would become #6, and it would become a list of 7.

As for questioning Koufax's enshrinement in Cooperstown (??), only someone who knows nothing of his career, and has spent no time studying his five great seasons, including his World Series records, would even make an issue out of it. He is so obviously a legitimate Hall member I would be embarrassed to question his Hall bona fides. He is my probable #2 peak-value lefty--and I can see a case for rating him ahead of Grove there, which is saying a LOT, if you check Grove's stats from 1928-1932--and he arguably could be rated ahead of the other big peak pitchers (Alexander, W. Johnson, Maddux, Martinez and Mathewson--that's alphabetical; have I left anyone out?).

:ughh :crazy :eek: :crazy

That's my mind, still reeling at the thought of anyone's challenging Koufax's legitimacy as a Hall member.

I will acknowledge that for my part, I put at least one lefty and at least 2 or 3 RHP's ahead of Koufax in peak. But good lord, even if one accepts my rating, that makes him the 4th or 5th greatest peak pitcher of all time. That is hardly an insult to the man. And he was by far the greatest peak pitcher I saw in the first 40 years of my life. That I can say for certain.

BHN

Thanks, Nut, for the Stewart correction. As my hedge indicated, I had a sneaking suspicion it wasn't Burger!

Though I am a Yankee fan, I am more of a baseball fan, and as such, I have always been willing to acknowledge the rather blessed time and place in history that the gods bestowed upon Whitey Ford. The team, the park, the era, the teammates...it's all true. You couldn't wish for more. That said, the man maximized all the gifts he was given, and produced for a good long time, and you must respect that. Balanced with the fact that he didn't have much "peak" value (even the '61 25-4 season lacked a certain domination factor), you are left with a surefire HOFer who nonetheless can easily slide off a person's Top 10 Lefties list, and I wouldn't argue the point.

Thanks for your insights. I see you respect Spahn, too, which is cool. I always find it fascinating that someone of his enormous accomplishments should have to fight for respect, but there you have it, and maybe that's one of my roles around here. I have seen--on several occasions on this board--the winningest lefty of all time left off people's Top 10 lefties list!! Something like this spurs a man to action.

freak

[WJackman]

As I recall.

1. I shared my Grove vs. NY over 1929-1931 data with Jim Kaplan for his book. Jim specifically mentioned Mack's little use of Grove versus the Bombers over those years.

2. The late Jack Kavanaugh was a close friend of mine for nearly 20 years. That said, there is no comparison of his biography of Walter Johnson when placed along side of Thomas'.

3. Over his great seasons of '29-'31, Grove went 5-2 against NY in 10 starts. He completed only four of those games and his ERA was 4.86. By any type of statistical equalizer he should have worked at least twice that many innings. He also did not have to face his own team. In 1930 alone Wes Ferrell pitched the equilivant of 9 more complete games versus NY and Philadelphia than Grove did. With the differences in run scoring abilities of those squads versus the rest of the league this was a huge difference.

4. I have looked at every single game that Grove pitched in his seasons of 1920-23 and 1925-1938. I have read as many game accounts as I could find. Grove was a great pitcher, a lousy teammate, a poorly educated man, and very self-centered.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Here is one thing from that site, just for starters:

In the category of WINS, Spahn was #1 in the league EIGHT times, #2 three times, and #3 three times (which, let me admit it, is a lot better than Grove's four firsts, one second and two thirds). Sutton cracked the top three exactly twice. Now, that's a result-oriented stat, because I chose it in advance to make my point. So let me check out a few more stats without looking. Say: ERA, Adjusted ERA, complete games and WHIP. I will now--and only now--look at those four for top-three finishes by the two.

ERA: Spahn: Three firsts, one second and two thirds.
Sutton: One first, one second and one third. HUGE EDGE: Spahn.

Adjusted ERA: Spahn: Two firsts, no seconds, no thirds.
Sutton: No firsts, two seconds, no thirds. EDGE: Spahn.

Complete Games: Spahn: Nine firsts, five seconds, two thirds.
Sutton: No firsts, no seconds, no thirds. NO COMMENT.

WHIP: Spahn: Four firsts, one second, no thirds.
Sutton: FOUR firsts, one second, no thirds.

If you're shocked by Sutton's record in WHIP's, so am I. But Spahn was obviously a far greater horse than Sutton. He was enormously greater in games won, per season, and in complete games--and that's compared to their respective leagues, so it factors in the differences between their eras. And, more important to me, Spahn has an edge in Adjusted ERA and a big edge in ERA.

BHN

[ElHalo]

Grove is 4th
RJ is 9th (right behind Pedro, who is right behind Maddux)
Hubbell is 12th
Koufax is 21st

This is actually really bugging me; there's a pitcher I want to ask you about badly. I know you place a lot of importance on defense independant pitching stats, and there's a guy I usually rank in my top dozen who I think would be a sabermetric dynamo... but I don't want to bring up his name in the fear that somebody will draft him ahead of me in the all time fantasy draft going on elsewhere on the board.

Suffice it to say that I think it's interesting you have three lefties in your top 20. I have nine.

[ElHalo]

My pitcher ratings are based on statistics that are (a) not remotely related to ERA and (b) normalized so that every season/league scores at the same rate with the same standard deviation in those rates, so there's no reason why Spahn would suffer a disadvantage in PCA pitching wins created by the seasons in which he played.

So -- hypothetically -- if you had two leagues which were set up as follows:

League A: Every single pitcher is a genetic and conditional clones of some mediocre fast pitch softball pitcher, and all differences in their performance are due SOLELY to the strengths of their defense and random chance.

League B: Half the pitchers are average pitchers, a quarter have their hands intentionally mangled before each season with period re-injuring to ensure that they don't heal, and a quarter are genetically engineered supermen designed under laboratory conditions using splices of DNA taken from all of the greatest pitchers through history.

Then... the guys two standard dev's above mean in League A would be given the same value as the guys two standard dev's above mean in League B? How's that work?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

As I recall.

1. I shared my Grove vs. NY over 1929-1931 data with Jim Kaplan for his book. Jim specifically mentioned Mack's little use of Grove versus the Bombers over those years.

2. The late Jack Kavanaugh was a close friend of mine for nearly 20 years. That said, there is no comparison of his biography of Walter Johnson when placed along side of Thomas'.

3. Over his great seasons of '29-'31, Grove went 5-2 against NY in 10 starts. He completed only four of those games and his ERA was 4.86. By any type of statistical equalizer he should have worked at least twice that many innings. He also did not have to face his own team. In 1930 alone Wes Ferrell pitched the equilivant of 9 more complete games versus NY and Philadelphia than Grove did. With the differences in run scoring abilities of those squads versus the rest of the league this was a huge difference.

4. I have looked at every single game that Grove pitched in his seasons of 1920-23 and 1925-1938. I have read as many game accounts as I could find. Grove was a great pitcher, a lousy teammate, a poorly educated man, and very self-centered.

1. Yes, I know. But Kaplan's book was still written--pretty clearly, I think--to advocate the position Grove was the greatest pitcher ever. Of course, that's the conclusion suggested by the evidence, but I don't think he handled the data as objectively as he might have. As for the merits of his writing per se, he certainly did not create a fine piece of literature, as Creamer and Alexander did.

2. You are certainly right here. Henry Thomas's book is, as I said, the most laughably unobjective, distorted piece of sports writing I have ever read. And I, too, make my living by writing, Mr. Jackman. I know a thing or two about it. Henry Thomas is a lousy writer and, at least where his grandfather's ranking in baseball history is concerned, outrageously biased. I'm certain that if Johnson, Alexander, Grove, Young or Mathewson were my grandfather, I would be the same way. I wouldn't write as badly as Thomas does, but I probably would be as incapable of an objective analysis of the facts. I'd like to think, however, that I would at least try. He didn't.

3. OK. So Grove went 5-2 against the Yankees in 10 starts during those years, posted a lousy ERA in those games, and skipped 10 other starts he should have made. I agree that was reprehensible. Had he made those starts, let's say his ERA would have remained as mediocre against the Yankees--even though The Stadium favors lefties--and let's say his luck wouldn't have remained as good, making him 3-4 in those 10 added games. That makes him 303-145 for his career. Let's even be fanciful and suppose it costs him one of his nine ERA titles. He's still the best pitcher ever. This "usage data" is full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

4. I have never intimated Grove was a great human being. Neither was Cobb. Cobb was far more innately intelligent and better educated; a lot of people spend their lives thinking those are basically the same things, but in truth, they are wholly separate. I would not have wanted to know either man on a personal level, but I would have loved to spend a weekend talking with either. I rate Cobb as the second-best CF, and the third-best player, of all time. I rate Grove as the best pitcher of all time. I also rate both of them as world-class AH's. To me, their impeccable credentials in the latter category really aren't that relevant to their greatness in the former matters.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

So -- hypothetically -- if you had two leagues which were set up as follows:

League A: Every single pitcher is a genetic and conditional clones of some mediocre fast pitch softball pitcher, and all differences in their performance are due SOLELY to the strengths of their defense and random chance.

League B: Half the pitchers are average pitchers, a quarter have their hands intentionally mangled before each season with period re-injuring to ensure that they don't heal, and a quarter are genetically engineered supermen designed under laboratory conditions using splices of DNA taken from all of the greatest pitchers through history.

Then... the guys two standard dev's above mean in League A would be given the same value as the guys two standard dev's above mean in League B? How's that work?

It wouldn't work in that kind of extreme example, but baseball players are never that extreme in their differing skill levels.

The normal distribution is not a perfect model, and I would never claim it was, but it's a fairly good model that predicts the spread of performances in major league baseball well enough to be used to even the playing field most of the time. I don't believe Tim Keefe (13th in the PCA pitchers list right now) is really the 13th best pitcher of all time, because I don't fully buy that the normal distribution is correctly identifying the "difficulty" of the 19th century game...I'm obviously not done working on the problem of era adjustment though I have a good idea on what I'd like to do next...I just need the data in place to do it (which is why I'm working on setting up a good database in MySQL to do this research).

For the same reason, I'm not sold that Cy Young is really the 2nd best pitcher of all time.

[csh19792001]

3. OK. So Grove went 5-2 against the Yankees in 10 starts during those years, posted a lousy ERA in those games, and skipped 10 other starts he should have made. I agree that was reprehensible. Had he made those starts, let's say his ERA would have remained as mediocre against the Yankees--even though The Stadium favors lefties--and let's say his luck wouldn't have remained as good, making him 3-4 in those 10 added games. That makes him 303-145 for his career. Let's even be fanciful and suppose it costs him one of his nine ERA titles. He's still the best pitcher ever. This "usage data" is full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

BHN
This is the nature of the beast- I agree with most of what you said (as usual), BHN, but I just have to sift a bit through point #3.

Just a note on these projections- I thought it might help to see all of the data....

--In 1928 Grove went 1-6 against the Yankees with an ERA of 6.47.

--In 1929, he pulled it together- 5 starts against the Yanks, with an ERA that was actually slightly lower than his overall ERA. :clapping

--In 1930, though, he had a 4.86 ERA against the Yanks (over 2 runs higher than any other team)!!! That year Wahlberg pitched 54 innings against that alltime lineup, while Earnshaw pitched 33 and Grove only 16. Contrastingly, Grove pitched 53 innings against the GODAWFUL Boston offense and Earnshaw only 8!!!!

--Grove's performance against the AL in 1931 (in reverse order of runs scored):
BO: 3-0 record with 0.66 ERA in 3 starts (30 innings).
SL: 3-1 record with 1.03 ERA in 4 starts. (35 innings)
CH: 5-0 record with 1.40 ERA in 5 starts. (45 innings).
DE: 5-0 record with 1.80 ERA in 5 starts. (45 innings).
WA: 5-1 record with 1.73 ERA in 7 starts. (52 innings).
CL: 4-0 record with 3.61 ERA in 4 starts (36 innings).
NY: 2-1 record with 5.60 ERA in 3 starts (17.2 innings).

In 1930 and 31 combined, his ERA against the Yanks was a 5.58, the next lowest ERA he had against any team was 2.59, and his mean ERA was 2.20.

--In 1931, Grove's signature season:
Against the best 4 teams in the league (including the Yankees), Lefty Grove's ERA was 3.18, and against the worst three teams in the league (which went a combined 179-280), his ERA was 1.03.

I guess the point is, especially when we have a guy that had an ostensible alltime three year run during the A's dynasty, we have to look at all of the information and consider that his numbers in the encyclopedia belie the truth. Put those 3 years into proper perspective light of the facts, and it takes a bit of the luster off.

I think you making the blanket statement, even in light of what we're discussing that "He's still the best pitcher ever" may ironically be indicative of exactly what you were elucidating:


THAT is what I mean by "result-oriented" analysis. You start with your fixed goal in mind, call it "Point A," and everything you ultimately write will lead toward that point

I can't really fault you though; he's your alltime fav and it hurts to hear info like this presented. Isn't your point A that "Lefty Grove is, bar none, the greatest pitcher that ever lived", and any info that might disconfirm or undermine this contention is eschewed, because it leads one astray of that point A? I think most of us fall prey to this natural tendency.

[csh19792001]

For the same reason, I'm not sold that Cy Young is really the 2nd best pitcher of all time.

I guess my question is, then, do you believe that you will one day be sold on exactly where Young falls (1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th, whatever)?
Leave absolutely exacting enumerative rankings and sabermetrics aside for a second (why is it really that important that we preseverate on them constantly, anyway???) The question is, are you convinced he's certainly one of the greatest pitchers that ever lived based on what you've read about his life and career?

Why or why not?

[ElHalo]

Matt;

Now that the cat's out of the bag, Rube Waddell was the guy I was thinking of. His K rates are absolutely insane, and his other peripherals aren't bad at all. In ranking major league starting pitchers, I usually go:

1. W. Johnson
2. Mathewson
3. Grove
4. Martinez
5. Alexander
6. Young
7. Clemens
8. R. Johnson
9. Spahn
10. Waddell

What do you think of Rube?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

This is the nature of the beast- I agree with most of what you said (as usual), BHN, but I just have to sift a bit through point #3.

Just a note on these projections- I thought it might help to see all of the data....

--In 1928 Grove went 1-6 against the Yankees with an ERA of 6.47.

--In 1929, he pulled it together- 5 starts against the Yanks, with an ERA that was actually slightly lower than his overall ERA. :clapping

--In 1930, though, he had a 4.86 ERA against the Yanks (over 2 runs higher than any other team)!!! That year Wahlberg pitched 54 innings against that alltime lineup, while Earnshaw pitched 33 and Grove only 16. Contrastingly, Grove pitched 53 innings against the GODAWFUL Boston offense and Earnshaw only 8!!!!

--Grove's performance against the AL in 1931 (in reverse order of runs scored):
BO: 3-0 record with 0.66 ERA in 3 starts (30 innings).
SL: 3-1 record with 1.03 ERA in 4 starts. (35 innings)
CH: 5-0 record with 1.40 ERA in 5 starts. (45 innings).
DE: 5-0 record with 1.80 ERA in 5 starts. (45 innings).
WA: 5-1 record with 1.73 ERA in 7 starts. (52 innings).
CL: 4-0 record with 3.61 ERA in 4 starts (36 innings).
NY: 2-1 record with 5.60 ERA in 3 starts (17.2 innings).

In 1930 and 31 combined, his ERA against the Yanks was a 5.58, the next lowest ERA he had against any team was 2.59, and his mean ERA was 2.20.

--In 1931, Grove's signature season:
Against the best 4 teams in the league (including the Yankees), Lefty Grove's ERA was 3.18, and against the worst three teams in the league (which went a combined 179-280), his ERA was 1.03.

I guess the point is, especially when we have a guy that had an ostensible alltime three year run during the A's dynasty, we have to look at all of the information and consider that his numbers in the encyclopedia belie the truth. Put those 3 years into proper perspective light of the facts, and it takes a bit of the luster off.

I think you making the blanket statement, even in light of what we're discussing that "He's still the best pitcher ever" may ironically be indicative of exactly what you were elucidating:



I can't really fault you though; he's your alltime fav and it hurts to hear info like this presented. Isn't your point A that "Lefty Grove is, bar none, the greatest pitcher that ever lived", and any info that might disconfirm or undermine this contention is eschewed, because it leads one astray of that point A? I think most of us fall prey to this natural tendency.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Did you not see what I wrote?

I said, OK, fine, let's give him 3 more wins and 4 more losses, because he certainly was lucky to go 5-2 against the Yankees with that kind of ERA during that time. And I got really extravagant and said hell, let's not only put a very minor dent in that awesome lifetime W-L record (which would still be way over 2-1), let's also take away one of those 9 ERA titles.

Do you really think that changes anything?

I don't. You've still got EIGHT ERA titles, the last four of which were won in Fenway after age 35. You've still got a 300-game winner with a better than 2-1 w-l ratio, a category in which he is sui generis.

You are putting words in my mouth--or, more accurately, you are selectively parsing my words in order to make them look bad, and in order to make me look guilty of the vice I am decrying. Anyone who reads what I actually wrote will see otherwise.

I didn't know Grove, have never met anyone in his family, would guess that I wouldn't have liked the man at all, and am only "devoted" to him as #1 because it's so clear he deserves that stature and so few non-experts give him his due. This site is teeming with experts and near-experts, but so few are willing to back off of the prescribed dogma and accept what seems, really, to be awfully clear. For this site to have chosen the top THREE pitchers of all time, and Grove not to be one of them, is frankly preposterous.

Anyway, your post is really unfair, not to mention condescending (if not supercilious). I have a medical procedure tomorrow related to my digestive tract, and I don't need to get any more stressed than I already am, so I think that's the last of these posts I am going to read.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

Waddell is an OUTSTANDING pitcher, EH...and I agree with you that he is underrated by most. I have him 20th all time, that has moved around a bit over time between 14th and 23rd...Waddell's relative DIPS performance against his league's tendencies make him highly unusual and the ONLY reason he doesn't rank higher on my current list is that his career is way too short. Just like Sandy Koufax, he's limited by what he can score in such a short period of years, but here are the top ten lefties on the current GI leaderboard and where they fall overall.

First Last HOF? Rank
Lefty Grove Y 4
Randy Johnson A 9
Carl Hubbell Y 10
Sandy Koufax Y 17
Rube Waddell Y 20
Hal Newhouser Y 23
Warren Spahn Y 24
Steve Carlton Y 37
Eddie Plank Y 39
Lefty Gomez Y 40

There's a pretty big drop from Spahn to Carlton (Carlton is hurt by extreme inconsistency)

[BoSox Rule]

I rate Carlton alot higher than you. Weird since we have the same frame of mind when rating players even though you are a lot smarter.

[WJackman]

Grove's starts versus NY:

1929:

April 21: 3 earned runs in 5 innings. Win. Rain-shortened complete game.
April 27: 3 earned runs in 5.1 innings. ND
June 21: 1 earned run in 9 innings. Win
June 29: 2 earned runs in 6 innings. Loss.
October 5: 0 earned runs in 3 innings. ND

1930:
April 15: 1 earned run in 9 innings. Win
April 22: 6 earned runs in 2.1 innings. ND


(Mack then goes 13 months before he starts Grove again against NY)


1931:

May 25: 2 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
August 29: 4 earned runs in 5.2 innnings. Win
September 27: 5 earned runs in 3 innings. Loss

[WJackman]

Just for the heck of it, here is Wes Ferrell's starts. He worked much more frequently against NY over those years than Grove and also had to face the A's. As a matter of fact, the only reason he is not considered on par statistically with Grove in those years is due to his teammates and the caliber of oppostion. Ferrell was just not able to handle both the A's and the Yanks in the same year, dominating the A's in '30 and the Yanks in '31, but getting hit hard by the Yanks in '30 and the A's in '31. Put Ferrell on the Yanks for his career and it is easy to see potential 30 game win seasons in '30, '31, '32 and '35.


Versus NY:

July 19: 2 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
August 4: 4 earned runs in 3.1 innings. Loss
August 13: 2 earend runs in 9 innings. Win
September 18: 5 earned runs in 6 innings. Loss

Versus Philadelphia:

July 15: 5 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
July 23: 3 earend runs in 9 innings. Win
August 17: 0 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
September 10: 6 earned runs in 9 innings. Loss


1930:

Versus NY:

May 6: 5 earned runs in 7 innings. Win
June 26: 8 earned runs in 3 innings. Loss
June 29: 7 earned runs in 8 innings. Loss
July 22: 6 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
August 24: 2 earend runs in 9 innings. Win
September 10: 2 earned runs in 9 innings. Loss

Versus Philadelphia:

May 11: 2 earned runs in 6 innings. Win
June 13: 1 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
June 18: 6 earned runs in 4.1 innings. Loss
June 22: 0 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
July 27: 3 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
August 14: 0 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
September 14: 6 earned runs in 7 innings. Loss


1931:

Versus NY:

June 8: 0 earned runs in 9 innings. Win
June 27: 5 earend runs in 9 innings. Win
July 17: 1 earned run in 9 innings. Win
September 21: 1 earned run in 9 innings. Win

Versus Philadelphia:

May 17: 10 earned runs in 5.1 innings. Loss
June 17: 3 earned runs in 7 innings. Loss
July 1: 4 earned runs in 9 innings. Loss
July 25: 6 earend runs in 8 innings. Loss
August 15: 3 earned runs in 9 innings. Loss
September 16: 7 earned runs in 8 innings. Loss

[RuthMayBond]

THAT is what I mean by "result-oriented" analysis. You start with your fixed goal in mind, call it "Point A," and everything you ultimately write will lead toward that point. It's the vice which permeates Henry Thomas's laughable biography of Walter Johnson. To be honest, I think there's a meaningful element of it present in Kaplan's bio of Grove, too, because he definitely wrote that book to tell people Grove is the greatest pitcher ever.And how do we know you're not doing the same?

<Since there are TONS of stats which prove that point>

And many that do NOT

<why not just tell the story, lay out the stats, and let the readers draw their own conclusions?>

Or you could about Grove?

[RuthMayBond]

I have no problem with you looking at peak more than longevity and consistencey. I don't agree with that philosophy, but it is definately a worthwhile and credible stance, but in fairness to the teams Glavine was on...

Glavine's career run support coming in to 2006 was 102, or less than the average Hall of Famer and certainly less than most of the lefties in your top 10. 102 for a Hall of Famer is quite pedestrian.
Although better than Waddell's or Rixey's

<Glavine did have a good defense behind him, but did not benefit nearly as much from a good defense as much as Koufax or Ford. Certainly not as much as some right-handers like Plamer did either.>

Maybe that's why Palmer seems a little overrated

[RuthMayBond]

Same reason that I am not all that impressed with Tom Glavine among modern LHP. He just didn't dominate people. I know he won a couple CYA but he never led the league in ERA even once.He does have an ERA+ title, and he was only going up against Maddux & Randy :rolleyes:

[STLCards2]

He does have an ERA+ title, and he was only going up against Maddux & Randy :rolleyes:

If he can manage a top 10 finish this year in ERA+, it would be his 10th. Most of them being top 5, in a league with tons of pitcher to compete with, many of them being Hall of Famers/all-stars...Maddux, Smoltz, Brown, Johnson, Clemens, etc. there is a long list of HOF pitchers who were not in the top 10 ten times...Carlton, Niekro, Perry, Jenkins, Marichal, Feller, etc.

[rugbyfreak]

Let me add something to this one.

You can go to www.baseball-reference.com and, after entering Spahn's name and bringing up his main page, scroll down to the bottom and get lists of the times he was in the league's Top 10 in about a zillion different pitching categories. Or you can let me spare you the trouble by telling you it was ALL THE TIME.

Bill James rated Spahn as the #2 career value lefty in his great 1985 abstract, but not among his Top 10 in peak value, and said Spahn wasn't close to the Top 10. He then went on and on about how great Spahn's career was, and in fact not only rated Spahn ahead of every lefty but Grove, but also rated him ahead of EVERY SINGLE RIGHTY. He rated Grove as the #3 total player of all time, and Spahn as #11. Walter Johnson was #12. This was back before James was a slave to his numbers, with a limit to how much he would let himself adjust those numbers.

Anyway, pull up Sutton's page and check out how often he was in the Top 10, year by year, throughout his very long career. And check out how high he was in the Top 10 in each of those years. Then do the same for Spahn. I suggest you start with "Wins," a fairly meaningful stat.

That will put an end to this silly parallel.

BHN

Bingo, Nut. Baseball-reference.com, one of the great sites going, is exactly where I do such research as with Spahn. We're on the same page/site!

[SABR Matt]

ARGH!!!!

NO MORE ERA+!! IT BURNS MY BRAIN!!

MAKE IT STOP!!

*sigh*

Tom Glavine is in no way a top 10 or even top 25 pitcher in the history of left handers. His success, much like Whitey Ford's success is created by a combination of pitching for great team defenses and having a pitching style that fit his ballparks. In the DIPS sense, he does very little to influence the outcomes of his starts. He's just a good solid pitcher who works in better than normal circumstances.

[RuthMayBond]

ARGH!!!!

NO MORE ERA+!! IT BURNS MY BRAIN!!

MAKE IT STOP!!

*sigh*

Tom Glavine is in no way a top 10 or even top 25 pitcher in the history of left handers.Well, we'd love to the at least 25

<His success, much like Whitey Ford's success is created by a combination of pitching for great team defenses and having a pitching style that fit his ballparks.>

What does "pitching style that fit his ballparks" mean?

[HondoHR33]

I've been a baseball fan since 1960. Here's my top five list, in order, that includes only pitchers I actually saw pitch. I also consider pitchers who I'd want on the mound if it was Game 7 of the World Series.

1. Sandy Koufax -- along with Nolan Ryan, only two pitchers I saw who you thought could pitch a no-hitter on any given night. Their stuff was THAT good!
2. Bob Gibson -- best money pitcher and perhaps best competitor I ever saw.
3. Roger Clemens -- I believe that no active or future pitchers, no matter how young or old, will duplicate Roger's win and K totals. Money is just too great now and I don't think they will pitch long enough to compile such numbers.
4. Nolan Ryan -- he's degraded by some for his career winning percentage, but some people don't realize that this guy played for some awful teams, particularly when he was with the Angels. I mean, that team once had Dave Chalk batting cleanup!!!! I always classify Ryan as the most AMAZING pitcher I ever saw. There has never been a 45-46 year-old POWER pitcher in major league history, and I doubt there ever will be again.
5. Greg Maddux -- His number of Cy Young awards tells it all.

I had a tough time with No. 5. My first four were pretty easy for me. I could have put Randy Johnson at No. 5. It was close.

Two best YOUNG pitchers I ever saw break in were Frank Tanana and Doc Gooden. One (Tanana) liked to party too much and hurt his arm. Too bad. The other (Gooden), well, we all know what happed there.





This is a very important point which gets muddled over by number crunchers. My assertion is that Bob Gibson in '68 was the greatest season I have ever seen a pitcher have. But if you believe it was Koufax in '65 or Gooden in '85 or Guidry in '78, great. These were all great seasons in their own right and everyone has an opinion and it is fun to discuss and banter back and forth, but to say that there is some magic formula that will give us the answer-well, that may be good enough for computers, but real human beings experienced these feats. Some players burned bright and burned out, some were less brilliant but had staying power. The beauty is in the beholder. It's all a matter of opinion as to what, or who, is better. :coffee

[BaseballHistoryNut]

And how do we know you're not doing the same?

<Since there are TONS of stats which prove that point>

And many that do NOT

<why not just tell the story, lay out the stats, and let the readers draw their own conclusions?>

Or you could about Grove?


I have repeatedly laid out all of the facts at my disposal about Grove. As I said last night, I have no agenda where he is concerned. I never met the man, have no doubt he was a jerk--though nowhere near Cobb's league in that regard--and cannot imagine I would have found him interesting once the lengthy baseball chat was done. As despicable as Cobb was, I'm sure I would have found him fascinating. And since I have clients on Death Row, and have represented innumerable people serving life without parole, I wouldn't have been the least bit scared to spend time alone with him and his choleric temper.

By my reckoning, the A's played each A.L. team, including the Yankees, 22 times each year. Grove should have pitched about 1/4 of those games, maybe a bit more, because a pitcher of anywhere near that caliber should pitch against the other "dynasty team" in the league, when possible. So let's say he should have faced them 7 times a year--even though, in truth, the Yankees were anything BUT a dynasty from 1929-1931 (see below).

From Mr. Jackman's stats, my liberal projections of starts against NY mean Grove missed two starts against the Yankees in 1929, five in 1930 and four in 1931. Those are high figures, based on the assumption Grove should have faced the Yankees each time the teams met up, but I'm willing to buy that assumption. That gives Grove eleven games against the Yankees, instead of eleven games he pitched against lesser teams--even though the Yankees didn't finish within a mile of the A's in ANY of those three years, and in fact the Senators finished 8 games ahead of the Yankees in 1930 (and 8 games behind the A's).

Now, it's unreasonable to suppose Grove would have gotten killed in those starts, given the records the Yankees posted, not to mention the edge Grove would have enjoyed in Yankee Stadium as a lefty. But let's say that in those 11 games as it was, he went 8-1 with 2 no decisions. That's pretty good, but then, he was 79-15 in those years, so I'll take away 8 wins and 1 loss, reducing his career record to 292-140.

Now let's add 3 wins and 4 losses, with 4 no decisions, on the very dubious notions that (A) Grove would have gotten killed by the Yankee bats and (B) his own team's great lineup would have failed to hit the Yankees' mediocre pitchers. All of this is being very pessimistic, and going out of my way to project failure onto a man who had almost none in those 3 years, but I'm playing along with the game, shading everything against Grove by resolving every possible doubt against him.

Well, now we have changed his career record to 295-144. He is STILL the only 250-game winner with a better than 2-1 record of wins and losses... and he's 7 games better than 2-1. Moreover, even if this hocus-pocus and resolving all doubts against him winds up costing him an ERA title, he STILL has one more than Clemens and far more than anyone else, and he still did it in THOSE parks.

Any mathematician who reads the way I have resolved the "missed starts against the Yankees" issue is going to say I bent over backwards well too far in punishing Grove.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

ARGH!!!!

NO MORE ERA+!! IT BURNS MY BRAIN!!

MAKE IT STOP!!

*sigh*

Tom Glavine is in no way a top 10 or even top 25 pitcher in the history of left handers. His success, much like Whitey Ford's success is created by a combination of pitching for great team defenses and having a pitching style that fit his ballparks. In the DIPS sense, he does very little to influence the outcomes of his starts. He's just a good solid pitcher who works in better than normal circumstances.

Well, Matt, I'm going to start by acknowledging that you place a lot more importance on numbers than I do. At least, I sense that it's all objective for you, though if I'm wrong, please say so. There is a substantial amount of subjectivity in my rankings... otherwise, how could I have Campy at #1?

But you must, please, tell me what "DIPS" is. That is a stat I've seen you, and only you, refer to. But it's obvious you consider it a very big stat, so I would like to know what it's about. Please understand you will be writing for someone who: (1) scored 800 on his high school Math SAT; but (2) hasn't had a Math class since 1972, and that was (very) Elementary Statistics. So I have a logical mind, but I have been away from Math so long that a lot of mathematical gibberish is going to sail right on over my head. Please express yourself accordingly, ok? :ughh :crazy :eek:

OK. I eagerly await your enlightenment.

BHN

[ElHalo]

But you must, please, tell me what "DIPS" is. That is a stat I've seen you, and only you, refer to. But it's obvious you consider it a very big stat, so I would like to know what it's about.

It's something I completely disagree with, though it has a solid statistical foundation. The thinking is that pitchers can control HR's, K's, and BB's, and that essentially everything else is a product of a) random chance, or b) their defense.

So DIPS measures a pitcher's performance using ONLY K's, BB's, and HR's.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

It's something I completely disagree with, though it has a solid statistical foundation. The thinking is that pitchers can control HR's, K's, and BB's, and that essentially everything else is a product of a) random chance, or b) their defense.

So DIPS measures a pitcher's performance using ONLY K's, BB's, and HR's.

But line drives have a much better chance of becoming base hits than popups or ground balls do. A pop up is almost never a base hit; a well-struck line-drive is often a hit, even an extra base hit. A weak ground ball is usually an out; a hard-hit ground ball is commonly a single.

I am fairly sure that hard hit grounders result in a lot more hits than weakly hit grounders do. I am positive that hard hit balls in the air result in a lot more hits than weakly hit balls in the air do. And a good pitcher is more difficult to hit HARD than a lousy pitcher is.

In other words, HR's are not the only context in which the firmness with which one hits the ball is related to one's chance of getting on.

Hell, think back on softball leagues you've played in. Now, I am 6'2" and over 250 pounds. My swing is not conducive to HR's, but it's conducive to a LOT of hard-hit line drives. And I know, for sure, that when I hit the ball hard, I have an enormously better chance of getting on base than when I hit it weakly. And that's true whether I hit it in the air or on the ground. No contest.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

DIPS is hardly exclusive to me in the world of pitching analysis, I'm just the most vocal advocate for its proper use here at baseball-fever.

It's an acronym which means "Defense Independent Pitching Statistics" and was first discussed in a groundbreaking, albeit way overly simplistic research paper submitted by Voros McCracken in order to obtain a graduate degree (Mr. McCracken has since been hired by the Red Sox as a pitching analyst).

He intended to search for an explanation as to why pitching ERAs seemed so unpredictably erratic from year to year compared to batting averages or isolated powr (SLG - BA) or any of the numerous batting statistics that seem to track very well from year to year. That is to say, if you hit .300 in a reasonably large number of at bats in one season, it is reasonable to expect you'll hit within a standard and small error margin of .300 again in the following season barring injuries or other catastrophic changes to the factors that contribute to your hitting skill.

What he found was something that a lot of fans have an intuitive distaste for. It is deeply ingrained in us when watching a game to relate the defensive success of a team strongly to the pitcher and ONLY the pitcher. If he gives up five hits in a row, he must be "struggling" and in need of relief, no matter what kind of hits they are. McCracken showed that pitchers had little or no visible (visible in the data) control over the result of a batted ball in play. Any time a ball is contacted by a bat and hit somewhere between the foul lines and short of the home run line, it is entirely random chance, the skill of fielders on that pitcher's team, and the shape of the park in which he pitches (and other factors like the speed of the batter) that determines whether the batted ball is an out or a hit, according to McCracken.

He did everything he could think of to disprove this notion because it's an uncomfortable one especially for long time fans of the game who've been trained to appreciate the art of inducing "bad contact" but everything he attempted strengthened his belief that a pitcher has very little control over the battinig average on balls in play (although with the aid of modern play by play analysis, we have learned that pitchers who throw more ground balls will give up more hits, but fewer for extra bases, and pitchers who throw more fly balls will give up fewer hits on balls in play but more extra base hits and more home runs...these differences tend to be very small, however, between GB specialists and FB pitchers).

He went further and correlated ERA with the three true outcomes (things the pitcher influences exclusively)...those being K, BB, and HR rates. The expected ERA he produced had a much stronger correlation with the NEXT season than the original ERA did (IOW, DIPS ERA does a better job predicting future pitching performance than ordinary ERA).

I don't use his correlated DIPS ERA because I think it is highly oversimplified. What I use to evaluate pitchers is a combination of the runs they are directly responsible for (BBs, Ks, and HRs, plus HBP, WP, BK and positive credit for PkO) and an expected runs on balls in play figure which is calculated by finding the league average rate at which balls in play produce hits in play and multiplying that by the pitcher's actual balls in play. I also make an adjustment to each pitching record to account for the actual impact they had on the team's BABIP To do this you find each teams number of in play hits allowed and outs in play, subtract out the ones that occured when the pitcher in question was on the mound, then calculate the team's BABIP when the pitcher was not pitching and that pitcher's own BABIP and take the difference to be created by the pitcher's influence and not the team defense.

When you combine those three things (DIPS events, his actual impact on the BABIP, and the league average BABIP instead of one generated by his team defense and the unique conditions of his home park), I believe you get a very solid picture of all of the things eack pitcher was able to do to contribute to the prevention of runs and you automatically take his defense out of the equation.

The result in the case of Tom Glavine reveals a pitcher who pitches to his defense and does not, himself, produce a large positive advantage by his presence.

[flash143817]

He does have an ERA+ title, and he was only going up against Maddux & Randy :rolleyes:

That ERA+ title was before Maddux and Randy really became the great Maddux and Randy. Maddux put up a 115 that year and Randy checked in with a stellar 104.

The studs that Glavine managed to edge out that year were Rijo, Belcher, Morgan, DeLeon, and El Presidente. A couple good pitchers but none of all-time great caliber.

I wouldn't rate Glavine any higher than 5th for his own era.

[ElHalo]

Any time a ball is contacted by a bat and hit somewhere between the foul lines and short of the home run line, it is entirely random chance, the skill of fielders on that pitcher's team, and the shape of the park in which he pitches (and other factors like the speed of the batter) that determines whether the batted ball is an out or a hit, according to McCracken.

The one thing that's always bugged me about this...

It's readily apparent that hitters' BIPA track reasonably well. If a guy hits .300 one year, as you said, he can be expected to hit reasonably in the vicinity of .300 the next year.

So if a hitter's balls in play average can be largely dependant on their own skill, and can come largely irrespective of the skill of the defenders, random chance, and the shape of the ballpark... how can those factors be all that influence pitchers? In every hit, there are two actors... the batter getting the hit, and the pitcher giving it up. How can the success ratio for one of those parties be dependant on their own skill, but the other one be completely irrelevant?

[STLCards2]

The one thing that's always bugged me about this...

It's readily apparent that hitters' BIPA track reasonably well. If a guy hits .300 one year, as you said, he can be expected to hit reasonably in the vicinity of .300 the next year.

So if a hitter's balls in play average can be largely dependant on their own skill, and can come largely irrespective of the skill of the defenders, random chance, and the shape of the ballpark... how can those factors be all that influence pitchers? In every hit, there are two actors... the batter getting the hit, and the pitcher giving it up. How can the success ratio for one of those parties be dependant on their own skill, but the other one be completely irrelevant?

Oh my gosh, I agree with you completely!

Also, nobody has answered my question. If DIPS is all about correlations, (which even Bill James and his research group admitted that many pitchers do has a career long correlation for BAA on BIP-not as much season-by-season), how can you explain a guy like Glavine who has huge correlations producing an abnormal amount of double pays year after year after year if he had no control over inducing double plays? Were those Braves' defenses so good that they and not Glavine produced 10-15 more double plays per season than the average pitcher?

How could Glavine be 10-15% better than league average at leaving runners on base year after year after year? Even during the Mets and early Braves poor defense years?

The defenses behind Glavine ranged from mediocre early on, to good, to very good during a few seasons, to poor the first two seasons with New York to good the past few. Shouldn't Glavine's LOB% and DP induced rates be all over the place depending on the quality of defense? They aren't too much. The have always been way above average.


Also, if homeruns are one of the big three pitcher controled stats, the shouldn't Glavine be given credit for being so much above average giving up homeruns? Throw in being above average giving up walks most seasons, should Glavine's succes be that suprising?

Speaking of homeruns, how is a ball that goes 320 ft. in that bogus Houston porch a pitcher controlled homerun, but a double that goes 430 ft. in right-center Arizona a random-luck hit?

I would encourage everybody to go to baseball Prospectus. com and see the player cards of Hall of Fame pitchers. Almost all of them have - hit luck year after year after year, even the guys with poor defenses behind them. A year in which + hit luck happens can be explained by a pitcher putting more pitches over the middle of the plate just as easily as hit luck.

[SABR Matt]

The one thing that's always bugged me about this...

It's readily apparent that hitters' BIPA track reasonably well. If a guy hits .300 one year, as you said, he can be expected to hit reasonably in the vicinity of .300 the next year.

So if a hitter's balls in play average can be largely dependant on their own skill, and can come largely irrespective of the skill of the defenders, random chance, and the shape of the ballpark... how can those factors be all that influence pitchers? In every hit, there are two actors... the batter getting the hit, and the pitcher giving it up. How can the success ratio for one of those parties be dependant on their own skill, but the other one be completely irrelevant?

The short answer to this question is that the hitter is in control of the at bat in reality, EH. The other things come into play but hitters face (on average) a roughly average level of pitching and more importantly FIELDING competition over the course of a season, so their skill shows through on a nearly average playing field. It should also be noted that while the range of common BABIPs is larger for hitters, they do mostly still circle around league average because team defenses position themselves in an effort to stop a hitter from getting in play hits as much as possible, so there's a limit to how effective he can be which is impacted by how hard he hits the ball and how fast he runs (and whether he's a flyball batter or a groundball batter).

Hitters control their averages more than pitchers control the BABIP because pitchers do not necessarily have league-average defenses behind them...they have ONE defense and it directly controls the rate at which balls in play become hits. And when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand, he knows only what he wants to do and a guess at what the hitter wants to do...hitters have time to actually READ THE PITCH and react to it, giving them an advantage that allows the good ones to rise above the impact of the league average BABIP.

[SABR Matt]

For example...when you watch Ichiro hit, you can literally see him following the pitch, making a decision about the best approach to hitting it, lining it up on an imaginary string that points where he wants it to go, and flicking the bat into perfect position to do it. His speed and his unusually strong hand-eye coordination and rapid mental reflex times allow him nearly unparalleled control over where the ball goes when he hits it, and cause his career BABIP to be WELL above the .296 average over his career in the AL (.358 at last check) despite a lack of true HR power.

[digglahhh]

Back to my original point here, although we have long since veered away, what happens if you reverse Doc Gooden's career? HOF?

[STLCards2]

Back to my original point here, although we have long since veered away, what happens if you reverse Doc Gooden's career? HOF?

No, since Gooden only had one truly Koufax-type year, and a couple fo good ones, whereas Koufax had 5 greta seasons and one good one.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well his actual numbers wouldn't change, but you mean how they are perceived would change?

[SABR Matt]

Yes...his argument is that if Gooden had finished on a high note after struggling early, he might be looked at as similar to Koufax. That of course blows up when you realize he was no where near as successful as Koufax in his prime years, but it's an interesting point about perceptions of the fans being heavily swayed by what happens recently rather than what happens in total.

If Clemens had had his 1.86 ERA season in 2000 and then slowly declined into retirement, I doubt you'd hear people rallying around the idea that he's the best ever even if his overall numbers had been the same.

[HondoHR33]

[QUOTE=STLCards2]Don't waste your time. The people who think Koufax had the greatest peak ever tend to not look at ballpark effects, defensive and offensive support, or era adjustments.[QUOTE]

You're right ... but how bout this: When Koufax took the mound, he took it knowing that most of the time he was going to go nine innings and throw 150 or more pitches. He didn't have these set-up relievers and closers that they have today. Makes a big difference when you get to August and September and have been babied the whole season as to reaching the home stretch and having already pitched 20 complete games. I've been privileged to see all the great pitchers since 1960, and when he was in his prime, Koufax was head and shoulders above anyone else. Bob Gibson was the greatest money pitcher I've ever seen. If I had to win a Game 7, I'd want Gibson on the mound.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yes...his argument is that if Gooden had finished on a high note after struggling early, he might be looked at as similar to Koufax. That of course blows up when you realize he was no where near as successful as Koufax in his prime years, but it's an interesting point about perceptions of the fans being heavily swayed by what happens recently rather than what happens in total.

If Clemens had had his 1.86 ERA season in 2000 and then slowly declined into retirement, I doubt you'd hear people rallying around the idea that he's the best ever even if his overall numbers had been the same.

Without too much thought, I actually think Diggs is onto something there. So you put Gooden's no-no at the beginning and just flip everything around... The middle of his career would still be marred by drugs but if he had 52 complete games, 19 SHO and a 91-35 record in his last 5 years, along with amazing ERA's especially in this offensive environment, who knows. His legacy might very well be much different. The taste last left in our mouths lingers and influences our perceptions years and years down the road.

[SABR Matt]

Agreed.

I don't think Gooden did enough even if you flip it to convince the writers that he's a HOFer, but there are other players who are not in the hall that should be but lost out because they finished badly (Will Clark leaps to mind).

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I think real cases can be made for either Gooden or Clark, especially Gooden, as Hall of Famers.

Many of us will remember the awe with which Gooden was greeted. THE greatest teen phenom ever, "and never mind Bob Feller," one publication said. (I remember the quote, because it was striking--but fair.) One longtime Dodger scout said that for the first time in his decades of experience, he felt Young's record of 511 wins was in jeopardy... and nobody ridiculed him.

With THOSE expectations, yeah, Gooden rates as a colossal failure. But how many 20th Century pitchers won more games, with his kind of W-L %, outside of WWII, and failed to make the Hall? Answer: zero.

Does this automatically make Gooden a HOF'er? Of course not. And, having studied his Adjusted ERA's after his fabulous career start, I do not think he should make the Hall. I think his W-L records were amazingly lucky--e.g., in 1990, he went 19-7 with an Adjusted ERA of 98. That's the most ridiculous of his years, but he got lucky a LOT.

If Pedro had that kind of luck, he'd have 250 wins by now.

But a lot of pitchers get in the Hall just off of win-related stats. Gooden's won-loss % is way up there, and between it and 194 wins, I easily can see him in the Hall someday. He won't belong there, but he'll bring a lot more than many members did.

BHN

[csh19792001]

I think real cases can be made for either Gooden or Clark, especially Gooden, as Hall of Famers.

Many of us will remember the awe with which Gooden was greeted. THE greatest teen phenom ever, "and never mind Bob Feller," one publication said. (I remember the quote, because it was striking--but fair.) One longtime Dodger scout said that for the first time in his decades of experience, he felt Young's record of 511 wins was in jeopardy... and nobody ridiculed him.

BHN

BHN,

You'll enjoy these:

Gooden #1 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=549692&postcount=5)

Post #2 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=549705&postcount=6)

And as I posted later on in that thread, Warren Spahn was quoted as saying that Gooden had the potential to be the greatest pitcher ever. Something along the lines of Nicklaus saying, after he'd played his first round with Tiger: "This kid should end up with more Green Jackets than Arnold and I combined" (which would be 10 total).

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Thanks, CSH. As always, you're a great source.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It goes game by game--it's not meant to be great literature--and it seems like almost every game he lost was 1-0, 3-2, or something like that.

Johnson was involved in sixty-four 1-0 games. He won 38 and lost 26 (3 to Ruth :D)

That sixty-four total is more than twice as many as anyone else.

[baseball junkie]

There might be about five pitchers in the Hall of Fame more deserving than Sandy Koufax: Walter Johnson; Christy Mathewson; Left Grove; Tom Seaver; Jim Palmer.

His greatness is almost unquestionable -- don't like to deal in absolutes.

This same sort of argument is constantly used to discredit great players in other sports. For example, Terrell Davis. Ask any football "expert" and they will tell you that he does not belong in Canton. Because after posting these numbers in his first four seasons he struggled through three injury plagued years.

Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1995 den | 14 | 237 1117 4.7 7 | 49 367 7.5 1 |
| 1996 den | 16 | 345 1538 4.5 13 | 36 310 8.6 2 |
| 1997 den | 15 | 369 1750 4.7 15 | 42 287 6.8 0 |
| 1998 den | 16 | 392 2008 5.1 21 | 25 217 8.7 2 |

In addition to those stats, Davis lead Denver to two Superbowl Championships, won the 1998 NFL MVP, the 1997 & 1998 AFC Offensive Player of the Year Award and the Super Bowl XXXII MVP. At the time he was only the 4th running back to ever surpass 2,000 yards rushing in a single season -- since it's been done one more time.

And yet "experts" say he wasn't dominant for long enough. To me this is insipid. Davis was great. Koufax was great. Let's be thankful that baseball writers are a little brighter than the people who elect the players for the Pro-Football Hall of Fame.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I understand what you're getting at and certainly don't disagree with the premise, especially as it relates to Koufax. Gotta be careful when comparing football to baseball though. Football, especially the running back position, is very dependant on so many others doing their job properly. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that immediately following the "he didn't do it long enough" comments for Davis, are the "that Denver system is made for running backs, you could have plugged anyone in there and he'd have done that, just look at who followed him" comments. They might not be entirely wrong either. The fullback, offensive line, and run/pass ratio of the system play a huge part. Davis was a stud but I think the Koufax comparison is flawed based on differences in structure of the sports.

[RuthMayBond]

Agreed.

I don't think Gooden did enough even if you flip it to convince the writers that he's a HOFer, but there are other players who are not in the hall that should be but lost out because they finished badly (Will Clark leaps to mind).You must be thinking of Dale Murphy or maybe Jim Rice

[SABR Matt]

Jim Rice is *NOT* worthy of the HOF...and I'm really tired of all of the support he gets around here...LOL

[538280]

Jim Rice is *NOT* worthy of the HOF...and I'm really tired of all of the support he gets around here...LOL

I agree, Jim Rice was a pretty good slugger who couldn't walk, grouded into WAY too many DPs, and was fortunate enough to play for the Red Sox, where he got an extremely favorable park to play in and millions of loyal fans who love to cry about how great old Jim Rice was. Rice played in the late 60s/early 70s in Oakland or Houston and his reputation is that of a fair slugger know for tons of GIDPs.

[flash143817]

I agree, Jim Rice was a pretty good slugger who couldn't walk, grouded into WAY too many DPs, and was fortunate enough to play for the Red Sox, where he got an extremely favorable park to play in and millions of loyal fans who love to cry about how great old Jim Rice was. Rice played in the late 60s/early 70s in Oakland or Houston and his reputation is that of a fair slugger know for tons of GIDPs.

Or put him somewhere like Kansas City or Montreal where nobody ever writes about the players, instead of a baseball hotbed like Boston.

[ElHalo]

There might be about five pitchers in the Hall of Fame more deserving than Sandy Koufax: Walter Johnson; Christy Mathewson; Left Grove; Tom Seaver; Jim Palmer.

I'm sorry; is this for real? Tom Seaver? Jim Palmer??? I don't quite understand what kind of joke you're trying to make here.

[SABR Matt]

Seaver > Koufax EH

But not Palmer. LOL

[ElHalo]

Seaver > Koufax EH

But not Palmer. LOL

To be honest with you, I wouldn't really quibble about either one being better than Koufax (although the argument is obviously better for Seaver than Palmer). But in the top five? There's nobody else that springs to mind as a top five pitcher of all time, in the history of baseball, ahead of Jim Palmer?

[SABR Matt]

Heh...on that point we agree. :)

[538280]

Talking about Glavine, Palmer has always struck me as a somewhat better version of Glavine. Pretty good pitcher, relied a ton on the tremendous defense behind him (Belanger, Grich, Brooksie, Blair, the O's then had a TREMENDOUS defense). Would not have been nearly as great outside of those friendly confines. Most people have Palmer ahead of Fergie Jenkins, Fergie lasted much longer, and wasn't all that far back on the ERA stats, despite having so much tougher conditions. Jenkins to me is one of the most underrated pitchers of all time, Palmer one of the most overrated.

[SABR Matt]

Agreed there Chris...Palmer is in the 50s by the GI method overall...he's better than Glavine...but overrated by many.

[rugbyfreak]

I've been a baseball fan since 1960. Here's my top five list, in order, that includes only pitchers I actually saw pitch. I also consider pitchers who I'd want on the mound if it was Game 7 of the World Series.

1. Sandy Koufax -- along with Nolan Ryan, only two pitchers I saw who you thought could pitch a no-hitter on any given night. Their stuff was THAT good!
2. Bob Gibson -- best money pitcher and perhaps best competitor I ever saw.
3. Roger Clemens -- I believe that no active or future pitchers, no matter how young or old, will duplicate Roger's win and K totals. Money is just too great now and I don't think they will pitch long enough to compile such numbers.
4. Nolan Ryan -- he's degraded by some for his career winning percentage, but some people don't realize that this guy played for some awful teams, particularly when he was with the Angels. I mean, that team once had Dave Chalk batting cleanup!!!! I always classify Ryan as the most AMAZING pitcher I ever saw. There has never been a 45-46 year-old POWER pitcher in major league history, and I doubt there ever will be again.
5. Greg Maddux -- His number of Cy Young awards tells it all.

I had a tough time with No. 5. My first four were pretty easy for me. I could have put Randy Johnson at No. 5. It was close.

Two best YOUNG pitchers I ever saw break in were Frank Tanana and Doc Gooden. One (Tanana) liked to party too much and hurt his arm. Too bad. The other (Gooden), well, we all know what happed there.

A good list, hard to fault it, although the thing about pitching arguments is that it lends itself--more than hitting--to dispute, because of all the factors involved. And this makes them fun threads, because there are many valid ways to evaluate a career.

Interesting you mention Ryan, one of the more controversial HOF hurlers, although there aren't that many serious baseball people left out there who persist in denying his place in the Hall (I didn't say there were NONE), since his ability--or rather DURAbility--as a power pitcher was pretty much unique (although now Clemens and Johnson are matching it).

I grew up with Ryan, having begun to follow baseball in '68, his rookie year. From my town in the NYC metro area, I witnessed the Met Miracle the next year (although I was a Yankee fan and actually rooted for the Orioles, a team I grew to really hate in the coming years, since the Yanks ate their dust for years). Ryan, of course, was a young wunderkind on that young, talented Met pitching staff, still regarded as one of the best in the post-War era, anyway.

Anyway, he remains an interesting case. Although slowly, inexorably, he won over most of the HOF skeptics on the strength of his remarkable post-40s performances ("Oh, not impressed I got 301 Ks at age 42? OK, I'll lead the league again next year, and throw six shutouts, and this time I'll toss a no-hitter. Still not convinced? OK, next year--1991--I'll lead the league for the 5th successive year in K's/9 innings, and tell you what: I'll throw one more no-hitter.

At that point, even the holdouts were on board, and he was elected in '99 (I believe his second try). Since then, the popular sport among former naysayers, SABER swingers and other various "purists" has been to peck away at the various soft spots in his career ledger. And, like any pitcher you care to name, he has a few, to wit:

--He walked too many. True, he led his league eight times, and holds the career record. But he never led a league after 1982, and never totaled more than 100 in a season after 1983, though he topped 200 Ks six more times, won four more strikeout titles and (as mentioned) five more Ks/9 innings titles. From age 37 on, he finally mastered control, though continuing to be every bit the power pitcher he had been. And though walks as the bane of every pitcher's existence is one old adage that has stood the test of every bit of new-age analysis we have thrown at it, it is well known that pitchers who record strikeouts and allow limited hits are given more leeway in this regard. HOF voters have forever done the same for power hitters who strike out; this is no different.

--His winning percentage is too low (.526). Fine, it probably ranks way down there in the HOF, which is chock full of championship hurlers, whose win totals and WS accomplishments dazzle the voters. With the exception of the '69 Mets (for whom Nolan was strictly supporting cast), Ryan's teams never made the WS again, and only four more (1 Angels and 3 Astros) visited the post-season. In between, those Angels teams of the '70s were perennial non-events in the AL West, and later, those Texas squads hovered around .500, but not much better. For serious students of baseball history, wins are something we take a look at--and then the real digging begins. You have to ask yourself: Would Whitey Ford have compiled nearly a .700 lifetime WP playing for the Senators? Rather than discount him for it, I'd say .526 was pretty damn good for those teams, and invariably he surpassed what the team had done in any given year, which is really what we have to look for in winning percentage, since it reflects how a pitcher rises above what he is given. (See, this is why Whitey, for all the heaven-sent blessings life gave him, is still a sure-fire HOFer, because in nearly every year of his career, his personal WP bettered that of the Yankees, even though they were winning pennant after pennant.)

--Won 20 games only twice. I'd say, see the above, but oddly, his four best win totals (including two others of 19) all came with those dreadful Angels squads. When he finally got the chance to pitch for some really good teams, he hiccupped each time, compiling not bad, but quite pedestrian seasons. This remains unexplainable, and admittedly a negative in his career evaluation.

--Never won the Cy Young. True enough, but just ask Juan Marichal how tricky that can be. You have no control over who your competition is out there, nor how they do. In Marichal's case, the enemies were named Koufax, Gibson, and, before '67, the two leagues, one Cy policy. In his two windows of opportunity, 1964 (when Koufax was injured) and 1967 (when Gibby went down), he was felled by two creditable, but by no means star, pitchers: Dean Chance, who in '64 had some year for the ages (11 shutouts) and took the one and only Cy awarded; and most galling, bested in '67 by a fellow Giant, a ham-and-egger named Mike McCormick, who coasted to one of the softest 22-win seasons ever, while Juan suffered through his only injury-marred season of the '60s. Ryan, meanwhile, was up against the Palmer-Hunter juggernaut, as voters showed a preference for championship-team aces, as they usually do for the MVP as well. 1973 and '74 were his best shots, as he won 21 and 22 games, and fanned 383 (new record) and 367, but the Angels back then had no vibe (how could they, with a manager named Bobby Winkles?). His final best shot (where I think he should have pulled through) was '77 (19-16/341K/2.77, league-high 22 CG and 10.26 K/9IP, league-low 5.96 HA/9IP), where, even as a Yankee fan, I admit the election of Sparky Lyle was a brainfart for the ages, and fully admit to being shocked upon reading it in the paper.

Well, I could go on, but the point here is this: Raw numbers may degrade his status over time, but he remains one of those classic "you had to see him" pitchers, and if you did, you were awed. So, hats off to you for taking on this crowd by including Nolan, because they are ready with their anti-Nolan swords, as always.

freak

[HondoHR33]

Hey Freak,

Thanks for your interesting post. You make a lot of good, valid points. The only thing I have to correct you on is that the Express was voted into Cooperstown on his first try.


A good list, hard to fault it, although the thing about pitching arguments is that it lends itself--more than hitting--to dispute, because of all the factors involved. And this makes them fun threads, because there are many valid ways to evaluate a career.

Interesting you mention Ryan, one of the more controversial HOF hurlers, although there aren't that many serious baseball people left out there who persist in denying his place in the Hall (I didn't say there were NONE), since his ability--or rather DURAbility--as a power pitcher was pretty much unique (although now Clemens and Johnson are matching it).

I grew up with Ryan, having begun to follow baseball in '68, his rookie year. From my town in the NYC metro area, I witnessed the Met Miracle the next year (although I was a Yankee fan and actually rooted for the Orioles, a team I grew to really hate in the coming years, since the Yanks ate their dust for years). Ryan, of course, was a young wunderkind on that young, talented Met pitching staff, still regarded as one of the best in the post-War era, anyway.

Anyway, he remains an interesting case. Although slowly, inexorably, he won over most of the HOF skeptics on the strength of his remarkable post-40s performances ("Oh, not impressed I got 301 Ks at age 42? OK, I'll lead the league again next year, and throw six shutouts, and this time I'll toss a no-hitter. Still not convinced? OK, next year--1991--I'll lead the league for the 5th successive year in K's/9 innings, and tell you what: I'll throw one more no-hitter.

At that point, even the holdouts were on board, and he was elected in '99 (I believe his second try). Since then, the popular sport among former naysayers, SABER swingers and other various "purists" has been to peck away at the various soft spots in his career ledger. And, like any pitcher you care to name, he has a few, to wit:

--He walked too many. True, he led his league eight times, and holds the career record. But he never led a league after 1982, and never totaled more than 100 in a season after 1983, though he topped 200 Ks six more times, won four more strikeout titles and (as mentioned) five more Ks/9 innings titles. From age 37 on, he finally mastered control, though continuing to be every bit the power pitcher he had been. And though walks as the bane of every pitcher's existence is one old adage that has stood the test of every bit of new-age analysis we have thrown at it, it is well known that pitchers who record strikeouts and allow limited hits are given more leeway in this regard. HOF voters have forever done the same for power hitters who strike out; this is no different.

--His winning percentage is too low (.526). Fine, it probably ranks way down there in the HOF, which is chock full of championship hurlers, whose win totals and WS accomplishments dazzle the voters. With the exception of the '69 Mets (for whom Nolan was strictly supporting cast), Ryan's teams never made the WS again, and only four more (1 Angels and 3 Astros) visited the post-season. In between, those Angels teams of the '70s were perennial non-events in the AL West, and later, those Texas squads hovered around .500, but not much better. For serious students of baseball history, wins are something we take a look at--and then the real digging begins. You have to ask yourself: Would Whitey Ford have compiled nearly a .700 lifetime WP playing for the Senators? Rather than discount him for it, I'd say .526 was pretty damn good for those teams, and invariably he surpassed what the team had done in any given year, which is really what we have to look for in winning percentage, since it reflects how a pitcher rises above what he is given. (See, this is why Whitey, for all the heaven-sent blessings life gave him, is still a sure-fire HOFer, because in nearly every year of his career, his personal WP bettered that of the Yankees, even though they were winning pennant after pennant.)

--Won 20 games only twice. I'd say, see the above, but oddly, his four best win totals (including two others of 19) all came with those dreadful Angels squads. When he finally got the chance to pitch for some really good teams, he hiccupped each time, compiling not bad, but quite pedestrian seasons. This remains unexplainable, and admittedly a negative in his career evaluation.

--Never won the Cy Young. True enough, but just ask Juan Marichal how tricky that can be. You have no control over who your competition is out there, nor how they do. In Marichal's case, the enemies were named Koufax, Gibson, and, before '67, the two leagues, one Cy policy. In his two windows of opportunity, 1964 (when Koufax was injured) and 1967 (when Gibby went down), he was felled by two creditable, but by no means star, pitchers: Dean Chance, who in '64 had some year for the ages (11 shutouts) and took the one and only Cy awarded; and most galling, bested in '67 by a fellow Giant, a ham-and-egger named Mike McCormick, who coasted to one of the softest 22-win seasons ever, while Juan suffered through his only injury-marred season of the '60s. Ryan, meanwhile, was up against the Palmer-Hunter juggernaut, as voters showed a preference for championship-team aces, as they usually do for the MVP as well. 1973 and '74 were his best shots, as he won 21 and 22 games, and fanned 383 (new record) and 367, but the Angels back then had no vibe (how could they, with a manager named Bobby Winkles?). His final best shot (where I think he should have pulled through) was '77 (19-16/341K/2.77, league-high 22 CG and 10.26 K/9IP, league-low 5.96 HA/9IP), where, even as a Yankee fan, I admit the election of Sparky Lyle was a brainfart for the ages, and fully admit to being shocked upon reading it in the paper.

Well, I could go on, but the point here is this: Raw numbers may degrade his status over time, but he remains one of those classic "you had to see him" pitchers, and if you did, you were awed. So, hats off to you for taking on this crowd by including Nolan, because they are ready with their anti-Nolan swords, as always.

freak

[rugbyfreak]

This is a very important point which gets muddled over by number crunchers. My assertion is that Bob Gibson in '68 was the greatest season I have ever seen a pitcher have. But if you believe it was Koufax in '65 or Gooden in '85 or Guidry in '78, great. These were all great seasons in their own right and everyone has an opinion and it is fun to discuss and banter back and forth, but to say that there is some magic formula that will give us the answer-well, that may be good enough for computers, but real human beings experienced these feats. Some players burned bright and burned out, some were less brilliant but had staying power. The beauty is in the beholder. It's all a matter of opinion as to what, or who, is better. :coffee

Yo, Yankwood, I am with you bigtime on Gibby '68 as an alltime season. I am already on record in this space on this. I may not put it #1 (I'm a big Carlton '72 supporter, the deciding factor being his having played for one of the God-awful teams of his era, and Gibby hurling for the defending WS champs), but it's damn sure top 3. This whole crowd knows the obvious stuff about Gibby's '68: the 1.12 ERA and 13 shutouts, numbers so sick you're sure that they're misplaced deadball-era records.

But I'm going to throw another out that maybe some of you didn't know: Gibson completed 28 of his 34 starts that year (didn't even lead the NL--Marichal had 30!). In the other six, Schoendienst removed him for a pinch-hitter each time (although I'd take my chances with Gibson at the plate anytime), as the Cards scrambled for runs all year, scoring only 583.

Realize what that means? Right, NOT ONCE in '68 was Gibson knocked out of the box, i.e. removed from the mound. Has that ever happened in ML history? I asked the BBF crowd that question once some time ago, then later realized I was on a very old thread. Now I ask the question again to you all, since some of you have very thorough research resources.

Then of course, he continued his WS dominance with two more wins over the Tigers. McCarver has often said that his Game 1 is the single most dominant performance he knows of, or at least that he caught, and remember, he caught Carlton for years, including his 19K game with the Cards, and during that epic '72 run.

(For sheer, one-game ownership of a batting order, I also give high marks to Guidry's '77 18K gem over a very good Angel team, since I was there with field-level duckets.)

Incidentally, somewhere on my short list of sick seasons, at least post-war, is McLain's '68 as well. He continues to fascinate me, especially his rapid downfall, without apparent injury.

Anyway, Yankwood, thought I'd support you on Gibby '68, the sickest of the sick years. There are also a few other beneath-the-surface facts, such as how many 1-0 and 2-1 games he lost, or was involved in, that year. Baseball being the funny game that it is, however, it couldn't resist saddling him with an incomprehensible NINE losses that year, plus the still-unbelievable Game 7 loss in the WS, proving once again that, in the end, the game always wins.

freak

[rugbyfreak]

Hey Freak,

Thanks for your interesting post. You make a lot of good, valid points. The only thing I have to correct you on is that the Express was voted into Cooperstown on his first try.

Thanks for the correction, Hondo. Took a guess on the HOF thing: final year, '93, election '99, six years, not five, but I was off somewhere.

I remember Big Frank very well, swinging that big stick "like it was a toothpick" (as the announcers said every time). Good to see you're a fan, and if you also a Senators fan, sorry about the crack about them (in the Ford passage)!

freak

[HondoHR33]

LOL ... no problem ... I've taken a LOT of grief from friends being a Senators fan and now a Rangers fan. Guess I am just a glutton for punishment!!! or a masochist, one of the two ... maybe both?? LOL


Thanks for the correction, Hondo. Took a guess on the HOF thing: final year, '93, election '99, six years, not five, but I was off somewhere.

I remember Big Frank very well, swinging that big stick "like it was a toothpick" (as the announcers said every time). Good to see you're a fan, and if you also a Senators fan, sorry about the crack about them (in the Ford passage)!

freak

[The Old Ballgame]

Just on the Terrell Davis tangent, it really is the fullback and o-line leading the Broncos. Clinton Portis, Quentin Griffin, Terrell Davis, and a boatload of other backs have come into the brilliant blocking schemes of Mike Shannahan and left stars.

[digglahhh]

But I'm going to throw another out that maybe some of you didn't know: Gibson completed 28 of his 34 starts that year (didn't even lead the NL--Marichal had 30!). In the other six, Schoendienst removed him for a pinch-hitter each time (although I'd take my chances with Gibson at the plate anytime), as the Cards scrambled for runs all year, scoring only 583.


Yeah, I actually think many here did know that, this is the big time...lol. But how about not having to walk out to the mound to take the ball from one of your pitchers even once the whole season. Wow. Maybe he was just scared of Gibby.


Just to clarify an earlier issue. I don't support Gooden. But I think he would actually get a good deal of support if his career was reversed. Similarly, I think Schilling's worthiness would be relatively unquestioned if all his best seasons were strung together and the injury ridden seasons and mortal ones were stuck together too.

[flash143817]

Just on the Terrell Davis tangent, it really is the fullback and o-line leading the Broncos. Clinton Portis, Quentin Griffin, Terrell Davis, and a boatload of other backs have come into the brilliant blocking schemes of Mike Shannahan and left stars.

It is absolutely the scheme in Denver. Their O-line coach went to Atlanta and now Atlanta led the NFL in rushing the last 2 years. Denver once had a streak of 4 different 1,000 yard backs in 4 straight years.

[Sports Fan 07]

Koufax was the greatest pitcher I ever saw in person with my own eyes. Pretty much every one else who faced Koufax or saw him pitch agrees.

Seemed like the Dodgers were on the "Game of Week" each Saturday in the 1960s and each time Koufax would pitch and win 1-0, or 2-1. I'm sure they weren't actually on every week but they were sure on a lot. Watching Koufax, it was just simply amazing. If the Dodgers had the lead, even if it was just one run - the game was over. The batters never even seemed to have a chance. I remember dad letting me have a "sick day" in 1965 to watch Game 7 of the World Series. The Dodgers' Lou Johnson led off the 4th with a home run. My dad says "It's over." The Dodgers scored another run that inning and dad says "It's a blowout now." Odd thing to say it seems in a 2-0 game in the top of the fourth, but that's how it felt with Koufax on the mound.

Jim Palmer: "Koufax's curveball fell off the table from you shoulder to your knees, it was the most amazing thing I ever saw. And I saw him at the very end, on what was an off day for him."

I love Sabermetrics, like I said, I've been doing them since I got my first Baseball Encyclopedia in 1969. Over the years I've corresponded by David Neft, Pate Palmer, Rob Neyer, Bil James, and so many SABR members I don't even recall all of them. But Koufax is just another example of why Sabermetrics is not perfect and still has a long way to go.

[brett]

I can't think of a single pitcher whose career is truly comparable to Koufax's, but Schilling's HOF chances have accelerated, in no small part, because he has concencrated his greatest seasons into a small window of time. Schilling's off-seasons from 2001-present have to do with injuries.


If you wanted the backwards pattern for Koufax, you have Saberagen, Hershizer and the previously mentioned Gooden. Personally, I don't know if Schilling has outperformed those three as of now.

[brett]

Or another backwards example would be Roger Clemens at the end of the '96 season. If he had been finished at that point, where would he rank?

[ElHalo]

Or another backwards example would be Roger Clemens at the end of the '96 season. If he had been finished at that point, where would he rank?

Not much different from where he is now. He had a couple of ok years with the Blue Jays, but he hasn't really done anything of note since he left the Red Sox.

[SABR Matt]

WHAT?

Apparently you missed his 1.86 ERA last year EH...LOL

[ElHalo]

WHAT?

Apparently you missed his 1.86 ERA last year EH...LOL

I try to block him out. He was a (mild) disappointment with the Yankees (for his first two years I kept saying I'd rather have had David Wells back), so I just try to pretend the Astros years never happened. They came in the NL anyway, so it didn't really count.

[brett]

I actually remember a commentator at the '97 All Star game refer to him as a "possible hall of famer" and Greg Maddux as a "Lock".

By the way, in many rating systems he rated as the American League's top PLAYER for both '97 and '98.


Not much different from where he is now. He had a couple of ok years with the Blue Jays, but he hasn't really done anything of note since he left the Red Sox.

[sturg1dj]

I think we're looking at Koufax's career the wrong way

we see his seasons as great at the end, so we're comparing him to some pretty average players (in the grand scheme of things)

Look at when he played and the numbers he put up and what he did puts him with the greats.

Think about this, if Ruth would have retired in 1926 would he have made the hall of fame

the answer is yes

[DoubleX]

Not much different from where he is now. He had a couple of ok years with the Blue Jays, but he hasn't really done anything of note since he left the Red Sox.

Ok with the Blue Jays?! He achieved the pitching Triple Crown both years with the Blue Jays as well as two Cy Youngs, posting great numbers despite the Blue Jays being only a .500 ballclup during those two years. Look at what he did in those seasons:

1997: 2.05 ERA, 21-7, 292 K, 264 IP, 226 ERA+
1998: 2.65 ERA, 20-6, 271 K, 235 IP, 176 ERA+

Clemens' 1997 campaign deserves mention as one of the finest seasons ever by a pitcher, IMO.

I will admit that he was something of a disappointment during his tenure with the Yankees, but those years did come when he was ages 36-40, and at the time looked like it was his decline phase. As far as decline phases go, it wasn't too shabby and he did capture a Cy Young with the Yankees in 2001 and then another with the Astros in 2004 at age 41!!!

[RuthMayBond]

I just try to pretend the Astros years never happened. They came in the NL anyway, so it didn't really count.Seems like the league counted in 2001 & 2003 :laugh

[SABR Matt]

Nice. :D

EH's total lack of knowledge about what goes on the NL and/or most other teams besides the Yankees is always amusing. :)

[ElHalo]

Nice. :D

EH's total lack of knowledge about what goes on the NL and/or most other teams besides the Yankees is always amusing. :)

Big fan of baseball history, so excepting the 70's and 80's (when I was too young to pay attention, and after all the books I learned baseball from had been published), I've got a nice working knowledge of what went on. As I grew older, I learned that in baseball, as in life, no place but New York and Boston matter in any way ever. So I play to my strengths (i.e., caring about places that don't have cows).

[SABR Matt]

That's one of the most arrogant, insulting, and idiotic things you've ever said, EH.

Maybe when you get a grown up brain, you'll discover that people who don't live in your urban paradise matter and perhaps, just perhaps, your ugly stereotypes will start to vanish.

[ElHalo]

That's one of the most arrogant, insulting, and idiotic things you've ever said, EH.

Maybe when you get a grown up brain, you'll discover that people who don't live in your urban paradise matter and perhaps, just perhaps, your ugly stereotypes will start to vanish.

I've lived all over the country; spent a good chunk of years in my childhood growing up in the Midwest (hence my Detroit Piston / Red Wing / Lion fandom). I'm spending a week in LA next month because it's nice to get away sometimes. I went to college in the most boondock of boondock places in upstate New York (forty five minute drive to the nearest highway; hour and a half to the nearest city, other than the one the school was in, with more than a thousand people). I spent significant chunks of my childhood living in Virginia, Ohlahoma, California, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Florida, and New Jersey. I see absolutely no need to live anywhere but the New York area. It's not insulting, just a truism. I honestly, truly believe that there's no point in being anywhere else. Just my opinion.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I've lived all over the country; spent a good chunk of years in my childhood growing up in the Midwest (hence my Detroit Piston / Red Wing / Lion fandom). I'm spending a week in LA next month because it's nice to get away sometimes. I went to college in the most boondock of boondock places in upstate New York (forty five minute drive to the nearest highway; hour and a half to the nearest city, other than the one the school was in, with more than a thousand people). I spent significant chunks of my childhood living in Virginia, Ohlahoma, California, Delaware, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Florida, and New Jersey. I see absolutely no need to live anywhere but the New York area. It's not insulting, just a truism. I honestly, truly believe that there's no point in being anywhere else. Just my opinion.
ElHalo,

Does it ever occur to you that your sardonic humor can be mistaken for a pompous and arrogance attitude? You sure name lots of places as "significant" amount of time spent living there. What's so lame is that you are not even from New York, just a wannabe "New Yorker". Your words are insulting when you know they will cause tension with other BBF members but I suspect you do to gain attention.

[SABR Matt]

Hate to break it to you bucko, but I've lived in 9 different states for at least a year, set foot in 35 of the 50 states, driven across coutnry twice, been to NYC on 4 seperate occasions (not counting the dozens of times I've passed through the unbearable traffic of NYC on my to another more appealing locale), seen 11 different Broadway and near-broadway shows ON BROADWAY (and three others outside of NYC), and have come to the conclusion that I'll take just about any location before I take New York.

[Yankwood]

Big fan of baseball history, so excepting the 70's and 80's (when I was too young to pay attention, and after all the books I learned baseball from had been published), I've got a nice working knowledge of what went on. As I grew older, I learned that in baseball, as in life, no place but New York and Boston matter in any way ever. So I play to my strengths (i.e., caring about places that don't have cows).Let's face it. Anything west of Manhattan is campin' out.

[SABR Matt]

Let's face it. Anything west of Manhattan is campin' out.

Yeah.

If by camping out you mean enjoying air conditioned comfort, eating the same food you do, watching the same televsion, living the same life except without the constant noise pollution, air pollution, city traffic, frantic paced mania of tight scheduling...

We're really roughing it out here in the boonies.

This is why I hate New Yorkers.

[Yankwood]

Yeah.

If by camping out you mean enjoying air conditioned comfort, eating the same food you do, watching the same televsion, living the same life except without the constant noise pollution, air pollution, city traffic, frantic paced mania of tight scheduling...

We're really roughing it out here in the boonies.

This is why I hate New Yorkers.You are certainly full of vitriol.

[DoubleX]

This is why I hate New Yorkers.

Nice to know that you can stoop to EH's level also and turn away from the road less traveled by the bigger man...

I think everyone needs to chill out and get back to baseball.

[SABR Matt]

Oh relax...my best friends all live in NY...LOL

I just don't get along too well with "New Yorkers"...the "I'm from NY and the rest of the world is a bunch of backwater hicks who don't matter" crowd that epitomize the NYC attitude.

[DoubleX]

Oh relax...my best friends all live in NY...LOL

I just don't get along too well with "New Yorkers"...the "I'm from NY and the rest of the world is a bunch of backwater hicks who don't matter" crowd that epitomize the NYC attitude.

That might be, but this New Yorker better respects the bigger person rather than the person that allows him/herself to be goaded by the obviously idiotic and ignorant comment of another. EH's comments were beyond ridiculous; they didn't dignify a response, let alone stooping to his level. Please don't judge all of us New Yorkers based on comments like EH's; I too am offended and would happily disavow everything he said.

[SABR Matt]

Noted XX.

My apologies if I insulted you. :)

[DoubleX]

Noted XX.

My apologies if I insulted you. :)

Thank you. :)

Now back to baseball. :)

[64Cards]

Mooooo....I like cows, especially sliced into thick cuts and cooked on my grill. :)

[digglahhh]

New York is a mixed bag. Certainly it is a media and cultural mecca, but to what ends? What does our media and culture glorify and perpetuate? Certainly I'm not proud to be a resident of a city that's home to Madison Avenue, Wall Street and 50 Cent. But I am proud to be a resident of a city that was the home of the Stonewall, and the birthplace of the beat generation, graffiti and KRSONE.

When it comes to baseball it is the same. I'm proud to live in a town that appreciates baseball and supports its teams. I'm proud to live in a city that has both an AL and NL team and has so much baseball history within it. But I'm not proud that I take the train to work everyday with people who think Derek Jeter is the greatest SS of all time. I'm not proud that NY fans boo Alex Rodriguez and I'm not proud of the fact that the Mets were dubbed "The Worst Team that Money Could Buy."

[ElHalo]

ElHalo,

Does it ever occur to you that your sardonic humor can be mistaken for a pompous and arrogance attitude?

No, not really. If I'm making outlandish claims like I invented the question mark, I can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would take it too seriously. If I try to push it over the top to a point where nobody could ever mistake it for seriousness, and they just decide to wilfully defy logic and take it seriously, well, that's not really my problem. My apologies if it's taken that way, but people really need to be more clever than that when confronted with something that's so outlandish that a literal interpretation would create an absurdism. We're all trying to have fun here, of course, but it's not really my job to dumb down my language to placate those whose psyche is so rigidly structured as to preclude the possibility of understanding layered meanings in conversation, or comprehending the fact that the same words said by the same person can have dozens of different meanings given the proper context; computer programs aren't to be expected to pick up on subtlety and nuance, but I'd expect more from actual human beings.

If a baseball fan can be expected to understand that when a Red Sox fan screams out "Yankees suck!," he isn't meaning to literally state that members of the New York Yankee franchise engage in oral copulation with other male individuals, they should just as well be able to understand that when a New Yorker says that nothing west of the Hudson matters, they don't literally mean that.


You sure name lots of places as "significant" amount of time spent living there. What's so lame is that you are not even from New York, just a wannabe "New Yorker".

I'm 25 years old, and I've spent 15 of those in New York. I'm not a New Yorker if you define "New Yorker" as strictly a city person, but I was born here, and have spent four years living in Manhattan, three upstate, and eight on Long Island, so if I'm not a New Yorker I really don't know what I am.


Your words are insulting when you know they will cause tension with other BBF members but I suspect you do to gain attention.

Absolutely not. I've never once in my life set out to cause tension with anyone... and I've really never understood the idea of doing things to "just get attention." That might be a motivation when you're five years old and nobody cares enough to make a mental note of the fact of your existance, but as an adult who (as most do) has to cram 30 hours of work in a 24 hour day, has a constant stream of people outside their office all day long waiting to speak to you, has an active social life and gets calls from clients at one thirty in the morning on Friday nights (thanks for that one, buddy), the idea of doing something "just to get attention" is beyond ludicrous. Solitude is a blessed enough gift as it is, fleeting though it might be, and it's unfathomable why one would pierce that veil for the mere sake of doing so.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Think about this, if Ruth would have retired in 1926 would he have made the hall of fame

the answer is yes

After '24 and he would have made the hall considering what he'd done.


All you guys arguing about places to live and teams crack me up. Be thankful you have home-teams to even discuss. :hp

[RuthMayBond]

After '24 and he would have made the hall considering what he'd done.You should be starting your Pujols HOF campaign any day ;)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You should be starting your Pujols HOF campaign any day ;)

lol, funny.

Well, if for nothing else, than I think he would have not only received the honor for revolutionizing the game, but based on what people think he would have done. He would be two years removed from the disaster of '22. At that point he proved the '23 reform wasn't just a fluke. Of course it might have helped his cause if he had an accidental death or something (surprised he didn't) but eventually I think he would have got in. It seemed to be commonly accepted by '24 that he was unquestionably the greatest player of the day and one of the greatest of all-time. Wagner didn't prefer the new style of game Babe introduced, but in '24 he named Ruth as an "extra" outfielder on his all-time team. That's saying quite a bit.

*You have to remember that back then all the power number standards hadn't been formed yet. What he did was out of this world. I don't think they would have had a choice but to elect him.

His '14-'24 totals....

3564 AB (because of 881 BB and early pitching)
1251 H (51 % for xtra bases)
284 HR
83 triples
270 doubles
884 RBI
.351 AVG

Pitching accomplishments
WS accomplishments
All-Time HR king in '21
114 OF assists in 873 games
most feared hitter ever seen

If he made it at 29 like that, no doubt by today's standards he would end up on Chris' list (right next to Schalky) of the all-time most undeserving HOFers.

now...back to Koufax :D

[brett]

I'm sorry, but the answer is NO. If Ruth had retired after '26 no one would have cared enough to even create a baseball hall of fame.


I think we're looking at Koufax's career the wrong way

we see his seasons as great at the end, so we're comparing him to some pretty average players (in the grand scheme of things)

Look at when he played and the numbers he put up and what he did puts him with the greats.

Think about this, if Ruth would have retired in 1926 would he have made the hall of fame

the answer is yes

[ElHalo]

You should be starting your Pujols HOF campaign any day ;)

If Pujols dies in a plane crash tomorrow, what do you think the odds are that the Hall waives the ten year rule and puts him in immediately? 90%? 95%?

[RuthMayBond]

If Pujols dies in a plane crash tomorrow, what do you think the odds are that the Hall waives the ten year rule and puts him in immediately? 90%? 95%?If they are, then I gotta think about continuing my HOF collection, AND start pushing for other candidates

[brett]

If Pujols dies in a plane crash tomorrow, what do you think the odds are that the Hall waives the ten year rule and puts him in immediately? 90%? 95%?

I don't think he is better through 5 full than A-Rod ('96-'00) or Thomas ('91-'95).

(Don't tell me... The Thomas/Pujols debate is a hot issue around here?)

And don't forget, he's really 31 years old (or was it 34?)

[ElHalo]

I don't think he is better through 5 full than A-Rod ('96-'00) or Thomas ('91-'95).

(Don't tell me... The Thomas/Pujols debate is a hot issue around here?)

And don't forget, he's really 31 years old (or was it 34?)

I don't think he's better than Thomas either. But he's got a lot better publicist.

And, yeah, he's listed several years too young. I look about ten years younger than he does, and he's listed as being about six months older than me. Something doesn't add up.

[SABR Matt]

Wait, what? Where are you getting the information about Pujols actually being 31 or 34? I hadn't heard that, so I'd like to see where that came from, because it might be true and it effects my evaluation of him.

[ElHalo]

Wait, what? Where are you getting the information about Pujols actually being 31 or 34? I hadn't heard that, so I'd like to see where that came from, because it might be true and it effects my evaluation of him.

That's the thing; nobody has concrete evidence on it. But there does seem to be a strong enough belief in the idea that it qualifies as more than just a wacky theory. There really is no evidence, though; the strongest real thing I've seen is that, when he was "18," he was dating a 24 year old woman with a four year old son, but it wasn't his child anyway. So that's not really evidence of much. But the common belief that he looks older than he is has been following him since he was 17, when everybody commented on how he he looked like a guy in his early-to-mid 20's.

[brett]

Wait, what? Where are you getting the information about Pujols actually being 31 or 34? I hadn't heard that, so I'd like to see where that came from, because it might be true and it effects my evaluation of him.

To be totally honest, I think that ESPN.com had in his profile 3-4 years ago that it was stunning for him to be putting up those numbers given that he was truly the age listed on paper, and that even if he was 3-5 years older, as some suspected, he was still fantastic.

This was right after the old kid who pitched in the little league world series. Are they originally from the same country? There was supposedly some kind of plot exposed in which players were listed as 3-5 years younger to help get them drafted.

I don't want him to be older. I want it to be all legit because he will challenge some records.

[SABR Matt]

I see...thanks for the clarification. I've heard similar little whispers about how Felix Hernandez (top Mariner pitching prospect) looks awfully filled out for a 20 year old...I suppose anything's possible. :)

[ElHalo]

This was right after the old kid who pitched in the little league world series. Are they originally from the same country? There was supposedly some kind of plot exposed in which players were listed as 3-5 years younger to help get them drafted.

It wasn't just the one kid. Or a dozen kids. Well over one hundred players from the Dominican were found to be at least a few years older than they were listed. The last big one that I remember was Alfonso Soriano, who aged two and a half years on his trade to the Rangers. There's still some a bunch of players who are most assuredly older than they are listed. Some people have speculated that Orlando Hernandez may be as much as fifteen years older than he is listed (if his listed age is correct, then he started pitching professionally in the highest Cuban league at age 8).

[SABR Matt]

LOL!!

An 8 year old El Duque pitching for the Cuban National League...picture that. :)

Considering the Cuban national team at the WBC had at least four teenage pitchers I don't think it's safe to assume that he was fully twenty three when he started pitching for Cuba...but perhaps he was 17. :) Which would make him 9 years older than advertised...which would make his accomplishments in the major leagues fantastically impressive.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

After '24 and he would have made the hall considering what he'd done.


All you guys arguing about places to live and teams crack me up. Be thankful you have home-teams to even discuss. :hp

While you're at it, I would say with no hesitation that if he'd retired after the 1923 season, giving him 10 different seasons in which he'd played, he'd have been a mortal lock for the Hall.

BHN

[flash143817]

Some people have speculated that Orlando Hernandez may be as much as fifteen years older than he is listed (if his listed age is correct, then he started pitching professionally in the highest Cuban league at age 8).


The source I saw said El Duque started pitching for the Cuban national team in 1988. His birth year according to BBRef is 1965. Not that I dispute that he is older than listed, but where did you hear that he started pitching in the Cuban league in 1973 or '74? Just curious where your age speculation (15 years older?) is coming from.

[brett]

While you're at it, I would say with no hesitation that if he'd retired after the 1923 season, giving him 10 different seasons in which he'd played, he'd have been a mortal lock for the Hall.

BHN

I always got the impression that his hitting style was considered to be some kind of impure anomaly-at least until '23 when other people started doing it and he won the MVP.

And don't forget, he was a dead-ball pitcher.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Yeah, but he was a Dead Ball Era pitcher who was #1 in slugging and HR, and #2 in OBP, in 1918. And after that, he basically led the league in all of those categories every year, except the years he was getting suspended.

[rugbyfreak]

That's the thing; nobody has concrete evidence on it. But there does seem to be a strong enough belief in the idea that it qualifies as more than just a wacky theory. There really is no evidence, though; the strongest real thing I've seen is that, when he was "18," he was dating a 24 year old woman with a four year old son, but it wasn't his child anyway. So that's not really evidence of much. But the common belief that he looks older than he is has been following him since he was 17, when everybody commented on how he he looked like a guy in his early-to-mid 20's.

I once dated a woman whose son was older than me, which created numerous questions around town, including whether she was on some kind of juice, but none of them centered on my age, since I was putting up win shares better than Pujols (although in slow-pitch softball, but hey). No one cared, not about my age, not about the minefield of zits on my back, and not even that I had a head that was bigger than a toll booth. Point is, nobody cares about nuthin' as long as you got game; they ae happy to look the other way. Sound familiar?

freak

[RuthMayBond]

So I play to my strengths (i.e., caring about places that don't have cows).I'm surprised, since you've been giving us bull about New York since you got on :laugh :waving

[bhss89]

Koufax was a great pitcher! He had a lot of success in a short time-period and he went out on yop of the world with an injury, or to prevent a serious injury. My question: If Albert Pujols has a few mediocre years and then turns it on, the Cards win the series and ends up with 300 HR's, 1500 hits, and 700 rb's, would you vote for him for the hall?

You're nuts for even posing this question . . .

[drjjpdc]

After reading most of the pages to me the defining reason about Sandy's greatness and his speedy exit from the game are the pitches he threw. My experience goes back to the 1960's (I was 10 in 1964) and no one had a fastball AND an overhand curve like Sandy. They are the two most elemental pitches in the game and he could throw either one at anytime for strikes no matter the count. Gibby had the fastball, slider as did a lot of other pitchers (although I will admit Seaver had an excellent curve) and Catfish had the curve and other breaking pitches. But what set Sandy apart was his command of these 2 pitches.

As stated being a Cardinal guy Gibby is my man. 1968 WS game 1 was amazing. Not only for command of pitches but having the stones to take it personally if a Tiger did not strike out. That 9th inning striking out the side when the Tigers were honor bound to avoid strikeouts defined Gibby's force of will. What I would have given to have had a fastball hitter like G. Brett face off against Gibby in a money situation (much like he did against Gossage)!

[willshad]

Looking at his stats, it seems strange to me why he is considered a sure fire hall of famer, and not penalized at all for his HUGE home field advantage. If you look at his home/road splits, the ERA difference is so great that I dont think he would be a hall of famer without pitching in Dodger stadium with its high mound. Sure, his road stats are good, but not hall of fame worthy, especially for someone with less than 200 wins. Its obvious his entire hall of fame case rests on the fact that he pitched where he did...so why isnt he penalized for it the way Ott, Kliein, Rice, Walker, Helton, etc are? I liken him to Larry Walker..a very good player who was made great by his home park and whose numbers went from very good to out of this world due to it...who also had low career totals for a hall of famer.

year Home ERA Road ERA

1962 2.40 3.00
1963 1.38 2.31
1964 0.85 2.93
1965 1.38 2.72
1966 1.52 1.96

[Brad Harris]

People who saw him frequently cite him as the greatest pitcher they ever saw. He had one of the greatest peaks of any pitcher in history. He's a legendary player, stats or no stats. He doesn't need to get in by the "long career" route.

[flash143817]

Looking at his stats, it seems strange to me why he is considered a sure fire hall of famer, and not penalized at all for his HUGE home field advantage. If you look at his home/road splits, the ERA difference is so great that I dont think he would be a hall of famer without pitching in Dodger stadium with its high mound. Sure, his road stats are good, but not hall of fame worthy, especially for someone with less than 200 wins. Its obvious his entire hall of fame case rests on the fact that he pitched where he did...so why isnt he penalized for it the way Ott, Kliein, Rice, Walker, Helton, etc are? I liken him to Larry Walker..a very good player who was made great by his home park and whose numbers went from very good to out of this world due to it...who also had low career totals for a hall of famer.

year Home ERA Road ERA

1962 2.40 3.00
1963 1.38 2.31
1964 0.85 2.93
1965 1.38 2.72
1966 1.52 1.96


You make it sound like his road ERA is bad, when they are all 3 or under. If anything it seemed to be trending downward, meaning he was still getting better when the arm afflicted him. And those home numbers are still better than anyone else was doing in Dodger Stadium at the time.

Like Classic said, everyone that saw Koufax pitch thought he was the best ever. Stats don't quite bear that out, although they are very good. But he won 3 unanimous Cy Youngs, and was pitching at the same time as other all-time greats like Bob Gibson and Juan Marichal. I can only fathom what incredible ERA he might have put up had he pitched in 1968.

He was also an outstanding pressure, big-game pitcher. He had a 0.95 career World Series ERA and almost single handedly won 2 World Series'. His perfomance in 1965 is almost storybook. He skips Game 1 for Yom Kippur and then pitches Games 2, 5, and 7, throwing shutouts in Games 5 and 7 to nearly win the Series by himself.

I'm not sure how this influences his HOF-worthiness, but if I needed 1 pitcher to win a World Series game and I could have no bullpen help, Koufax is an easy choice for me. I personally rate him in my top 5 pitchers all-time and feel he is in the upper echelon of the HOF.

[bud4875]

The question is Sandy Koufax worthy of the HOF, with his short career probably not, but as a long time Dodger hater I must give the devil his due, he was quite simply the best pitcher I ever saw.

[plask_stirlac]

You make it sound like his road ERA is bad, when they are all 3 or under. If anything it seemed to be trending downward, meaning he was still getting better when the arm afflicted him. And those home numbers are still better than anyone else was doing in Dodger Stadium at the time.

Like Classic said, everyone that saw Koufax pitch thought he was the best ever. Stats don't quite bear that out, although they are very good. But he won 3 unanimous Cy Youngs, and was pitching at the same time as other all-time greats like Bob Gibson and Juan Marichal. I can only fathom what incredible ERA he might have put up had he pitched in 1968.


It would have been really low in 1968 if he were healthy, but it wasn't much different in 63-66. And can't you then see, after the effects 1968 seemed to have, that having a low ERA such as 1.74 is fantastic but not that astounding if league scoring is depressed?

Can we trust eyewitnesses for determining careers of hundreds or thousands of games? How many saw Walter Johnson pitch in the 1910s? I'm sure some had, but not many.

If someone sees Rich Harden pitch, they're convinced he's right up there with Santana, but Harden can't sustain it.

Or the other way, it's quite possible no pitcher will look or be more dominant than Santana over a 4+ year stretch, or just watching his performance, until 2010, 2015, or some time. If he retires after 2008, he'll look golden.

Group Maddux's 4 best seasons... well, no need to group them. Compare his 94-97 to Koufax's 63-66 (or 94-98 v 62-66), remembering how league run scoring was. Then consider the rest of Maddux's career, and he probably isn't the best ever.

[flash143817]

It would have been really low in 1968 if he were healthy, but it wasn't much different in 63-66. And can't you then see, after the effects 1968 seemed to have, that having a low ERA such as 1.74 is fantastic but not that astounding if league scoring is depressed?

Can we trust eyewitnesses for determining careers of hundreds or thousands of games? How many saw Walter Johnson pitch in the 1910s? I'm sure some had, but not many.

If someone sees Rich Harden pitch, they're convinced he's right up there with Santana, but Harden can't sustain it.

Or the other way, it's quite possible no pitcher will look or be more dominant than Santana over a 4+ year stretch, or just watching his performance, until 2010, 2015, or some time. If he retires after 2008, he'll look golden.

Group Maddux's 4 best seasons... well, no need to group them. Compare his 94-97 to Koufax's 63-66 (or 94-98 v 62-66), remembering how league run scoring was. Then consider the rest of Maddux's career, and he probably isn't the best ever.

I've heard the league average and ERA+ arguments against Koufax, and statistically, they are hard to argue.

My counter is simply...how low is possible? To achieve the 200+ ERA+ numbers that some active pitchers are reaching Koufax would have to have had a raw ERA from like 1.00 to 1.20. Seems absurd to me, even in that type of era, to expect a pitcher to do that. Bob Gibson manages to do it once, and he still doesn't have the best ERA+ ever.

It would be like if league BA's moved up to .350 or .400, players would have to be hitting over .500 to get to OPS+ levels of 200 or higher. Is that really humanly possible, even in very favorable eras?

This is one era where I think league-adjusted stats can be troublesome. I certainly value them highly and understand the importance of normalizing to the league, but I try to remain logical with it. In extreme conditions, it is more difficult for me to swallow some of the league-adjusted numbers.

I also think that era of Koufax's tended to be more balanced than a lot of other eras as far as level of competition (although not automatically better). There were a lot fewer players putting up ERA+ and OPS+ north of 200 in that era. Seems like there should be some type of adjustment to account for that.

[plask_stirlac]

In the end it's a judgment call and opinion whether his big four years are enough to make a case as the best or one of the few best ever, and whether he was good enough in those years to make that claim.

It's not crazy to say he was the best ever at his peak.

I'm not saying he had to have ERA+ figures higher than they were, above 200 like you say. What he did in his peak was sensational. He did what was asked of him and then some, no disappointment. But it has been done with allowing fewer runs after adjusting, and we should recognize those who have done it repeatedly in a short time (Maddux, Pedro). Maddux was also a workhorse innings-wise like Koufax, along with the dominant run suppression. Did he reach 300? No, thought he might have in 94. Was anybody pitching as much as him, or as well? No, matching Koufax.

There have been better ERA+ (or other adjusted) figures in deadball, neo-deadball (Gibson in 1968), and in the modern era. I'm not saying that decides the difference between them and Koufax, but it's a factor.

Plus, this was supposedly the win or lose 1-0 era, at least anecdotally. So, then, does a 2.00 ERA cut it (it does). And for Gibson it pretty much was but not every game was 1-0 or the Dodgers would have about 95 runs total.

Or if he could have kept his dominance at home, with microscopic ERAs, to some extent on the road, then he'd be more dominant and recognized more statistically. He was still great on the road, but not as good as at home.

[digglahhh]

I've heard the league average and ERA+ arguments against Koufax, and statistically, they are hard to argue.

My counter is simply...how low is possible? To achieve the 200+ ERA+ numbers that some active pitchers are reaching Koufax would have to have had a raw ERA from like 1.00 to 1.20. Seems absurd to me, even in that type of era, to expect a pitcher to do that. Bob Gibson manages to do it once, and he still doesn't have the best ERA+ ever.

It would be like if league BA's moved up to .350 or .400, players would have to be hitting over .500 to get to OPS+ levels of 200 or higher. Is that really humanly possible, even in very favorable eras?

This is one era where I think league-adjusted stats can be troublesome. I certainly value them highly and understand the importance of normalizing to the league, but I try to remain logical with it. In extreme conditions, it is more difficult for me to swallow some of the league-adjusted numbers.

I also think that era of Koufax's tended to be more balanced than a lot of other eras as far as level of competition (although not automatically better). There were a lot fewer players putting up ERA+ and OPS+ north of 200 in that era. Seems like there should be some type of adjustment to account for that.

Good post, Flash.

Everybody here probably thinks of me as a Koufax detractor, and I do think he is overrated - but this is something I've always said.

As the league averages get lower and lower, the margin for error drops and approaches the limits of, essentially, humanity. One hanger, one pitch on which he doesn't get a call, one single that should have been scored an error. These sort of unfortunate things happen to all pitchers, as league averages get lower and lower, you are competing against physical and mathematical certaintude. One mistake by Johan Santana doesn't necessarily have the same impact on his relative stats as one mistake by Koufax.

[dasher troy]

For his era Sandy was the second best lefty and his postseason numbers plus multiple no hitters are without argument.

In this era, he have had his surgery, missed a season, come back and won 50 to a 100 more games and we wouldn't even make such a thread. The Jayson Starks and his ilk pay way too much attention to statistics and not enough attention to dominance. I'll take Sandy's 8 year stretch over Don Sutton's twenty plus year career.

Oh and if Pedro Martinez doesn't pitch again, he goes in. His run from 95 to 04 is amazing.