Sandy Koufax

[tibber]

in a thread titled "overrated players" on mlbcenter.com, i got into a discussion with a guy that says sandy koufax was not HOF caliber because he wasn't in the top 2% in overall value. i have no idea what that is, but i do realize those with really strict standards might not care for his induction, so i've been thinking about his pros and cons:

pros:
had one of the highest peaks of any modern pitcher
a key component of some great dodgers teams

cons:
had a short career by HOF standards
pitched in a pitcher's park in the "neo-deadball" era

taking all these things into consideration, does koufax deserve to be ranked amongst the greats? or is he overrated?

[Brad Harris]

The answer to your question is "yes" - on both counts.

Yes. Sandy Koufax is one of the all-time great pitchers.

Yes. He is also overrated very often.



And, the way I interpret what was said (by way of your first paragraph), it sounds like your friend's argument is that only the two 2% of players in terms of career (ie. "overall") value should be considered for the Hall of Fame?

Because that seems like a much lower standard for the Hall than admitting Sandy Koufax, if that's the case.

[tibber]

here's (http://forums.mlbcenter.com/showthread.php?t=14703&page=1&pp=20) the thread in question, since i probably didn't explain it very well. i also take exception to what someone else said about hank aaron, but that's another thread.

[leecemark]

Tibber, I checked out that thread and wasn't overly impressed with the quality of arguement. I can agree with the guy who says Koufax wasn't great long enough to be top 5 or 10 all time, but the arguement that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame is nonsense. The same guy says Dizzy Dean does belong in the Hall. The arguement for both is pretty much the same, but Koufax is better than Dean. Dizzy was a very good workhorse type pitcher who won alot of games for some very good teams. He wasn't as dominant as Koufax (Hubbell was the best pitcher of Dean's time). If you want some ammo for the argument you might mention that Koufax led the league in ERA 5 years in a row, while Dean never did.
--The argument on Aaron wasn't very articulate, but I don't have a problem with his main point. Although Aaron was a great player (I've been arguing on another thread to get him in the top 10 all time), he wasn't as good as Ruth. Although he was the most consistently great player ever, Aaron never dominated the way Ruth did. He was a better HR hitter than Ruth only in the sense that Rose was a better hit maker than Cobb.

[PumpsieGreen]

In my mind, Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time. He isn't with the likes of Grove, Walter Johnson, or Warren Spahn in these eyes, but rather in the 15-25 greatest starting pitchers ever. He was dominant for awhile, dominating enough to be remembered, and if his arm hadn't blown out, he could've been with Johnson and Grove. However, he is undeniably overrated at times, as well. Remember, he played in a pitcher's park, for sure. That's what puts him behind Pedro Martinez, who he is often compared to. He had a truly great peak, greater than that of Dizzy Dean, and I'm not saying that he wasn't a great starting pitcher. Just not one of the top 15 of all time.

Pumpsie

[The Commissioner]

I'm not quite sure how Koufax can even be considered overrated? He won three pitching triple crowns, was twice the WS MVP, three times was #2 or higher in the MVP voting (fairly close in each year), and garnered three CY Young Awards in an era where there was only per the entire Major Leagues. True, Dodger Stadium is considerd a pitcher's park, but exactly how much is that supposed to detract from his stats? Enough that we should add on to Steve Gravey's credentials and have him considered as a Hall of Famer? Keep in mind that while in some respects Koufax may have been helped by Dodger Stadium, in other areas he was also hurt by it. The Dodgers in that era could not hit there either. He had to go out and pitch a masterpiece every time out or he lost. Go back and look at those Dodger teams and where their hitting ranked them each season. Did those ballclubs have any right to be that successful? Were it not for Koufax and Drysdale they certainly would not have ever come close to being pennant winners. It's easy to simply say that Koufax benefitted statistically from being in a big ballpark such as Dodger Stadium, but look at how little support his own hitter gave him !!! In '66 he went 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Explain to me how you manage to lose 9 games with that earned run average? Okay, it's fair to say that his ERA may have been higher had he pitched in a different home park. However, if you are going to "adjust" that stat, then shouldn't you also consider that he probably would have won 30 games playing somewhere else as well?

[leecemark]

--Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher for 5 years. When we're talking all time greats that is a pretty short period of greatness. He didn't accomplish a whole lot outside those years.
--As to Dodger Stadium, the effect on Koufax record can't really be ignored. Even taking Dodger Stadium out of the equation Koufax was probably the best pitcher in baseball over that period. However, Dodger Stadium unquestionably made Koufax look better AND made the Dodger's hitters look worse.
--In the context of the time and place he pitched, Koufax did receive reasonable offensive support. Dodger Stadium reduced scoring by about 25% during those years. Naturally that kept the score down for both teams. On the road, the Dodgers were actually a good offensive ballclub. In both 1963 and 64 the Dodgers were second in the NL in runs scored on the road. They weren't quite as good in 1965-66, but still came in the middle of the pack in road runs. On another team his era would have unquestionable gone up and he would have been as likely to lose more as win more.

[julusnc]

I like Koufax but I have always thought Juan Marichal was just as good and for a much longer period of time.

agree to disagree with me :)

[PumpsieGreen]

I agree, julusnc. Juan Marichal is one, if not the, most underrated starting pitchers of all time(sorry if that sentence came out messed up.) He was a truly great pitcher, one of the 15 greatest ever in these eyes.

Pumpsie

[abacab]

Koufax is overrated in terms of career value, and can't reasonably be considered in the top 20 pitching careers.

On the other hand, if I had to win one game and could pick any pitcher at his best, I might just go with Koufax. That has to count for something.

I have to rate Koufax ahead of Pedro at this point, even though Pedro's ERAs are more impressive, taking era into account. But, Koufax had much better endurance; Pedro's innings pitched are really dropping, and I think a great pitcher needs to be great for the whole game, instead of just six innings. Koufax was also much better in the postseason. I consider Pedro the goat of that Red Sox vs Yankees series last year. Plus, he's a real jerk.

[santotohof]

Koufax left the people wanting more and left on Mt Everest in terms of success.Who knows had he had 4 more so so years to go with his first half career mediocrity we wouldn't be having this discussion. He was unreal for 5 years but so was Ron Guidry, long term I'll take Fergie or Marichal over Koufax. PS Noone is more overratted than Don Drysdale.Mel Stottlemyre ,playing for the CBS Yankees mirrors and partially bests Drysdales career while Drysdale was playing for the perrenial contender Dodgers.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm not quite sure how Koufax can even be considered overrated? He won three pitching triple crowns, was twice the WS MVP, three times was #2 or higher in the MVP voting (fairly close in each year), and garnered three CY Young Awards in an era where there was only per the entire Major Leagues. True, Dodger Stadium is considerd a pitcher's park, but exactly how much is that supposed to detract from his stats? Enough that we should add on to Steve Gravey's credentials and have him considered as a Hall of Famer? Keep in mind that while in some respects Koufax may have been helped by Dodger Stadium, in other areas he was also hurt by it. The Dodgers in that era could not hit there either. He had to go out and pitch a masterpiece every time out or he lost. Go back and look at those Dodger teams and where their hitting ranked them each season. Did those ballclubs have any right to be that successful? Were it not for Koufax and Drysdale they certainly would not have ever come close to being pennant winners. It's easy to simply say that Koufax benefitted statistically from being in a big ballpark such as Dodger Stadium, but look at how little support his own hitter gave him !!! In '66 he went 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Explain to me how you manage to lose 9 games with that earned run average? Okay, it's fair to say that his ERA may have been higher had he pitched in a different home park. However, if you are going to "adjust" that stat, then shouldn't you also consider that he probably would have won 30 games playing somewhere else as well?Koufax won three pitching TCs with the help of Dodger Stadium, because in terms of ADJUSTED ERA, he was only tied for 2nd in '62, second in 63, third in 65. The Dodgers were SECOND in adjusted Batter Runs in '62, third in '63 and fourth in '66 so they weren't always the batting patsies you make them out to be (but ask Gibson in '68).

[KHenry14]

As someone who saw Koufax pitch in person, I find it hard to believe that anybody could ever be better than him. :clapping With that said, I guess I have to agree that he has to fall some on the all time list because of the shortness of the career. But for one game, I'll take him over anybody who's ever played the game.

BTW, I'm glad to see the support for the Dominican Dandy! Juan was a true artist on the mound. He threw 5 pitches from three different angles. Imagine trying to hit that, especially if you hit right handed! One of my greatest memories is Aug 1, 1968 (I still have the ticket stub!), when as a kid I saw Juan throw a 2-0 shutout over the Bums at the Ravine. Dodgers had none chance that day..NONE! ;)

KH14

[RuthMayBond]

And you guys LUUV to conveniently ignore Koufax's seasons from 1955-1960

[The Commissioner]

Koufax won three pitching TCs with the help of Dodger Stadium, because in terms of ADJUSTED ERA, he was only tied for 2nd in '62, second in 63, third in 65. The Dodgers were SECOND in adjusted Batter Runs in '62, third in '63 and fourth in '66 so they weren't always the batting patsies you make them out to be (but ask Gibson in '68).


The problem with all these supposedly "adjusted" stats, is that they also ignore several factors in their "expert" calculations. First of all, you have to keep in mind that by weighing the ballpark factor, league ERA's, etc. in this manner that you are including Koufax in the overall calculations which his individual stats are being weighed against. Being that there were less teams then than there are now, and how many innings a pitcher such as Koufax threw, you also have to consider that his percentage in such factors was more than it would be for a present day pitcher. For example, it is easy to look at the 1963 Dodgers and say that Koufax had an advantage because the Dodgers as a team had an ERA of almost a fourth of a run lower than the next closest ballclub. That must be due to Dodger Stadium, right? However, if you remove Koufax himself from the equation, the Dodgers only have the fourth best ERA in the NL that season. Why was Dodger Stadium benefitting him so much more than the rest of the staff? Another factor which always seems to be ignored is that Dodger Stadium helps out pitchers that put the ball in play a lot. You have to remember that Koufax was striking out batters at a rate which was completely unprecedented in the history of baseball. No one had ever struck out batters at that pace before. Would he have really accumulated less strikeouts picthing off another mound. Was the field at Dodger Stadium really responsible for batter's not being able to get good wood on the ball? Dodger Stadium certainly benefits those finese pitchers that induce players to put the ball into play alot. However, that wasn't what Koufax was. He was a power fastball and curveball hurler. Dodger Stadium made him no more unhittable than he would have been in any other ballpark. When Koufax was knocked around, he would have been knocked around in any other ballpark, and when he was untouchable it really didn't matter too much where he was pitching then either. He could have been throwing a juiced up baseball on a Little League field against the Balco All-Star squad and no one was going to beat him. My one question would be this, does anyone that actually saw him pitch claim that he is overrated? Or are all the cries of "overrated" coming from those that are simply looking at his stats and never saw the man?

[KHenry14]

My one question would be this, does anyone that actually saw him pitch claim that he is overrated? Or are all the cries of "overrated" coming from those that are simply looking at his stats and never saw the man?

Anyone who ever saw him would never, ever, use the word "overrated" in reference to Koufax. Also, I've never read a quote from any player who ever hit off of him who ever disparaged him. Most of the time, players, writers, fans etc. view him (like I do) as an awesome pitcher. Gibson, Marichal etc. were great, Koufax pitched in a league of his own.

KH14

[2Chance]

You can come to either conclusion. Sandy Koufax had two careers, each lasting six years. In his first half, he was just a hard thrower. That’s all. Hardly even a pitcher. Just one of those guys who clubs used to round out a rotation. After these six seasons he was unremarkable in every other way, with a 36-40 record.

And anybody who says that there’s no pitching today because there are so many teams that the minor leagues are depleted blah blah blah...it’s the same as it’s always been. Clubs get one or two really good pitchers and have to fill in for the other days. How often do you get teams with three or four front-line starters like the Braves of the 90s, the Orioles of the 70s? For some teams, their time is now, and over the past few years! But that’s a different thread.

Anyway, legend has it that in 1961 the Dodgers were in Vero Beach for spring training, and catcher Norm Sherry says to Koufax, “Come on, let’s have some fun today. Ease up a little on the fastball, and let’s mix in some curves and breaking stuff.” For the rest of the National League, that was the beginning of Sandy’s reign of terror. The man was nigh unhittable, and the next six years he dominated like probably no one else ever has. He went 129-47, running off seasons of 18, 14, 25, 19, 26 and 27 wins. He became the first man to have 3 seasons with over 300 strikeouts, and won five ERA titles (three years it was under 2.00)--and brought his otherwise bloated career era down to 2.76. He had two 18-strikeout games, and dominated the World Series in 1963 and ‘65.

Those six seasons were phenomenal, and Sandy was untouchable then, with the wickedest fastball and the wickedest curve most people have ever seen. And the frightening part is that he wasn’t throwing as hard as he used to. He belongs just on the basis of those six years, regardless of how bad he was in his first six.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't have a problem with him belonging (although six years is short). I have a problem with people claiming he was better than Walter Johnson (and Pedro, if you want me to pull ElHalo into this :D ) and forgetting about the high mound and pitchers' park of Dodger Stadium.

[2Chance]

I’ve got no problem with Koufax being there either, but I don’t rate him at the top. At his peak, he was the greatest...maybe ever. But I grade players over their entire careers, not so much for their peak.

And if I may start an argument, I’d like it to be this one:
The 1960s was not so much the pitchers’ era because of favorable conditions as who was pitching. When Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, etc. were out there every 4th day, OF COURSE strikeouts are going up and ERA’s are going down. That would have happened no matter when they were playing.

(Uh, unfortunately, I can’t make much of an argument. My best material on the subject is above. But it would be interesting to read a rebuttal!)

[RuthMayBond]

And if I may start an argument, I’d like it to be this one:
The 1960s was not so much the pitchers’ era because of favorable conditions as who was pitching. When Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, etc. were out there every 4th day, OF COURSE strikeouts are going up and ERA’s are going down. That would have happened no matter when they were playing.

(Uh, unfortunately, I can’t make much of an argument.)You're right, you can't make much of an argument :laugh EVERY era had great pitchers, but look at the league average. If your ERA was 3 in 1968, it was WORSE THAN AVERAGE. Wrap your mind around that :eek:

[Brad Harris]

Adjusted Pitching Runs (ie. "Adjusted Starter Runs") are available in The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition). They do not incorporate a pitcher's batting, baserunning and fielding performance - only his pitching performance, valued in terms of runs and adjusted for a pitcher's home park and his league's level of offense in a given season. The following totals were taken by adding individual season totals.



Best 6-consecutive seasons among sampling of all-time greats
329 Walter Johnson, 1910-15
325 Pedro Martinez, 1997-02
313 Lefty Grove, 1928-33
313 Greg Maddux, 1993-98
305 Randy Johnson, 1997-02
261 Carl Hubbell, 1931-36
256 Cy Young, 1900-05*
253 Roger Clemens, 1986-91
240 Christy Mathewson, 1908-13
240 Sandy Koufax, 1961-66
233 Pete Alexander, 1915-20
227 Tom Seaver, 1968-73
212 Bob Gibson, 1965-70
200 Juan Marichal, 1964-69
173 Warren Spahn, 1949-54

* Cy Young's best 6-year stretch was 1891-96 (370 apr), but I've excluded 19th century seasons due to the drastic change in the role of a starting pitcher. (Else, the entire list would be dominated by 6-year runs by 19th century starters.)



Remainding value of careers of sample pitchers
347 Roger Clemens
320 Walter Johnson
309 Lefty Grove
281 Pete Alexander
205 Greg Maddux
203 Tom Seaver
192 Warren Spahn
138 Christy Mathewson
134 Randy Johnson
126 Bob Gibson
111 Carl Hubbell
111 Pedro Martinez
55 Cy Young*
37 Juan Marichal
1 Sandy Koufax

* Does not include Young's pre-1900 seasons, else his career minus his 6-run stretch would yield a whopping 430 apr remaining.


Percent of career value represented by sample pitchers' 6-year run
99% Sandy Koufax
84% Juan Marichal
82% Cy Young*
75% Pedro Martinez
70% Carl Hubbell
69% Randy Johnson
63% Bob Gibson
63% Christy Mathewson
60% Greg Maddux
58% Roger Clemens
53% Tom Seaver
51% Walter Johnson
50% Lefty Grove
47% Warren Spahn
45% Pete Alexander

* While 82% of Young's 20th century career value is in his 1900-05 stretch, when looking at his entire career, his 1891-96 stretch represents 370 just 46% of his career value.



Also please note that many of these players had one or more outstanding (40+ apr) seasons that weren't included in their best 6-year run. These totals would look different if I had just added each pitcher's best six seasons (rather than his six best consecutive seasons). Steve Carlton didn't make this list solely because his best seasons were so spaced apart he would have easily been quite a ways behind the lowest total on the first list.

Also note that Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez are still active and in their declining years so it is highly probable that their 6-year run will represent a lesser percentage of their career value by the time each retires.

There are a lot of comparisons between Koufax and Dizzy Dean. So here's Dean's breakdown (before I'm asked for it):

Dean's best 6-year stretch was 176 apr from 1932-37, the rest of his career (1931, 1938-41, 1947) is valued at only 18 apr, making his 6-year "prime" approximately 91% of his total career value. Unlike Koufax, Martinez or other short-career stars (Addie Joss comes to mind), Dean had only 2 great seasons (1934-35), not 4, 5 or 6 and Dean never led his league in apr, losing to Carl Hubbell (1934) and Cy Blanton (1935) respectively.

All data presented here was taken from The Baseball Encyclopedia (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=pT7xXOq9MD&isbn=0760753490&itm=1) by Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette. For $24.95, I recommend anyone interested in a print encyclopedia stop by their local B&N.

[leecemark]

--I think an interesting approach to evaluating pitching might be to assign a value for their ranking on each of those lists and add tho together. You would get a number which placed equal value on peak vs career without allowing a huge factor on one to override the other. I'd only use say the top 25 peak value pitchers or you will end up with some guys who were just pretty good for a long time ahead of truely great pitchers. There have to be a couple hundred guys whose "rest of career" would rank ahead of Koufax.
--For this group of 14 (Alexander was left out of the "rest of career list, which I assume would have been a good number for him) it would give you a list like this:.............peak......rest of career........total
1. Walter Johnson.....1...........2........................3
2. Lefty Grove..........3...........3...................... ..6
3. Greg Maddux.........4..........4....................... .8
4. Roger Clemens.......8..........1........................ 9
5. Randy Johnson.......5..........8.......................1 3
6. Pedro Martinez.......2..........12...................... 14
7. Carl Hubbell...........6..........10................... ..16
7. Christy Mathewson 9...........7......................16
9. Tom Seaver...........12.........5..................... .17
10. Cy Young............7..........13.................... ..20
11. Warren Spahn......15.........6.......................21
12. Bob Gibson...........13.........9..................... .22
13. Sandy Koufax.......10.........14.....................24
14. Juan Marichal........14.........13..................... 27
--Although I understand Chancellors reasons for not including 19th century pitching years, I'd probably have to give Young at least 1/2 credit for that (probably more). Just half his points from before 1900 would vault him to 4th on the "rest of career list" and 5th overall. I suspect Pete Alexander would also fare well on the "rest of career" had his numbers been included and I'm guessing he would make the top 10. Chancellor, I'm sure that was just an oversight. I'f you could provide that I would be very interested.
--The only thing that would be more than a one or two spot shift on this list from my own is the presence of all 4 of the great active pitchers in the top 6. I have Clemens 3rd on my personal list, but the other three range from 12-15. Perhaps its just harder to recognize greatness this close up.

[The Commissioner]

Adjusted Pitching Runs (ie. "Adjusted Starter Runs") are available in The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition). They do not incorporate a pitcher's batting, baserunning and fielding performance - only his pitching performance, valued in terms of runs and adjusted for a pitcher's home park and his league's level of offense in a given season.

Won't a pitcher with a dominating season then actually hurt his own cause on this scale? For example, if Walter Johnson pitched more innings in a league with fewer teams, wouldn't he then be more responsible for his home park value and league's offensive level to drop than would, for example, perhaps Pedro would in a season where he doesn't record as many innings? Therefore if the two posted an identical ERA, it is feasible that Johnson gets punished and Pedro rewarded for the Big Train actually being more dominating. The reason I mention this, is because while Dodger Stadium may be a pitcher's park, most everybody now seems to attribute Koufax's and Drysdale's success to that park factor and to their era. Yet, aren't they in large part responsible themselves for those adjusted/inflated pitching stats which have diminished them in many people's eyes. Has anybody attempted to calculate how great the park factor and factor for the era are that they were pitching in when you exclude their stats from the initial equation?

[leecemark]

--What you are saying is true enough. However, no one pitcher pitchs enough innings to tilt the scale more than a fraction by himself. It was slightly more true before expansion, although Koufax great seasons all came after the first expansion. With the number of teams and lower number of innings pitched today, the single pitcher factor is so small as to be totally insignificant.
--In any case, you can take Koufax and Drydale out of the equation simply by looking at the enormous difference in the offensive numbers of the Dodgers at home and on the road. Obviously they weren't facing Koufax or Drysdale and the gap between their home and road performance was huge. With a neutral park most teams hit better at home. Only at a select few do they hit noticably worse. And only at Dodger Stadium and the Astrodome were they dwarfed in this fashion.

[The Commissioner]

I'd question whether it really makes as little of a difference as you assert. As I pointed out earlier, in the '63 example, if you take Koufax's numbers alone out of the equationt hat season, the Dodgers no longer have the dominant pitching advantage. As a matter of fact, they jump up from being first in the league with a 2.85 club ERA to being fourth at 3.11. That's just from Koufax alone!!! Pretty much if you subtract Koufax's stats from that Dodgers staff in any given year (other than '66 when they realy do dominate as a whole), they are quite comparable to the Cards or Giants. The one factor which makes them standout appears to be Koufax much more than it is Dodger Stadium.

As for how much it affects the league as a whole, let's look at 1966 for example. That season, the one in which the members of Koufax's staff appear to finally be as assisted by Dodger Stadium as much as he was all that time, if you subtract Koufax's numbers, the NL's collective ERA goes up from 3.61 to 3.66. A jump of .05 from just Koufax!!!

[leecemark]

--In the 1963 example I'd have to say its likely that any team is going to see its era jump a fair amount if you take their best pitcher out of the equation. I might have guessed more than 1/4 run per game if you'd asked before showing the numbers. The fact that they would still have one of the best staffs in the league without Koufax tends to support rather than detract from the Doger Stadium arguement.
--In the 1966 example the difference between 3.61 and 3.66 is 1.38%. Perhaps we have different ideas about what a signigicant difference might be.
--More important the the size of the effect on Koufax's numbers though is the effect on what we're trying to measure here. I haven't seen anyone suggest Koufax was NOT the best pitcher in baseball in his prime. The standard we are measuring whether he is "overrated" on is against the best pitchers of all time. Generally speaking they were also the best pitchers in baseball in their primes. Any adjustment we might make for Koufax by removing his numbers from the league is going to have a similar effect on the pitchers we are comparing him to.
--Koufax peak was great. I would look foolish trying to argue it wasn't. The point I'm trying to make is there were a number of other pitchers who were equally great and in some cases better at their best - and many of them had a number of years outside their peak that were much better than Koufax offpeak years. A similar number were almost as good as Koufax at their best, but were good pitchers twice or three times as long.
--I've got Koufax number 15 on my all time list. 15th best out of the thousands of men who've pitched in the major leagues and millions more who haven't made it that far isn't meant to be an insult. At his best he was one of the 10 best pitchers ever, Dodger Stadium or not. He falls a little further down the list because he only had the 6 years where he was particularly good, but he doesn't fall that far. I'd say anybody who has him in the top 10 all time is overrating him and anybody who has him outside the top 20 is underrating him. Just one man's opinion.

[The Commissioner]

I wasn't bringing up those numbers to try to illustrate the significance of them in and off themselves, but rather how Koufax hurt his own cause as far as the modern weighted systems go. (For example in 2000, arguably Pedro's best season, he accounts for a 0.03 change in League ERA. In a way that may even be more impressive than Koufax's 0.05. However, I'm just saying that it's not fair for either man to have his record held up to be "weighed" against the league average, when he himself contributed to lowering that figure.)

I don't see how that detracts from the Koufax argument? Yes it's true that if in any given year you took away a club's best picther it would increase their clubs ERA. However, not all of them by Koufaxian (Koufaxesque???) proportions. I would still like for anybody to explain to me how come in '67 the league's ERA dropped by a significant number and yet the Dodgers' ERA ballooned? What modifications did they make to the ballpark after '66 that made them a mediocre picthing staff the next season? What kept them from leading the league in ERA again until 1972?

Overall, I have no disagreement with ranking Koufax lower than other picthers who had sustained excellence over an extended period of time. In my opinion, also, they deserve to be ranked higher on anyone's all-time list due to that fact. My problem is simply with those that may suggest Koufax was overrated due to the era he played in or his home ballpark. I don't buy into the new set standard of infallible weights and measures that has been adopted by most fans. Some of the new "innovations" are indeed very productive. However, in attempting to requantify everything, there are some severe miscalculations and disservices to history being perpetrated along the way. Koufax seems to be one of those that has become an unjust casualty to this new way of thinking.

[shlevine42]

About once a month, it seems, someone raises the question of whether Sandy Koufax is overrated, and whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

They argue that:
- he had only 5 (or 6) good-to-great years in his short 12-year career
- he won only 165 games
- he pitched in a park that favored pitchers

My initial reaction to those criticisms was to dismiss them out of hand. After all, as a Brooklyn Dodger fan, I rooted for Koufax initially because he was a member of my team. When the Dodgers left town, I stopped rooting for the team but continued to follow Sandy because he was becoming baseball’s most exciting pitcher and, as the most prominent Jewish athlete in America, his accomplishments were very much a matter of pride.

I saw him pitch from his rookie season till the end of his career.. I saw him dominate the Yankees in the ’63 Series…saw him overpower the Twins in the ’65 Series…saw him win countless “must” games in tight pennant races. And I clearly recall the tingle of anticipation whenever he took the mound, because there was always the possibility that we’d see a no-hitter.

In recent years, however, I’ve tried to take a more dispassionate view of his accomplishments, and to be more open-minded about the criticisms – especially the issue of the Park Effect on his pitching stats.

I began to look at the numbers, specifically his Home and Road ERAs for the three parks he pitched in – Ebbets Field, the LA Coliseum and Dodger Stadium:


Year HOME AWAY TOTAL
'55 2.25 4.00 3.02
'56 7.50 4.50 4.91
'57 3.96 3.83 3.88
E.FIELD 4.21 4.07 4.14

'58 5.60 3.75 4.48
'59 3.14 5.05 4.05
'60 5.27 3.00 3.91
'61 4.29 2.77 3.52
LA COLISEUM 4.46 3.48 3.93

'62 1.75 3.56 2.54
'63 1.38 2.32 1.88
'64 0.85 2.94 1.74
'65 1.38 2.71 2.04
'66 1.52 1.95 1.73
DOD.STAD. 1.37 2.57 1.96

Some observations:

“Koufax first became Koufax” in 1961, the year, he found the strike zone. That year, his K/BB Ratio, which had been 1:1 or 2:1 at best, rose to 3:1, and stayed between 3:1 and 5:1 for the remainder of his career.

Looking at the numbers, it’s hard to deny that Koufax benefited considerably by pitching in Dodger Stadium.

Reading DOWN the HOME ERA column, note that in his first year in Dodger Stadium, his ERA was 2.5 runs Lower than his last year at the Coliseum. A good deal of that is due, of course, to his maturation as a pitcher.

But note also that during his Dodger Stadium years, his HOME ERA was anywhere from 0.5 to 2.0 runs LOWER than his ROAD ERA…clear evidence that Sandy was tougher to score on at Dodger Stadium than he was on the road. Or, to put it more dramatically, he was EASIER to score on AWAY from his friendly home park.

Visiting teams weren’t the only ones who struggled at Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers, too, scored fewer runs at home than they did on the road. Yet – and here is perhaps Koufax’s most impressive statistic -- from ’62-’66, he was 57-15 at home, and 54-19 on the road, numbers that clearly indicate that he won even when his team didn’t give him robust run support.

Having used statistics to illuminate Koufax’s record, let me add that I don't believe they always tell the complete story of a player’s performance or ability. For example, Jackie Robinson’s stats don’t begin to describe the many ways that he could dominate a game and affect its outcome. They don’t begin to describe his fierce desire to win, his ability to rise to the occasion and the full impact he had on the game.

I believe the same is true for Koufax.

While I’m convinced that during his 5-6 year run, he was as close to being unhittable as any pitcher ever was, he was, more important, (and very much like Robinson) close to being unbeatable in pressure situations. His determination and competitiveness – his will to win – could be felt in the stands. When the burden was on his shoulders, he simply would not let his team lose. His career record is filled with countless 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 victories…many of them against his team’s most formidable opponents and at the most critical times.

That’s a quality that can’t be fully measured by statistics.

Bottom line: Pitching in Dodger Stadium, Koufax was almost unbeatable. In all other parks, he was merely extraordinary. Overall, for 5-1/2 to 6 years, he was the best pitcher of his era – very likely the best pitcher of the last 50 years. Most of all, he was a WINNER.

Final note: It says volumes that whenever a new young pitcher seems to be on the verge of stardom, that pitcher is compared NOT to Gibson or Marichal or Ford, or even Lefty Grove, but to Koufax.

If you were lucky to have seen him pitch, then you understand why.

If you weren't, then you missed something special that his stats – as glittering as they are -- can only hint at.

[RuthMayBond]

I began to look at the numbers, specifically his Home and Road ERAs for the three parks he pitched in – Ebbets Field, the LA Coliseum and Dodger Stadium:


Year HOME AWAY TOTAL
'55 2.25 4.00 3.02
'56 7.50 4.50 4.91
'57 3.96 3.83 3.88
E.FIELD 4.21 4.07 4.14

'58 5.60 3.75 4.48
'59 3.14 5.05 4.05
'60 5.27 3.00 3.91
'61 4.29 2.77 3.52
LA COLISEUM 4.46 3.48 3.93

'62 1.75 3.56 2.54
'63 1.38 2.32 1.88
'64 0.85 2.94 1.74
'65 1.38 2.71 2.04
'66 1.52 1.95 1.73
DOD.STAD. 1.37 2.57 1.96

Some observations:

Looking at the numbers, it’s hard to deny that Koufax benefited considerably by pitching in Dodger Stadium.

Visiting teams weren’t the only ones who struggled at Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers, too, scored fewer runs at home than they did on the road. Yet – and here is perhaps Koufax’s most impressive statistic -- from ’62-’66, he was 57-15 at home, and 54-19 on the road, numbers that clearly indicate that he won even when his team didn’t give him robust run support.

Bottom line: Pitching in Dodger Stadium, Koufax was almost unbeatable. In all other parks, he was merely extraordinary. Overall, for 5-1/2 to 6 years, he was the best pitcher of his era – very likely the best pitcher of the last 50 years. Most of all, he was a WINNER.

Final note: It says volumes that whenever a new young pitcher seems to be on the verge of stardom, that pitcher is compared NOT to Gibson or Marichal or Ford, or even Lefty Grove, but to Koufax.Of course the Dodgers scored fewer runs at home because it is a PITCHERS' park. Extraordinary in other parks? And yes he was a winner, he has about half as many wins as Roger Clemens. New pitchers are compared to Koufax because people forget about his early years, and they're ignorant of history. You didn't even mention some guy named Walter :laugh

[DoubleX]

I think a huge part of the Koufax's legend is the fact that he retired so young and while still at his peak. It leaves fans to wonder what else could have been, how much more Koufax could have done beyond the age of 30, especially since Koufax's last year may have been his best. It's not everyday that someone so young and so good just walks away from their height and their future in the game, but Koufax did and in doing so, really encapsulated how good he was because he didn't have a decline period or offpeak seasons to muddle up his legacy. All we can see is that from age 25 to the end of his career, Koufax was amazing like no one else ever.

Additionally, sure Koufax had about 5 "offpeak" years, but they were all at the beginning of his career and came between the ages of 19 and 24. At 25 and 26, Koufax figured out how to make the most of his talents and he was historically dominant until the end of his career. So Koufax never really had offpeak or decline years - he only had the growing pains that almost all very young pitchers go through in life.

[Brad Harris]

leecemark - I just forgot to flip back to Alexander's entry in the book. Sorry I forgot to include that; I've edited the post. So you don't have to go back and look, here's Alexander's apr splits.

Pete Alexander
Top 6yr Run: 233
Rest of Career: 281
6yr Run as % of Career Total: 45%

By the way, that's the lowest percentage of any of the pitchers analyzed in the previous post.


Commissioner - Park Effects is actually something I started looking into more in depth this summer. To my knowledge, there is a generic park factor that is applied to any individual's numbers; individuals do not have different park factors (resulting from the loss of their own statistics). I'll ask Pete Palmer about this, however, as I'd also like to know the answer to your question. Any reponse by the editors of that volume will certainly be forwarded here.

[WillieKamm]

About once a month, it seems, someone raises the question of whether Sandy Koufax is overrated, and whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

They argue that:
- he had only 5 (or 6) good-to-great years in his short 12-year career
- he won only 165 games
- he pitched in a park that favored pitchers

My initial reaction to those criticisms was to dismiss them out of hand. After all, as a Brooklyn Dodger fan, I rooted for Koufax initially because he was a member of my team. When the Dodgers left town, I stopped rooting for the team but continued to follow Sandy because he was becoming baseball’s most exciting pitcher and, as the most prominent Jewish athlete in America, his accomplishments were very much a matter of pride.

I saw him pitch from his rookie season till the end of his career.. I saw him dominate the Yankees in the ’63 Series…saw him overpower the Twins in the ’65 Series…saw him win countless “must” games in tight pennant races. And I clearly recall the tingle of anticipation whenever he took the mound, because there was always the possibility that we’d see a no-hitter.

In recent years, however, I’ve tried to take a more dispassionate view of his accomplishments, and to be more open-minded about the criticisms – especially the issue of the Park Effect on his pitching stats.

I began to look at the numbers, specifically his Home and Road ERAs for the three parks he pitched in – Ebbets Field, the LA Coliseum and Dodger Stadium:


Year HOME AWAY TOTAL
'55 2.25 4.00 3.02
'56 7.50 4.50 4.91
'57 3.96 3.83 3.88
E.FIELD 4.21 4.07 4.14

'58 5.60 3.75 4.48
'59 3.14 5.05 4.05
'60 5.27 3.00 3.91
'61 4.29 2.77 3.52
LA COLISEUM 4.46 3.48 3.93

'62 1.75 3.56 2.54
'63 1.38 2.32 1.88
'64 0.85 2.94 1.74
'65 1.38 2.71 2.04
'66 1.52 1.95 1.73
DOD.STAD. 1.37 2.57 1.96

Some observations:

“Koufax first became Koufax” in 1961, the year, he found the strike zone. That year, his K/BB Ratio, which had been 1:1 or 2:1 at best, rose to 3:1, and stayed between 3:1 and 5:1 for the remainder of his career.

Looking at the numbers, it’s hard to deny that Koufax benefited considerably by pitching in Dodger Stadium.

Reading DOWN the HOME ERA column, note that in his first year in Dodger Stadium, his ERA was 2.5 runs Lower than his last year at the Coliseum. A good deal of that is due, of course, to his maturation as a pitcher.

But note also that during his Dodger Stadium years, his HOME ERA was anywhere from 0.5 to 2.0 runs LOWER than his ROAD ERA…clear evidence that Sandy was tougher to score on at Dodger Stadium than he was on the road. Or, to put it more dramatically, he was EASIER to score on AWAY from his friendly home park.

Visiting teams weren’t the only ones who struggled at Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers, too, scored fewer runs at home than they did on the road. Yet – and here is perhaps Koufax’s most impressive statistic -- from ’62-’66, he was 57-15 at home, and 54-19 on the road, numbers that clearly indicate that he won even when his team didn’t give him robust run support.

Having used statistics to illuminate Koufax’s record, let me add that I don't believe they always tell the complete story of a player’s performance or ability. For example, Jackie Robinson’s stats don’t begin to describe the many ways that he could dominate a game and affect its outcome. They don’t begin to describe his fierce desire to win, his ability to rise to the occasion and the full impact he had on the game.

I believe the same is true for Koufax.

While I’m convinced that during his 5-6 year run, he was as close to being unhittable as any pitcher ever was, he was, more important, (and very much like Robinson) close to being unbeatable in pressure situations. His determination and competitiveness – his will to win – could be felt in the stands. When the burden was on his shoulders, he simply would not let his team lose. His career record is filled with countless 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 victories…many of them against his team’s most formidable opponents and at the most critical times.

That’s a quality that can’t be fully measured by statistics.

Bottom line: Pitching in Dodger Stadium, Koufax was almost unbeatable. In all other parks, he was merely extraordinary. Overall, for 5-1/2 to 6 years, he was the best pitcher of his era – very likely the best pitcher of the last 50 years. Most of all, he was a WINNER.

Final note: It says volumes that whenever a new young pitcher seems to be on the verge of stardom, that pitcher is compared NOT to Gibson or Marichal or Ford, or even Lefty Grove, but to Koufax.

If you were lucky to have seen him pitch, then you understand why.

If you weren't, then you missed something special that his stats – as glittering as they are -- can only hint at.
I guess I'm getting old. The plethora of stats is one of baseballs biggest attractions, at least for me. That has become diminished in recent times as "stat geeks" wield more and more influence in the court of public opinion and in the process we have a lot of revisionist history where some of the all time greats of the game are concerned. Perhaps none has suffered more than Sandy Koufax. By far the greatest pitcher of my youth, and one of the greatest ever. In terms of left handers Lefty Grove is the only one I'd consider to be superior to Koufax. The last two lines of the referenced post say it all for me. Damn right I was lucky enough to see him pitch. Too damn bad for those of you that weren't.

[Brad Harris]

Sandy Koufax was the greatest pitcher of his era and one of the greatest pitchers of all-time. Apparently that isn't enough for some Koufax fans.

Koufax can't possibly be in the argument for "greatest ever" unless your definition of greatness is based entirely on how good he was at his peak. If that's the case then Dwight Gooden belongs in the same discussion. If that's your standard, Al Rosen has a strong case as the greatest third baseman ever. If that's the case, Don Mattingly is one of the greatest first basemen in history.

Koufax simply had no career to speak of outside his peak seasons. His career blossomed late and ended early and simply isn't comparable to guys who were equally (or nearly equally) as good for 15-16 seasons versus 5-6. Walter Johnson, Grover Alexander, Lefty Grove, etc. are an echelon above the great Koufax. Little shame there, but it doesn't seem to be enough for some.

[ElHalo]

I guess I'm getting old. The plethora of stats is one of baseballs biggest attractions, at least for me. That has become diminished in recent times as "stat geeks" wield more and more influence in the court of public opinion and in the process we have a lot of revisionist history where some of the all time greats of the game are concerned. Perhaps none has suffered more than Sandy Koufax. By far the greatest pitcher of my youth, and one of the greatest ever. In terms of left handers Lefty Grove is the only one I'd consider to be superior to Koufax. The last two lines of the referenced post say it all for me. Damn right I was lucky enough to see him pitch. Too damn bad for those of you that weren't.

Uh, I think you'd find some disagreement here. Most poeple would take Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson ahead of Koufax, and quite a few would take Rube Waddell (I personally go back and forth on who I'd rather take, Koufax or Waddell). Great pitcher, absolutely, but there were greater.

[WillieKamm]

Uh, I think you'd find some disagreement here. Most poeple would take Warren Spahn and Randy Johnson ahead of Koufax, and quite a few would take Rube Waddell (I personally go back and forth on who I'd rather take, Koufax or Waddell). Great pitcher, absolutely, but there were greater. Warren Spahn is one of my favorites and I'd probably rate him no 3 or 4 all time best left hander. Waddell was quite the character but no way I'd pick him over Koufax. This is not just for you but for anybody who cares one way or another about how Koufax figures in the all time rankings. Of course you want a HOFer to have had a longer run of excellence. There are exceptions however. In statistics they are called outliers, and Koufax is a prime example of this. Dizzy Dean is another. In football I think of Gale Sayers whose brilliant career was cut short by knee injuries. I'm sorry that those who never saw him and are totally enthralled with sabermetrics, etc don't think that Koufax matches up with the best of the best. Ordinarily it's quite the logical argument. For players like Koufax and Sayers who for whatever reasons had a shortened period of excellence you make an exception because they were that good. At least I do anyway.

[toopier]

he had the best curve ball of anyone with five fingers.
He was 30. 30!
The best left handed pitcher ever.

[Johntheripper]

Koufax is overrated in terms of career value, and can't reasonably be considered in the top 20 pitching careers.

On the other hand, if I had to win one game and could pick any pitcher at his best, I might just go with Koufax. That has to count for something.

I have to rate Koufax ahead of Pedro at this point, even though Pedro's ERAs are more impressive, taking era into account. But, Koufax had much better endurance; Pedro's innings pitched are really dropping, and I think a great pitcher needs to be great for the whole game, instead of just six innings. Koufax was also much better in the postseason. I consider Pedro the goat of that Red Sox vs Yankees series last year. Plus, he's a real jerk.


pedro is an ok dude, how is he a jerk? he is competitive?, YES, jerk? NO

[wrgptfan]

One of the most amazing stats that I remember reading about Sandy Koufax is what Bill James wrote in the HBBA or one of the Abstracts - I can't remember.

From retrosheet.org, in games started by Koufax between 1963 and 1966 the Dodgers had the following record:


Dodgers
Runs
Scored W L
----------------
0 0 6
1 8 9
2 17 9
3 19 4
4 20 3
5 19 0
6 14 3
7 17 2
----------------
Total 114 36


Over that 4 year period with Koufax starting, the Dodgers had a better than .500 record when they scored 2 or fewer runs! That just blew me away.

[shlevine42]

One of the most amazing stats that I remember reading about Sandy Koufax is what Bill James wrote in the HBBA or one of the Abstracts - I can't remember.

From retrosheet.org, in games started by Koufax between 1963 and 1966 the Dodgers had the following record:


Dodgers
Runs
Scored W L
----------------
0 0 6
1 8 9
2 17 9
3 19 4
4 20 3
5 19 0
6 14 3
7 17 2
----------------
Total 114 36


Over that 4 year period with Koufax starting, the Dodgers had a better than .500 record when they scored 2 or fewer runs! That just blew me away.

I remember seeing that table too, Dave.

It illustrates the point that the Dodgers often supplied Koufax with a slim margin to work with, and yet he (and they) were successful a remarkable percentage of the time.

I always felt he was at his best in close games -- especially those games that mattered most in a pennant race or World Series.

Looked at another way: In the 101 games where Koufax was given 3 or more runs, the team won 89 times.

He was, as they say, money in the bank.

[Brad Harris]

From The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition)

Koufax's run support (compared to league average)

1961 +0%
1962 +19%
1963 +23%
1964 -3%
1965 +8%
1966 +13%

Koufax's career run support was 8% above the league average.

[santotohof]

Koufax is pitchings answer to Joe Morgan,although Lil Joe stuck around after his supernova. 5 unreal ,tough to match years in an otherwise pedestrian career .Koufax of course got out on top .Lil Joe followed his monster years with many so so years.Advantage Sandy.

[RuthMayBond]

Koufax is pitchings answer to Joe Morgan,although Lil Joe stuck around after his supernova. 5 unreal ,tough to match years in an otherwise pedestrian career .Koufax of course got out on top .Lil Joe followed his monster years with many so so years.Advantage Sandy.I'm assuming you mean Morgan's tough to match years were 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976? That would make his 94 R & 110 BB & 49 SB the year after the lowest offense in ? years "so so", as his 102 R & 102 BB & 42 SB the next year, as his 113 R & 22 HR & .420 OBP & 117 BB & 49 SB in 1977, and his 100 R & league-leading BB in 1965. And make sure to forget Sandy's early years, the era he pitched and the benefit of his park :laugh

[leecemark]

--I agree the Koufax-Morgan comparison is completely off base (and where did it come from?). Take Morgan's 5 years of being the best player in baseball out of his resume and he still has a long and distinguished career left. A little short of the Hall of Fame probably, but not by much. Take Koufax's 5 years of being the best pitcher in baseball out of his resume and nobody even remembers his name.

[Yankees319]

Koufax benefited from a lot of things that helped make him the most dominant pitcher of his time, including the era and the home park. But there's one other factor that is generally overlooked, and one that takes on added significance in 2004: he was using a performance enhancer -- cortisone.
No, it wasn't illegal. It was at the disposal of anyone who wanted it. But Koufax essentially would not have been able to pitch, let alone dominate, at the end of his career without it. He knew what kind of pain the stress on his arm would cause, and he took the shots to alleviate it, knowing what the long-term effects would be.
I'm not saying what he did was wrong, or illegal, or immoral. I'm just saying it should be part of the discussion.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Koufax benefited from a lot of things that helped make him the most dominant pitcher of his time, including the era and the home park. But there's one other factor that is generally overlooked, and one that takes on added significance in 2004: he was using a performance enhancer -- cortisone.
No, it wasn't illegal. It was at the disposal of anyone who wanted it. But Koufax essentially would not have been able to pitch, let alone dominate, at the end of his career without it. He knew what kind of pain the stress on his arm would cause, and he took the shots to alleviate it, knowing what the long-term effects would be.
I'm not saying what he did was wrong, or illegal, or immoral. I'm just saying it should be part of the discussion.

By that rationale, surgery is a performance enhancer, as well. Should any pitcher who ever had the benefit of modern medicine have an asterisk next to their name?
Koufax had arthritis. Cortisone is a treatment. That should not be held against him. It helped him pittch through pain, but there isn't the scantest amount of information that says it helped his pitching.

[santotohof]

Why Lil Joe is so revered is beyond me. Fact is his 162 game averages are as follows,271-16-69 with 27 doubles 6 triples an obp of 392 114 walks and 63 K's.Yawn. He hit .250 or less in 8 full seasons.( as Casey said "You can look it up!) He did his only real damage when batting behind Ken Griffey and Pete Rose and in front of Johnny Bench,Tony Perez and George Foster. Nice work if you can get it. His fielding was aided immensly by playing on the green concrete of Riverfront for 81 games not to mention Three Rivers ,Veterans,and the Astrodome.If you got to it it was a true hop ,more often you didn't get near it.(Keeps those pesky errors down.

[RuthMayBond]

Why Lil Joe is so revered is beyond me. Fact is his 162 game averages are as follows, an obp of 392 114 walks. Yawn.Sure, you can get those kind of guys down at the corner store :laugh He started his career in the MID and LATE sixties, which makes hitters LOOK worse and guys like Koufax LOOK better.

[dgarza]

Although I can see where the Koufax / Morgan comp. may come from, I don't think it's the best match. Morgan was at least an All-Star and All-Star quality player before he became a HOF quality player. Koufax wasn't an All-Star quality player until he became a HOF quality player. Morgan's runs, BBs, SB, triples, OPS+ were pretty good in Houston, All-Star quality.

[RuthMayBond]

Oops, while Koufax had the best pitcher's park, Morgan was stuck in the dome, the worst hitter's park.

[KHenry14]

[QUOTE=santotohof]Why Lil Joe is so revered is beyond me. QUOTE]


Well, in Joe's case, a lot of how good he was is reflected in intangebles, not in stats. He was one of the all time gamers. He could and did beat you with the big fly, a stolen base, a bloop hit....whatever it took, he'd do it. And he did it time and time again.

Basically I'll take Joe over almost any other 2B because of that.

KH14

[shlevine42]

Koufax benefited from a lot of things that helped make him the most dominant pitcher of his time, including the era and the home park. But there's one other factor that is generally overlooked, and one that takes on added significance in 2004: he was using a performance enhancer -- cortisone.
No, it wasn't illegal. It was at the disposal of anyone who wanted it. But Koufax essentially would not have been able to pitch, let alone dominate, at the end of his career without it. He knew what kind of pain the stress on his arm would cause, and he took the shots to alleviate it, knowing what the long-term effects would be.
I'm not saying what he did was wrong, or illegal, or immoral. I'm just saying it should be part of the discussion.

1. Cortisone is an anti-inflammatory, and Koufax used it to control the arthritis in his pitching arm. I don't believe it's considered a "performance enhancing drug."

2. It's generally acknowledged that Koufax benefited by pitching in Dodger Stadium; ALL pitchers did. But as I noted in an earlier post, while Koufax's ERA was higher on the road than at home, from '62-'66, he WON as often on the road (54-19) as he did at home (57-15).

If he were strictly a "Dodger Stadium" pitcher, his road record would have been significantly worse.

As it was, during his remarkable five-year run, and whether at home or on the road, he won almsot EIGHTY PERCENT OF HIS DECISIONS.

[santotohof]

[QUOTE=santotohof]Why Lil Joe is so revered is beyond me. QUOTE]


Well, in Joe's case, a lot of how good he was is reflected in intangebles, not in stats. He was one of the all time gamers. He could and did beat you with the big fly, a stolen base, a bloop hit....whatever it took, he'd do it. And he did it time and time again.

Basically I'll take Joe over almost any other 2B because of that.

KH14Awesome point. I agree fully. I wish several other players got the same treatment as Lil Joe. I see stats being everything by many who ignore them when in their interest. I watched these guys and ,IMO, Tony Perez was as clutch as I've ever seen. He got the Ribbie when it was needed not when up by 4.

[westsidegrounds]

1. Cortisone is an anti-inflammatory, and Koufax used it to control the arthritis in his pitching arm. I don't believe it's considered a "performance enhancing drug."

I]

Well ... if it made him feel better, and therefore pitch better ... it's a Performance Enhancing Drug!

Like aspirin.

Maybe Y319 is one of the "zero tolerance" crowd.

[west coast orange and black]

I'm not quite sure how Koufax can even be considered overrated? He won three pitching triple crowns, was twice the WS MVP, three times was #2 or higher in the MVP voting (fairly close in each year), and garnered three CY Young Awards in an era where there was only per the entire Major Leagues. True, Dodger Stadium is considerd a pitcher's park, but exactly how much is that supposed to detract from his stats? The Dodgers in that era could not hit there either. He had to go out and pitch a masterpiece every time out or he lost. In '66 he went 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Explain to me how you manage to lose 9 games with that earned run average?

i'm with you on this one, commish.
:radio :radio :radio

[west coast orange and black]

1. Cortisone is an anti-inflammatory, and Koufax used it to control the arthritis in his pitching arm. I don't believe it's considered a "performance enhancing drug."

2. It's generally acknowledged that Koufax benefited by pitching in Dodger Stadium; ALL pitchers did. But as I noted in an earlier post, while Koufax's ERA was higher on the road than at home, from '62-'66, he WON as often on the road (54-19) as he did at home (57-15).

If he were strictly a "Dodger Stadium" pitcher, his road record would have been significantly worse.

As it was, during his remarkable five-year run, and whether at home or on the road, he won almsot EIGHTY PERCENT OF HIS DECISIONS.

it is well-documented that koufax was regularly injected with a horse tranquilizer that was/is still banned in race horses. then he'd knock back three beers. still, i am on record as agreeing with the commish, and koufax definately belongs.
:radio :radio :radio

[Mattingly]

it is well-documented that koufax was regularly injected with a horse tranquilizer that was/is still banned in race horses. then he'd knock back three beers. still, i am on record as agreeing with the commish, and koufax definately belongs.
:radio :radio :radio
Pardon my ignorance of the subject, but which horse tranquilizer was he injected with? What were the dosages? (I'm not very medically competent, to say the least)

The only horse tranquilizer I've seen used by humans was the narcotic Angel Dust, which picked up around the early '80s.

[DODGER DEB]

it is well-documented that koufax was regularly injected with a horse tranquilizer that was/is still banned in race horses. then he'd knock back three beers.
:radio :radio :radio


Can you please elaborate on this INFO? I, for one, would like to know WHERE this "well-documented" info came from and where it can be seen and read!

The only "well-documented" perfectly legal drug Sandy took was Cortisone!

c.

[west coast orange and black]

Can you please elaborate on this INFO? I, for one, would like to know WHERE this "well-documented" info came from and where it can be seen and read!

The only "well-documented" perfectly legal drug Sandy took was Cortisone!

c.

good luck down the home stretch, deb. see you in a few weeks.

"Part biography, part cultural history, Jane Leavy’s Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy gets as close to that legend as he will allow. Through meticulous reporting and interviews with five hundred of his friends, teammates, and opponents, leavy penetrates the mythology to discover a man more than worthy of myth. An award-winning sportswriter presents this fascinating and eye-opening biography of Dodger great Sandy Koufax, a pitcher who changed the game of baseball forever. Leavy reveals the man behind the myth, creating an unprecedented portrait of a man described by one former Dodger as the most misunderstood man in baseball."

(on sale sept 2003, it appeared on the best-seller list for 16 weeks.)

“A baseball classic; the first in-depth reporting on the life and career of the Dodger icon…a must read.” --New York Daily News

“An exhaustively researched study that paints an intriguing portrait of the famously reclusive Dodger pitcher.” --Sports Illustrated

"An honest and exquisitely detailed examination of a complex man, one whose skills were such that slugger Willie Stargell once likened hitting against Koufax to 'trying to drink coffee with a fork.'" Publishers Weekly

"Leavy's story is far richer than simply a tale of the promising youngster who finally struck gold. Calling on her hundreds of interviews, she offers a richly drawn account of an often misunderstood yet greatly celebrated athlete." Library Journal

"Taut biography of the Dodger great's playing years: baseball savvy and as far from tall-tale-telling as former Washington Post sportswriter Leavy can get....Well-conceived and sharply drawn, a thinking fan's biography." Kirkus Reviews

leavy includes that koufax: orally took Codeine, which is in a class of drugs called narcotic analgesics. it is used primarily to treat moderate-to-severe pain; was injected with Cortisone, a type of steroid that is a powerful anti-inflammatory medication; was administered oral doses of butazolidin, which at the time was an illegal race horse tranquilizer. it is a systemic anti-inflammatory drug used to relieve some symptoms caused by arthritis (rheumatism), such as inflammation, swelling, stiffness, and joint pain. [i wrote that it still is illegal in racehorsing but the sport currently allows versions of the original drug, so i am unsure if my original statement is true.]
...................................

i think that the book is a gem. i learned so much about the time, the players, the game itself. now, most know that koufax the pitcher had a five-year stretch as perhaps the most dominating pitcher in the game's history: five straight era titles; three-time 25-game winner; 382 strikeouts in 1965, a new record; no-hitters in four consecutive seasons, culminating with a perfect game in 1965; posted a 0.95 era in four career world series play, leading the dodgers to three crowns... but now i know and respect the man.

[DODGER DEB]

good luck down the home stretch, deb. see you in a few weeks.

"Part biography, part cultural history, Jane Leavy’s Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy gets as close to that legend as he will allow. Through meticulous reporting and interviews with five hundred of his friends, teammates, and opponents, leavy penetrates the mythology to discover a man more than worthy of myth. An award-winning sportswriter presents this fascinating and eye-opening biography of Dodger great Sandy Koufax, a pitcher who changed the game of baseball forever. Leavy reveals the man behind the myth, creating an unprecedented portrait of a man described by one former Dodger as the most misunderstood man in baseball."

(on sale sept 2003, it appeared on the best-seller list for 16 weeks.)

“A baseball classic; the first in-depth reporting on the life and career of the Dodger icon…a must read.” --New York Daily News

“An exhaustively researched study that paints an intriguing portrait of the famously reclusive Dodger pitcher.” --Sports Illustrated

"An honest and exquisitely detailed examination of a complex man, one whose skills were such that slugger Willie Stargell once likened hitting against Koufax to 'trying to drink coffee with a fork.'" Publishers Weekly

"Leavy's story is far richer than simply a tale of the promising youngster who finally struck gold. Calling on her hundreds of interviews, she offers a richly drawn account of an often misunderstood yet greatly celebrated athlete." Library Journal

"Taut biography of the Dodger great's playing years: baseball savvy and as far from tall-tale-telling as former Washington Post sportswriter Leavy can get....Well-conceived and sharply drawn, a thinking fan's biography." Kirkus Reviews

leavy includes that koufax: orally took Codeine, which is in a class of drugs called narcotic analgesics. it is used primarily to treat moderate-to-severe pain; was injected with Cortisone, a type of steroid that is a powerful anti-inflammatory medication; was administered oral doses of butazolidin, which at the time was an illegal race horse tranquilizer. it is a systemic anti-inflammatory drug used to relieve some symptoms caused by arthritis (rheumatism), such as inflammation, swelling, stiffness, and joint pain. [i wrote that it still is illegal in racehorsing but the sport currently allows versions of the original drug, so i am unsure if my original statement is true.]
...................................

i think that the book is a gem. i learned so much about the time, the players, the game itself. now, most know that koufax the pitcher had a five-year stretch as perhaps the most dominating pitcher in the game's history: five straight era titles; three-time 25-game winner; 382 strikeouts in 1965, a new record; no-hitters in four consecutive seasons, culminating with a perfect game in 1965; posted a 0.95 era in four career world series play, leading the dodgers to three crowns... but now i know and respect the man.


I also read the Leavy book,wco&b, and found it "interesting".

Any, and all, of the drugs that "K" took were LEGAL and aimed at relieving the chronic pain of his arthritis. Anyone who knows "K" knows that he would NEVER have taken drugs for ANY reason other than to deal with his daily pain.

Thank you for the elaboration of your original post.

BTW, relative to the good wishes in your opening greeting............please know that I am a BROOKLYN DODGER FAN, and could NEVER root for that "left coast group" that STOLE OUR TEAM and OUR NAME!

c.

[west coast orange and black]

I also read the Leavy book,wco&b, and found it "interesting".

Any, and all, of the drugs that "K" took were LEGAL and aimed at relieving the chronic pain of his arthritis. Anyone who knows "K" knows that he would NEVER have taken drugs for ANY reason other than to deal with his daily pain.

Thank you for the elaboration of your original post.

BTW, relative to the good wishes in your opening greeting............please know that I am a BROOKLYN DODGER FAN, and could NEVER root for that "left coast group" that STOLE OUR TEAM and OUR NAME!

c.

thanx and yer welcome, deb. i would never write that koufax took an illegal substance unless it is proven fact... and it is not.

uh, still bitter after all these years? now that's a fan! haha.

[glavine-KO]

one dogeer cathcer+ one pitcher with bad fastball+ one comment to slow it down+ one arrogant person who doesnt wnat to pitch cuz of a jewish holioday in a WORLD SERIES GAME!!!!= three year stint of an ok brooklyn pitcher
ITZ ALL MATH

[Captain Cold Nose]

one dogeer cathcer+ one pitcher with bad fastball+ one comment to slow it down+ one arrogant person who doesnt wnat to pitch cuz of a jewish holioday in a WORLD SERIES GAME!!!!= three year stint of an ok brooklyn pitcher
ITZ ALL MATH

Maybe, but IS IT ENGLISH?

[shlevine42]

one dogeer cathcer+ one pitcher with bad fastball+ one comment to slow it down+ one arrogant person who doesnt wnat to pitch cuz of a jewish holioday in a WORLD SERIES GAME!!!!= three year stint of an ok brooklyn pitcher
ITZ ALL MATH

You're entitled to feel that Koufax is overrated and to question his credentials as a Hall of Fame pitcher.

But to call him "arrogant" for refusing to pitch on THE MOST SOLEMN AND IMPORTANT HOLIDAY IN THE JEWISH CALENDAR is the most outrageously ignorant and offensive remark I've ever seen on this Board, and one that I simply can't ignore.

It shows an abysmal ignorance of the Jewish religion as well as intolerance and disregard for another group's culture. And for me at least, it also carries the ugly stench of ant-Semitism.

There's no place here for that kind of garbage.
You owe a major league apology to every member of this Board.

[iPod]

You're entitled to feel that Koufax is overrated and to question his credentials as a Hall of Fame pitcher.

But to call him "arrogant" for refusing to pitch on THE MOST SOLEMN AND IMPORTANT HOLIDAY IN THE JEWISH CALENDAR is the most outrageously ignorant and offensive remark I've ever seen on this Board, and one that I simply can't ignore.

It shows an abysmal ignorance of the Jewish religion as well as intolerance and disregard for another group's culture. And for me at least, it also carries the ugly stench of ant-Semitism.

There's no place here for that kind of garbage.
You owe a major league apology to every member of this Board.

Well, let's not lose sight of the fact that NBA players are scheduled to play games on Christmas Day, Easter, and during Hannukah and Ramadan... NFL players have to play on Thanksgiving rather than be with their families, etc. It's not exactly a black-and-white issue.

[ElHalo]

You're entitled to feel that Koufax is overrated and to question his credentials as a Hall of Fame pitcher.

But to call him "arrogant" for refusing to pitch on THE MOST SOLEMN AND IMPORTANT HOLIDAY IN THE JEWISH CALENDAR is the most outrageously ignorant and offensive remark I've ever seen on this Board, and one that I simply can't ignore.

It shows an abysmal ignorance of the Jewish religion as well as intolerance and disregard for another group's culture. And for me at least, it also carries the ugly stench of ant-Semitism.

There's no place here for that kind of garbage.
You owe a major league apology to every member of this Board.


Um... while I agree that the post you're referencing was probably insensitive and at the very least illegible, I don't really agree with you on this one.

Some people choose to believe that there's an omnipotent, omnicient, invisible man in the sky who watches over their daily lives and is so insecure in himself that he needs the love and adoration of these hairless monkeys to help him through the day, and gets angry when such love and adoration from said hairless monkeys isn't given.

To me, that belief is just as silly as it sounds... but I understand if people choose to see it differently.

However, if I'm a fan of a sports team, or management for that team, I would absolutely NOT condone letting a person's silly supersticions intefere with their ability to help my team WIN... winning is the number one goal of sports teams, not pleasing some hypothetical and most likely non-existant diety who would have to be WAY too much of a control freak to deal with anyway if he honestly cared that you went to work on his holy day.

I agree with the original poster, in that an individual thinking that an all knowing, all powerful being could honestly possibly care at all whether or not that individual goes to work on a particular day is the height of arrogance. After all, if you accept that there is such a thing as a God who created and cares for the universe, isn't the idea that that God cares one way or the other what you do with your life the very pinnacle of arrogance? If he doesn't like the way you live your life, wouldn't he just create another person who would live their life the right way?

Please understand. I'm not trying to knock the Jewish faith here. To me, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Anamism, Druidism, Voodoo, Astrology, Scientology, satan worshipping, etc., are all equally silly and pointless mythologies, and have no place whatsoever in the game of baseball. By allowing himself to take a day off from the World Series because of his religious beliefs, Sandy Koufax basically said that his religious beliefs were more important to him than his team's success, and put himself about the team. In my view, no individual is more important than the team's success, and I'd rather see a player miss time to a hangnail than to a religious holiday. At least hangnails aren't imaginary.

Regardless of the religious arguments, if a pitcher on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because of a holiday, I'd be furious. If a guy on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because his entire family was eaten by rabid lions while his home was sucked into a sinkhole and his friends were kidnapped by pirates, I'd be furious. You play the game, or you don't play the game. There's no half way.

[prof93]

It doesn't have to be a black and white issue. Koufax choose to honor his religious commitment, a commitment that was made long before he ever played baseball for money. Show some respect for anothers beliefs, you don't have to agree with it, but you can acknowledge their right to believe as they choose, and their right to practice that belief when they deem it necessary.

[abacab]

Regardless of the religious arguments, if a pitcher on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because of a holiday, I'd be furious. If a guy on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because his entire family was eaten by rabid lions while his home was sucked into a sinkhole and his friends were kidnapped by pirates, I'd be furious. You play the game, or you don't play the game. There's no half way.

Dude, I hope I never have you as a boss.

Playing baseball is a job. If Sandy Koufax had any other job, would he take any crap for taking one day off because it's the most holy day of his religion? Or because of a family emergency? No, because this stuff is more important than any job.

[shlevine42]

Well, let's not lose sight of the fact that NBA players are scheduled to play games on Christmas Day, Easter, and during Hannukah and Ramadan... NFL players have to play on Thanksgiving rather than be with their families, etc. It's not exactly a black-and-white issue.

...and let's not lose sight of the fact that Christmas and Easter, both of which began as pagan holidays long before the birth of Christ, were originally festivals -- occasions for feasting and celebrations. Hannukah is also a joyous celebration, and I needn't tell you about the meaning of Thanksgiving.

Whatever their religious association, none of those holidays carries the same proscription against work that Yom Kippur does in the Jewish faith. It is a solemn day, a day of contemplation, a Day of Atonement, and Jewish law requires abstention from all work and play.

And whether YOU believe in it or not, (see the following post) it is each individual's right to observe that day as he sees fit and as he views his relationship to his God -- even if that day falls during a World Series.

It is absolutely a black-and-white issue.

[leecemark]

--I think Elhalo's position was pretty extreme. I wouldn't take the day off if my friends were kidnapped by pirates, but I'd have to at least think about it if my family was eaten by rabid lions. As to whether it would be held against a person in a regular job if they took a day off for a religious holiday, it depends. Most people, on most jobs, on most days can be replaced for a day or a week or whatever. However, if you are the key person on a big project facing a critical deadline it WILL be held against you if you miss work regardless of your reason.
--That was definately the situation with Koufax and the Dogers in the World Series. I'm not saying that is fair or right, but it is true. I agree there are things more important to me than work, but those things are not more important to my employer, nor were they more important to the Dodgers or their fans. I'm too young to remember this from personal experience (Koufax retired two years before I started following baseball), but I'd be interested to hear what the common reaction was from those here who remember the situation first hand.

[shlevine42]

Um... while I agree that the post you're referencing was probably insensitive and at the very least illegible, I don't really agree with you on this one.

Some people choose to believe that there's an omnipotent, omnicient, invisible man in the sky who watches over their daily lives and is so insecure in himself that he needs the love and adoration of these hairless monkeys to help him through the day, and gets angry when such love and adoration from said hairless monkeys isn't given.

To me, that belief is just as silly as it sounds... but I understand if people choose to see it differently.

However, if I'm a fan of a sports team, or management for that team, I would absolutely NOT condone letting a person's silly supersticions intefere with their ability to help my team WIN... winning is the number one goal of sports teams, not pleasing some hypothetical and most likely non-existant diety who would have to be WAY too much of a control freak to deal with anyway if he honestly cared that you went to work on his holy day.

I agree with the original poster, in that an individual thinking that an all knowing, all powerful being could honestly possibly care at all whether or not that individual goes to work on a particular day is the height of arrogance. After all, if you accept that there is such a thing as a God who created and cares for the universe, isn't the idea that that God cares one way or the other what you do with your life the very pinnacle of arrogance? If he doesn't like the way you live your life, wouldn't he just create another person who would live their life the right way?

Please understand. I'm not trying to knock the Jewish faith here. To me, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Anamism, Druidism, Voodoo, Astrology, Scientology, satan worshipping, etc., are all equally silly and pointless mythologies, and have no place whatsoever in the game of baseball. By allowing himself to take a day off from the World Series because of his religious beliefs, Sandy Koufax basically said that his religious beliefs were more important to him than his team's success, and put himself about the team. In my view, no individual is more important than the team's success, and I'd rather see a player miss time to a hangnail than to a religious holiday. At least hangnails aren't imaginary.

Regardless of the religious arguments, if a pitcher on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because of a holiday, I'd be furious. If a guy on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because his entire family was eaten by rabid lions while his home was sucked into a sinkhole and his friends were kidnapped by pirates, I'd be furious. You play the game, or you don't play the game. There's no half way.

So much of this post is a jumble of contradictions, non-sequiturs and tortured logic that I hardly know where to begin.

This looks like a good place:
First you claim to "understand if people see it differently," and then you say:
Regardless of the religious arguments, if a pitcher on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because of a holiday, I'd be furious. If a guy on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because his entire family was eaten by rabid lions while his home was sucked into a sinkhole and his friends were kidnapped by pirates, I'd be furious. You play the game, or you don't play the game. There's no half way.
So in fact you would actually deny a player the right to "see it differently" and to practice his religion.

Your examples involving sinkholes and rabid lions are too ridiculous to comment on, except to say they show a stunning lack of compassion and understanding.

Most important, as I noted to another poster, it matters not that YOU think religion is silly; what matters is the right of others to practice their faith and to follow their hearts.

You say that Koufax "put himself above his team;" I say he put his God above baseball.

How in the world can you criticize someone for that?

[shlevine42]

--I'm too young to remember this from personal experience (Koufax retired two years before I started following baseball), but I'd be interested to hear what the common reaction was from those here who remember the situation first hand.

I'm old enough to remember this from personal experience.

The "common reaction" probably depended on your team loyalty and your religion.

Keep in mind that Sandy Koufax was the most prominent Jewish athlete in America at the time, and an important role model for ALL youngsters -- especially those of his own religion.

I'm sure that many LA Dodger fans felt shock and anger when he said he wouldn't pitch the first game of the Series.

But as a Jew, I'm sure that Jewish LA Dodger fans shared my feeling of enormous pride in Koufax for putting his God and his religion ahead of his job.

[prof93]

I must admit I am stunned by the whole question. It doesn't matter what any of us think, I would bet if Koufax were here he would be the first to tell you that this wasn't a hard choice for him to make. But if your religion isn't important to you, you can't possibly understand where he was coming from. He made the right choice, he put his faith first.


Gale Sayers had it right
1.God
2.Family
3.Me (I Am Third)

[ElHalo]

So much of this post is a jumble of contradictions, non-sequiturs and tortured logic that I hardly know where to begin.

This looks like a good place:
First you claim to "understand if people see it differently," and then you say:

So in fact you would actually deny a player the right to "see it differently" and to practice his religion.

Your examples involving sinkholes and rabid lions are too ridiculous to comment on, except to say they show a stunning lack of compassion and understanding.

Most important, as I noted to another poster, it matters not that YOU think religion is silly; what matters is the right of others to practice their faith and to follow their hearts.

You say that Koufax "put himself above his team;" I say he put his God above baseball.

How in the world can you criticize someone for that?

As to the "seeing it differently"... of course I have absolutely no problem with people believing in whatever religion they choose. But when that religion starts to interfere with their job performance, especially when they're as key a player as Koufax...

I recall a few years ago, Princess Diana died in a car accident. One woman who was a coworker of mine called in to say she couldn't come in that day, because she was too distraught over Diana's death. And, uh... I live in New York, not Britain.

Now, if this (crazy) woman wanted to build shrines to Princess Diana and spend all of her free time following the woman's movements while she was alive and mourning her when she was dead, that's perfectly fine with me. I'm not going to begrudge someone their insanity. So, as I said before, I think it's crazy and insane for somebody to be so upset about Princess Diana's death that they had to spend a week inside their apartment in mourning. But I understand if people see it differently.

But when she couldn't come to work because her deranged obsession with Princess Diana interfered with her ability to perform her job... well, that's not ok. When she let her insane superstitions interfere with her job performance, that crossed the line of acceptability, and she was terminated... in my view, rightly so.

Now, with Koufax... ok, fine, he wants to believe in this imaginary friend named God. Sure, whatever. I'm not going to begrudge him that belief. But when his belief in this imaginary friend starts to interfere with his job performance... well, that's a problem. Just like the crazy lady and her inability to come into work because Princess Diana died was a problem. And Koufax was a MUCH more key member of a MUCH more important organization than the crazy Princess Diana lady.

Like I said, Koufax put himself before his team. He allowed his own belief in this imaginary friend to trump his obligations to his team. You say he put his God before baseball; but not everyone shares his religious beleifs. His God is a part of him, it's not a part of (many of) his teammates or his fans... and so he put himself, and his own beliefs, above baseball and above his teammates. That's entirely unacceptable, in my view, and has nothing to do with his particular religion. Doesn't matter what religion you espouse; if you allow it to interfere with your work performance, especially when your individual performance is as key to your organization's success as Koufax', that's unacceptable.

As a corollary... a few years ago, the Yankees had a guy named Chad Curtis as their fourth outfielder. Pretty good player, but... he was a rabid evangelical Christian, and would lead the more religious members of the team in organized prayer. That was fine. He would also actively try and catch the less religious players in the hallways of the clubhouse, or in the dugout, or on the field during warmups, and would actively try and "help" them to find Jesus. That's not fine at ALL. It made many, many players uncomfortable, both on the field and in the clubhouse, and it caused major, major rifts between the players, especially angering Derek Jeter. This was an example of Curtis allowing his religious beliefs to be bigger than the team, and to interfere with the team's performance. That was unacceptable. He was shipped out of town shortly thereafter, rightly so. It's fine to have strong religious beliefs (Mariano does on the current Yanks), but it's not fine to allow those beliefs to interfere with your teammates' ability to win ballgames. That's saying that you (or your religious beliefs, which are nothing but a part of yourself, after all) are bigger than the game, and that's NEVER the case.

As for the sinkholes and lions, well... the sinkholes and lions and pirates examples were, of course, just extremes. The one thing I was really thinking of was this:

A few weeks ago, Oogie Urbina's mother was kidnapped somewhere in Latin America by people trying to get ransom money from him. He left the Tigers to go down there and take care of it.

My first thought (and yes, this probably makes me a bad person, and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but what you gonna do) was that, if this happened to Mariano Rivera, and his mother was kidnapped right before the WS, I'd be extremely upset if he went to Panama to take care of it. Yes, to him, of course his mother would be more important than baseball, and of course he'd want to take care of it. But as an absolutely irreplacable member of a key group with a HUGE deadline looming that millions upon millions of people are hanging on... well, as a human being, I'd like to see Mo go to Panama and get things settled as best he could. As a Yankee fan, or as a member of Yankee management if I was such, I'd hope that he could put his personal issues out of his head for a week and a half for the good of the team. Obviously, we all have to make our own decisions, and as a human being, I'd rather Mo saw his mother returned safe and sound. But when it comes to baseball, my humanity is thin.

[shlevine42]

You've made your position clear. So have I.

It's obvious that neither of us is about to accept the other's view, so I'll spare the Board the tedium of a long-winded rebuttal.

But I will say this: It's ludicrous, and insulting to this conversation, to equate your co-worker's obsession with Princess Diana with Koufax's observance of his faith.

And my absolutely last word on the matter is your own statement...
Obviously, we all have to make our own decisions, and as a human being, I'd rather Mo saw his mother returned safe and sound. But when it comes to baseball, my humanity is thin.

which serves, in my opinion, is a rather sad self-portrait.

[JACKIE42]

Um... while I agree that the post you're referencing was probably insensitive and at the very least illegible, I don't really agree with you on this one.

Some people choose to believe that there's an omnipotent, omnicient, invisible man in the sky who watches over their daily lives and is so insecure in himself that he needs the love and adoration of these hairless monkeys to help him through the day, and gets angry when such love and adoration from said hairless monkeys isn't given.

To me, that belief is just as silly as it sounds... but I understand if people choose to see it differently.

However, if I'm a fan of a sports team, or management for that team, I would absolutely NOT condone letting a person's silly supersticions intefere with their ability to help my team WIN... winning is the number one goal of sports teams, not pleasing some hypothetical and most likely non-existant diety who would have to be WAY too much of a control freak to deal with anyway if he honestly cared that you went to work on his holy day.

I agree with the original poster, in that an individual thinking that an all knowing, all powerful being could honestly possibly care at all whether or not that individual goes to work on a particular day is the height of arrogance. After all, if you accept that there is such a thing as a God who created and cares for the universe, isn't the idea that that God cares one way or the other what you do with your life the very pinnacle of arrogance? If he doesn't like the way you live your life, wouldn't he just create another person who would live their life the right way?

Please understand. I'm not trying to knock the Jewish faith here. To me, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Anamism, Druidism, Voodoo, Astrology, Scientology, satan worshipping, etc., are all equally silly and pointless mythologies, and have no place whatsoever in the game of baseball. By allowing himself to take a day off from the World Series because of his religious beliefs, Sandy Koufax basically said that his religious beliefs were more important to him than his team's success, and put himself about the team. In my view, no individual is more important than the team's success, and I'd rather see a player miss time to a hangnail than to a religious holiday. At least hangnails aren't imaginary.

Regardless of the religious arguments, if a pitcher on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because of a holiday, I'd be furious. If a guy on my team chose to take a day off in the World Series because his entire family was eaten by rabid lions while his home was sucked into a sinkhole and his friends were kidnapped by pirates, I'd be furious. You play the game, or you don't play the game. There's no half way.

Once more you have proven me right when i called you a major league jerk.

[west coast orange and black]

one dogeer cathcer+ one pitcher with bad fastball+ one comment to slow it down+ one arrogant person who doesnt wnat to pitch cuz of a jewish holioday in a WORLD SERIES GAME!!!!= three year stint of an ok brooklyn pitcher
ITZ ALL MATH

what the hell is going on here?

who the hell are you blast a person's fundamental faith when that person's religious beliefs do not tread upon others?

i find your thinking highly offensive and think that your post displays ignorance and anti-semitism.

i am really saddened... and ticked off!

[west coast orange and black]

Well, let's not lose sight of the fact that NBA players are scheduled to play games on Christmas Day, Easter, and during Hannukah and Ramadan... NFL players have to play on Thanksgiving rather than be with their families, etc. It's not exactly a black-and-white issue.

i think that it is you losing sight of the facts, ipod: professional athletes are bound by their contracts only so far as they choose to go. >>> if a player does not honor the contract then the team's management can levy a fine and suspension and the fans can write that player off. >>> you know, create an effect tied to money.

the players all willingly choose their professions; no one puts a gun to their heads to sign on the dotted line.

koufax did what he did not knowing what the consequences would be, exactly, and that is called character. he did what he believed in, and that is honorable.

it IS a black-and-white issue: someone here at baseball-fever went after someone because that person honored his own religion.

[west coast orange and black]

the very fact that koufax made his decision in the face of so much pressure coming at him from so many directions ought to describe clearly just what his faith, exactly, meant to him. right now i am bleeding dodger blue... and if you have an ounce of an idea where that statement is coming from then you have a clear understanding as to who/what i am.

[iPod]

i think that it is you losing sight of the facts, ipod: professional athletes are bound by their contracts only so far as they choose to go. >>> if a player does not honor the contract then the team's management can levy a fine and suspension and the fans can write that player off. >>> you know, create an effect tied to money.

the players all willingly choose their professions; no one puts a gun to their heads to sign on the dotted line.

koufax did what he did not knowing what the consequences would be, exactly, and that is called character. he did what he believed in, and that is honorable.

it IS a black-and-white issue: someone here at baseball-fever went after someone because that person honored his own religion.

No, it's not a black-and-white issue. It's not. Frankly I can't believe anyone would say it is.

Sandy Koufax decided to do something that he believed was right, but he also put his team in a huge pinch. The Dodgers needed him to show up; the millions of Los Angeles sports fans out there needed him to show up. And he didn't. He did what he thought was right; ok, that's great. But he did make a huge sacrifice, put the Dodgers and their fans on the line, over something which the vast majority of people in the world don't believe in.

You can look at that two completely different ways. That, by definition, can't be a black-and-white, right-answer, wrong-answer issue. If you say otherwise, your opinion is just as stubborn as ElHalo's.

[shlevine42]

...Sandy Koufax decided to do something that he believed was right, but he also put his team in a huge pinch. The Dodgers needed him to show up; the millions of Los Angeles sports fans out there needed him to show up. And he didn't. He did what he thought was right; ok, that's great. But he did make a huge sacrifice, put the Dodgers and their fans on the line, over something which the vast majority of people in the world don't believe in.


I'm curious.

Just what is it that "the vast majority of people of the world don't believe in." Religion in general? Or Judaism in particular?

[abacab]

Barry Bonds missed several games of the regular season last year due to the sickness and eventual death of his father.

Let's pretend the Giants had won the pennant, and Bobby Bonds died before Game 1 of the Series. Barry, grief-stricken, sits out the first three games.

Would you blame him for that? Would you say that he let down his team? Would you say he backstabbed thousands of Giant fans? I hope you would not.

Criticizing Koufax for missing one game - ONE GAME - due to Yom Kippur is equivalent to tearing him down for missing the game due to a death in his family, or the birth of a child.


"The millions of fans needed him to show up..." Come on. These men play a game. They are not saving lives or providing a vital service. They are entertainers.

Real life is more important than baseball.

[prof93]

Good heavens, what the heck is the matter with people when you think a sport should come before ones faith. Who cares what the Dodgers and their fans thought, if they had any respect for Koufax they would understand.

After all this time has passed why cant we come to understand Koufax's stance. Just 20 years before, if you lived in Germany,Poland, or Hungary, where it was dangerous and even lethal just to be a Jew - much less be public about it. During WWII the Jews survived in forced labor camps and lost, among others, both their parents and their children in places like Auschwitz. To anyone who can appreciate what they went thru , to have a well known Jew who declared his Judaism openly as Sandy Koufax, was heroic beyond words.

[west coast orange and black]

“But he did make a huge sacrifice, put the Dodgers and their fans on the line, over something which the vast majority of people in the world don't believe in.”

incredibly, if i read this correctly, it has to do with "as long as you believe what i believe all is well".

how far we still must climb if we do not accept others for who they are/what they identify as.

[west coast orange and black]

I'm curious.

Just what is it that "the vast majority of people of the world don't believe in." Religion in general? Or Judaism in particular?

i, too was curious. but now i just wanna go and soak my head.

[iPod]

I meant Judaism, and I only meant it literally. Most people aren't Jews, so it's hard for most people to feel for Koufax's decision except in the "He did what he thought was best, though I don't personally understand," sort of way. I didn't mean Judaism was stupid. And I didn't mean that you have to believe what I do, so no, you didn't read it right.

If Barry Bonds' father died before the World Series and he missed Game 1, I wouldn't hold it against Bonds as a person, but I would be very frustrated. Why shouldn't I be? I'm a Giants fan, and I've invested a lot of time and energy over the year (and over my life) to see the team come this far. I don't think it's unfair to demonize someone if he was frustrated by Koufax not pitching in Game 1 of the World Series, for whatever reason. I don't hold it against Sandy Koufax as a person, but I realize that people were frustrated by his decision purely as fans. That's why I'm saying it's not a black-and-white issue.

But, hey, if you'd feel better just thinking I'm a bigot, go ahead.

[shlevine42]

I meant Judaism, and I only meant it literally. Most people aren't Jews, so it's hard for most people to feel for Koufax's decision except in the "He did what he thought was best, though I don't personally understand," sort of way. I didn't mean Judaism was stupid. And I didn't mean that you have to believe what I do, so no, you didn't read it right.


Give people more credit than that.

It may be hard for you to feel for Koufax's decision, but I think "most people" -- at least most thinking adults -- would have no trouble understanding it...in the same way that most people who didn't lose a loved one in the 9/11 attacks are able to feel for the families who did.

It's called empathy.
And sensitivity.
And tolerance.
It describes who we are...a society founded on freedom of expression and religious beliefs.

And it often (but not always) comes with maturity.

[west coast orange and black]

I meant Judaism, and I only meant it literally. Most people aren't Jews, so it's hard for most people to feel for Koufax's decision except in the "He did what he thought was best, though I don't personally understand," sort of way. I didn't mean Judaism was stupid. And I didn't mean that you have to believe what I do, so no, you didn't read it right.

But, hey, if you'd feel better just thinking I'm a bigot, go ahead.

i never have and do not foresee myself ever feeling good thinking that someone is a bigot.

[julusnc]

Nevermind.I will be quite before I get pissed.

[iPod]

Give people more credit than that.

It may be hard for you to feel for Koufax's decision, but I think "most people" -- at least most thinking adults -- would have no trouble understanding it...in the same way that most people who didn't lose a loved one in the 9/11 attacks are able to feel for the families who did.

It's called empathy.
And sensitivity.
And tolerance.
It describes who we are...a society founded on freedom of expression and religious beliefs.

And it often (but not always) comes with maturity.

Guys, I must have said something wrong, so I'll just start over, because I'm not even really saying anything at all. I'm just trying to say, I understand why people would be frustrated by his decision. I don't see why people should feel guilty about feeling that way. Saying Sandy Koufax was "arrogant" for it, or that he deserves to be ridiculed as a person... that's wrong. The guy that started all this, he was wrong. But it doesn't mean that the fans should have just said "Hey, Sandy, that's fine, I can totally forget the fact that I've been following the Dodgers all year and there are millions of us out here that want you to win the World Series for us." They don't have the right to insult Koufax for his decision, but they are allowed to really want him to play, and be very disappointed as fans if he doesn't.

I do understand Koufax's decision, but I can understand why other people wouldn't, in other words. And, by the way, lots of people obviously don't, or understand it and disagree with it, or else it wouldn't be such a huge controversy. That's why I thought I would just point out that the alternate argument exists as innocuously as I could so I wouldn't get flamed. I did get flamed, though, so I'll just let this thread be.

[leecemark]

--Ipod, just so you won't think the whole site is ganging up on you I wanted to say I didn't think your post on this subject was inflammatory or unreasonable (although I can't say the same for the poster who started this controversy). Koufax had a right to refuse to work. Dodger fans, his teammates and management had a right to be frustrated, disappointed or even angry. His decison didn't effect only him. I'm certainly not condeming Koufax for doing what he thinks was right, but there is more than one point of view and it would be nice if alternative views could be put forward here without being accused of bigotry.
-- I'd have the same feeling on the subject if Koufax had made the decison for something I better understand and relate to. Someone made the comparison between this and Barry Bonds taking time off when his father was dying. I like to point out that players have lost their father on the eve of the Series and gone on to play (For example, Bobo Newsom's father died the day before the 1940 Series). If I remember right, Brett Favre started a Monday Night Football game the day after his father died last season. Not exactly the same thing of course, but different people handle things in different ways.

[ElHalo]

-- I'd have the same feeling on the subject if Koufax had made the decison for something I better understand and relate to. Someone made the comparison between this and Barry Bonds taking time off when his father was dying. I like to point out that players have lost their father on the eve of the Series and gone on to play (For example, Bobo Newsom's father died the day before the 1940 Series). If I remember right, Brett Favre started a Monday Night Football game the day after his father died last season. Not exactly the same thing of course, but different people handle things in different ways.

Paul O'Neill did a similar thing... starting, I believe it was game 3, of the WS the day after his father died.

[santotohof]

The topical horse analgesic spoken of is ( I think the initials are right) DMSO. It was regularly used for " sore arms" in the sixties. Len Dawson used it ,Jim Bouton and Sudden Sam McDowell to name a few better known.

[RuthMayBond]

Barry Bonds missed several games of the regular season last year due to the sickness and eventual death of his father.

Let's pretend the Giants had won the pennant, and Bobby Bonds died before Game 1 of the Series. Barry, grief-stricken, sits out the first three games.

Would you blame him for that? Would you say that he let down his team? Would you say he backstabbed thousands of Giant fans? I hope you would not.That's an, uh, interesting comparison :ughh

[J W]

bleeeech....

I followed this topic all the way back to GlavineKO's original comment. Looks like a lot of people are angry with each other now.

Well, I'll chime in with my opinion, but I'm not going to get in a shouting match with anyone over this.

Some thoughts:

-Christmas has become quite a bastardization of what it used to be. Commercialism has completely taken it, and Easter, over. Nontheless, it is correct to say that they are celebratory holidays, while Yom Kippur is quite the opposite. I would equate Yom Kippur more with the true Christian holidays such as Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Now if a Catholic athlete would honor Lent, and that would interfere with his performance, you have a similar story.

-Organized religion can be viewed as silly sometimes. But while I can best describe myself as a, er, "spiritual agnostic with a Christian background", I cannot take the stance of, say, Bill Maher, who believes that organized religion is the bane of all existence. I believe in the power of faith, even if it is faith in something which I believe is merely metaphor.

-Besides, our country is founded (partly) on freedom of religion. I cannot persecute an employee for his/her religious beliefs OR rituals. At least, I'm not supposed to.

So no, I do not blame Koufax for sitting out his game. Nor do I know enough about his motivations to do so. I can only assume he was observing his faith as he was taught to do.

I think everybody needs to take a deep breath here. :)

[west coast orange and black]

i stepped back and am breathing ok now.

[The Commissioner]

It sould probably also be noted, that despite the Dodgers losing game 1, which Koufax sat out, they did go on to win the World Series in no small part to Koufax's eventual efforts He came back to give up only 2 Twins runs (one earned) in 24 innings of work. These included complete game shutouts in games #5 and #7. Did it not just possibly benefit, rather than harm, his teammates and fans that he took Yom Kippur off? I would question whether the time off did indeed interfere with his performance as others have suggested, or perhaps allowed him the peace of mind to return to the mound and completely dominate ( 7 hits in his last 18 innings of work) a Twins club that won 102 games that season?

[west coast orange and black]

It sould probably also be noted, that despite the Dodgers losing game 1, which Koufax sat out, they did go on to win the World Series in no small part to Koufax's eventual efforts He came back to give up only 2 Twins runs (one earned) in 24 innings of work. These included complete game shutouts in games #5 and #7. Did it not just possibly benefit, rather than harm, his teammates and fans that he took Yom Kippur off? I would question whether the time off did indeed interfere with his performance as others have suggested, or perhaps allowed him the peace of mind to return to the mound and completely dominate ( 7 hits in his last 18 innings of work) a Twins club that won 102 games that season?

solid mentionings, commish, but off point. >>> this whole thing has to do with koufax's decision at the time that he made it. period. if he had gone on to getraked and lose two games what would you be reporting?

again: koufax ought not be crucified because he stuck his neck out there and made a decision for himself, by himself. he had no way of knowing what was gonna happen... and he did not allow that to enter into his decision-making process.

to me, that defines character. to me, that is honorable. maybe i am just too old-fashioned.

[rockin500]

I find this whole debate very disturbing. I'm sorry, but the team is always third behind Family and religion. If you arent religious (like me) then its second behind family.

i dont see how this should even be a topic open to discussion...

[abacab]

I think it's because some fans see ballplayers as performers instead of people, and feel that the players owe them and should have to play on demand regardless of what else is going on in their lives. While it's true that players owe their livelihood to the fans, that debt should be paid by signing autographs and answering reporter's questions and whatnot, not sacrificing their personal lives. That's my opinion, anyway.

[rockin500]

i remember what my head coach for my football team said on our first day of practice my sophomore year: Family first, school second, football third.

[dgarza]

I find this whole debate very disturbing. I'm sorry, but the team is always third behind Family and religion. If you arent religious (like me) then its second behind family.

i dont see how this should even be a topic open to discussion...
We don't all have the same priorities. Let's not shove our own list of priorities on others. As long as we can stick to our own list (and even that can be tough), then we are in fine shape...I would think.

[dgarza]

-Organized religion can be viewed as silly sometimes.
And so can everything else. Yep, even baseball.
Baseball's silly, c'mon...
If baseball's your religion, then fine. Please admit that it is if it is.
Steppin' out on baseball for God...
Steppin' out on God for baseball...
Each "offends" me the same

Sandy made a decision based on what he thought was the right thing to do (doesn't mean what he made the decision about was right or wrong). He knew that there could be some consequences. Sure he didn't know, but he took the chance. If he would have been yelled at, fined, fired, or whatever, I'm sure he was aware of the possibilities.

But, square and even, people have "right" to be pissed at him as well, if that's their world view, religious out look, etc. Now acting against in certain ways, well obviously that's another ball of yarn..

[dgarza]

i remember what my head coach for my football team said on our first day of practice my sophomore year: Family first, school second, football third.
Don't trust HS coachs. Do ya think he'd have gotten away with saying the reverse? Of course he's gonna say football 3rd, but do you think he means that?

[dgarza]

he had no way of knowing what was gonna happen... and he did not allow that to enter into his decision-making process.

to me, that defines character. to me, that is honorable. maybe i am just too old-fashioned.[/B]
No...I think he did allow that to enter into his decision making process, cause that's part of the process. If he DIDN'T let it enter into the process, then it probably wouldn't have been thinking.

[rockin500]

actually yes i do, because if you even thought of having trouble in school, he'd sit ya. family was also very big to the coach. It was always preached that way.

he was a math teacher before he took on the role as head coach (or even offensive coordinator, which he was before head coach)

[glavine-KO]

alright lets get some stuff clear. Im definitely not antisemitic and i find that offensive myself. But for whatever religion I or another person happens to be u owe it to ur time to put it asidew for just one day to do ur job. Thats just how i feel

[west coast orange and black]

No...I think he did allow that to enter into his decision making process, cause that's part of the process. If he DIDN'T let it enter into the process, then it probably wouldn't have been thinking.

thanx dgarza. i stand corrected: of course it was part of his decision-making process. i ought to have written that koufax did not allow any would-be consequences to determine what his decision would be >>>> he made his decision for himself, by himself.

[shlevine42]

Shawn Green is writing the latest chapter in the story of baseball vs. a player's faith.

For all those who criticized Koufax for his decision not to play in 1965, here's a point of view I think you'll find interesting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6073795/

And be sure to check out the results of the poll on whether fans think Green should play.

[JACKIE42]

Shawn Green is writing the latest chapter in the story of baseball vs. a player's faith.

For all those who criticized Koufax for his decision not to play in 1965, here's a point of view I think you'll find interesting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6073795/

And be sure to check out the results of the poll on whether fans think Green should play.


I wonder what his thinking is, the holiday starts at sun down Friday why does he feel its o.k to play that game, but not Sat. I would like to see him sit out both, in a synagogue.

[JACKIE42]

http://www.jewsinsports.org/Photos/Large/19.jpg

[shlevine42]

I wonder what his thinking is, the holiday starts at sun down Friday why does he feel its o.k to play that game, but not Sat. I would like to see him sit out both, in a synagogue.

I agree that Green's decision is puzzling and inconsistent.

If he's going to observe the holiday, then technically he should be sitting out BOTH games.

[west coast orange and black]

oy. now that the holiday has passed and we had more time to sit and ponder, can we all agree that green's religion is his own, his decision is his alone, and that he owes no explanation, no nuthin', to nobody?

[JACKIE42]

oy. now that the holiday has passed and we had more time to sit and ponder, can we all agree that green's religion is his own, his decision is his alone, and that he owes no explanation, no nuthin', to nobody?

Some of us felt that way year's before Green was born.

[west coast orange and black]

Some of us felt that way year's before Green was born.

atta-boy. :clapping

[NOMAR22]

in a thread titled "overrated players" on mlbcenter.com, i got into a discussion with a guy that says sandy koufax was not HOF caliber because he wasn't in the top 2% in overall value. i have no idea what that is, but i do realize those with really strict standards might not care for his induction, so i've been thinking about his pros and cons:

pros:
had one of the highest peaks of any modern pitcher
a key component of some great dodgers teams

cons:
had a short career by HOF standards
pitched in a pitcher's park in the "neo-deadball" era

taking all these things into consideration, does koufax deserve to be ranked amongst the greats? or is he overrated?

Sandy Koufax was way over rated. Do honestly think if he was black or latino that he would get the respect he got. Their was another pitcher in his Era who was robbed of a few CY Youngs in the 1960's, he just didn't get the respect because he could not speak English well.

[NOMAR22]

I like Koufax but I have always thought Juan Marichal was just as good and for a much longer period of time.

agree to disagree with me :)


I agree. But Juan Marichal did not speak English to good. That hurt him with Cy Young Voters,who were mostly of the Jewish Faith.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Digging up two and tree-year old threads is one thing, Nomar, but to spew out unsubstantiated comments like the ones above is out of line. We don't do hate-based conspiracy theories here.

[Sockeye]

Koufax had 4 great seasons (63-66), 1 very good season (62), 1 good season (61), and 6 poor seasons (55-60). His 4 great seasons were some of the best ever seen in baseball history. But for the first 1/2 of his career he was a poor pitcher never recording a WHIP lower than 1.28. So all things being considered I don't think the last 1/3 of his career make him one of the great pitchers of all time. He either needed more longevity or a higher number of great seasons before being considered as one the great pitchers of all time.

[Captain Cold Nose]

At his best, Koufax very well may have been the best pitcher to ever step foot on the mound. But there are other pitchers who were as good (and many will justifiably say better) as Koufax at their best. And they did it longer. In his own way, Greg Maddux was as good as Koufax over the course of a season except Maddux was as good over twice as long a period of time. That applies to Pedro Martinez as well, to name two current pitchers.
The second half of Koufax's career should well be acknowledged for what it was. Home park or not, the guy produced whereever he pitched for a short period of time. But when others do it as well for longer periods of time, those pitchers need to be regarded as highly as Koufax, and more so.

[jalbright]

Digging up two and tree-year old threads is one thing, Nomar, but to spew out unsubstantiated comments like the ones above is out of line. We don't do hate-based conspiracy theories here.
Amen, Captain, Amen! Shame, Nomar22, shame (if you have any)!

Jim Albright

[abacab]

Their was another pitcher in his Era who was robbed of a few CY Youngs in the 1960's, he just didn't get the respect because he could not speak English well.

Marichal, IMO, is the best pitcher that never won a Cy Young Award (not counting the pitchers who played before the award was created). However, Marichal was never "robbed" - there was never one year where he was clearly the best in the NL. Even if they had given a CYA to each league (instead of one for all MLB) during Marichal's career, he still probably would not have won it. He was a great pitcher in an era of great pitchers.

The comments about Koufax being overrated because of Jewish sportswriters are absurd and not worthy of further response from anybody. Please, nobody take the bait.

[BronxBoy]

At his best (which, by the way, wasn't for one day or one season) he was the best. All you had to do was sit there with your eyes closed and hear the ball hit the catcher's mitt to know it (I know, I was there). People went to see him, even when he was with a great team, wherever he pitched. He was great, maybe not the greatest, but great.

[DoubleX]

I agree. But Juan Marichal did not speak English to good. That hurt him with Cy Young Voters,who were mostly of the Jewish Faith.

I echo Captain Cold Nose's sentiments. If you're going to dredge up ancient threads, at least add something productive instead of incendiary.

Nevertheless, I will address your ill-conceived comments. Juan Marichal didn't win the Cy Young in the years Koufax did, because Koufax was flat out better. Let's take a look at what the two did in each of Koufax's three Cy Young years:

1963
Koufax: 25-5, 1.88 ERA, 306 K, 311 IP, 161 ERA+, 0.875 WHIP
Marichal: 25-8, 2.41 ERA, 248 K, 322 IP, 132 ERA+, 0.996 WHIP

1965
Koufax: 26-8, 2.04 ERA, 382 K, 336 IP, 160 ERA+, 0.855 WHIP
Marichal: 22-13, 2.13 ERA, 240 K, 296 IP, 169 ERA+, 0.914 WHIP

1966
Koufax: 27-9, 1.73 ERA, 317 K, 323 IP, 190 ERA+, 0.985 WHIP
Marichal: 25-6, 2.23 ERA, 222 K, 308 IP, 165 ERA+, 0.859 WHIP

In every year, Koufax was just the overall better and more dominant pitcher. In most other years, Marichal's '65 and '66 campaigns would probably be good enough to win the Cy Young, but the fact remains, the Koufax was just simply better and more dominant. That has nothing to do with voter bias, it has to do with on-the-field production, and Marichal was unlucky that his best seasons came during the same time when Koufax was pitching about as well as anyone ever has. Koufax's '66 in particular has to rank up there as one of the top 5 pitching seasons of all-time.

Now I will admit that Marichal was probably underrated and underappreciated in his time, as he only finished in the top 20 in Cy Young voting in 1971, when in many years he deserved at least top 5 consideration. Though it should be noted that while he didn't get Cy Young support, he did get a good amount of MVP support throughout the 60s; three times finishing in the top 10. It's very interesting that he would receive MVP support by not Cy Young support. Can anyone explain this? Looking at the Cy Young voting on baseball-reference.com for many years in the 60s, there seems to be only one name or the top three, so perhaps it was just the voting style of the day that excluded Marichal (and pretty much everyone other than the winner) and not some bias?

As for your original comments about a more general racial bias existing at the time, saying that Koufax would not get the respect he got "if he was black or latino," that didn't seem to stop Bob Gibson from getting respect from the voters. Let's see, Gibson won 2 Cy Youngs, an MVP award, 2 TSN Pitcher of the Year Awards, 2 WS MVPs, and 9 Gold Gloves.

Nomar, in future, please do some research before you bring back these old threads with ill-founded and antagozining comments. Thanks!

[bigtrain]

Nothing like bringing a thread back from the grave.

[rugbyfreak]

You're right, you can't make much of an argument :laugh EVERY era had great pitchers, but look at the league average. If your ERA was 3 in 1968, it was WORSE THAN AVERAGE. Wrap your mind around that :eek:

While on the subject of Koufax, great pitchers, etc., I think I can shed light on the "overrated" thing. No need to take it quite so literally. I think we're all in agreement that Sandy, once he got his game together, was a superfreak of a pitcher that nobody will soon forget. But the discussions of him are invariably so awe-inspired that they obscure the many other great pitchers of that decade. I happen to believe that Marichal stacked up quite favorably with anyone head-to-head (tied Sandy for wins in '63, won 26--with 30 complete games to Gibby's 22 in '68), but the man couldn't buy a break--no Cy Youngs (for God's sake, even his teammate, Mike McCormick, took one), and not that many accolades, for that matter. He may have hurt himself a little when he gonged Roseboro over the head (Sandy was on the mound), but most people realized that this wasn't typical of him.

So, in the sense that all the Koufax talk unduly relegates his equally deserving peers (Marichal, Gibson, Perry and Spahn--who was still one of the very best in the early '60s--all have career numbers that far eclipse Koufax's), his fame is a little out of proportion with reality, and hence may be said to be "overrated."

Now, get your mind around THIS:

Everybody's familiar in one way or another with Gibson's '68 season (speaking of superfreak years!), be it the ridiculous 1.12 ERA, the 13 shutouts, or his absolutely unhittable Game One performance against the Tigers, but I'm betting many of you haven't heard this one:

Gibby started 34 games that season, and completed 28 of them (three or four of them losses, I believe). In the other six, he was lifted by Schoendienst for a pinch hitter. With me so far? This means he was NEVER knocked out of a game the whole season! I'd be willing to bet that's never been done, at least in the modern era, or any era that doesn't include Hoss Radbourne. Can anyone out there confirm or deny that? I'd be interested to hear on that.

It also boggles the mind that a man with that ERA could lose nine games. And unlike the '66 Dodgers, those Cardinals were quite solid offensively (at least by '68 standards), finishing fourth in runs and batting average, third in slugging, second in doubles. But they had a disturbing tendency to go in the tank when Gibson pitched. He lost three or four 1-0 games, a couple of 2-1's, etc. (He also had to win a handful of 1-0 games.) With just a little more support, he could have won 27-28 games and taken the pitching Triple. As much as I like Koufax, I nominate it as the top pitching season of the decade.

[rugbyfreak]

I guess I'm getting old. The plethora of stats is one of baseballs biggest attractions, at least for me. That has become diminished in recent times as "stat geeks" wield more and more influence in the court of public opinion and in the process we have a lot of revisionist history where some of the all time greats of the game are concerned. Perhaps none has suffered more than Sandy Koufax. By far the greatest pitcher of my youth, and one of the greatest ever. In terms of left handers Lefty Grove is the only one I'd consider to be superior to Koufax. The last two lines of the referenced post say it all for me. Damn right I was lucky enough to see him pitch. Too damn bad for those of you that weren't.

Absolutely nothing against either Koufax or Grove; in fact, I'm on board with Koufax in that "if I had to win one game" scenario. (Not that this has much to do with his pitching, but Grove, at least from what I read, was a major league hump whose interpersonal skills made Albert Belle's or Eddie Murray's seem refined.) But you must admit: No conversation about great lefties can even take place without my main man Warren Spahn--winningest portsider in history--right in there. His accomplishments are far too numerous to list here, and all you veteran baseball fans already know them, anyway (13 20-win seasons, a sick number). But I think my favorite is 1963: At age 42, ol' rubber-arm posts arguably his finest statistical season: 23-7, 2.60, 7 shutouts, league-leading 22 CG. Oh yeah: Both of his no-hitters came after the age of 38.

The two pitchers were as different from each other as it gets: His was about durability and longevity, while Sandy's epitomized the term meteoric; Spahn's MO was control, craftiness, and winning the battle of the wills (he once said, in his characteristicly succinct fashion, "Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing."), while Koufax was as close to a pure power pitcher as ever lived--if he had announced to the hitter what was coming each pitch, I doubt it would have made much difference; finally, ironically, Sandy was victimized by his own picture-perfect mechanics, which produced the scariest overhand curveball ever seen, but which also put such an ongodly torque on his elbow that he retired at age 30, at the height of his powers, rather than live the life of painkillers, ice treatments and worsening arthritis that plagued him his last two years; Spahn, meanwhile, refined early in his career a stress-free motion and delivery that carried him through 21 years and 5243 innings (8th all-time) with, I believe, not one arm problem. More incredibly, not only did he not appear to wear down with age (until the very end), he seemed to get stronger, topping the NL in complete games seven consecutive years between the ages of 36-42.

Moreover, he seemed to reduce the often complex art of pitching to its simplest essence. A master of a vast repertoire of different pitches (much like Marichal), he once was asked if he had a particular favorite: "Yeah. Strike one."

Well, that's enough for now. Lefties are a particular fascination for me (being one myself), and getting me started can be dangerous. Thanks for listening, fellow threaders!

[rugbyfreak]

I'm curious.

Just what is it that "the vast majority of people of the world don't believe in." Religion in general? Or Judaism in particular?

Wow, ipod, someone needs to re-read the facts of the 1965 Series. Did I hear you correctly that he "didn't show up?" Yes, he opted out of Game One, a decision he had given Alston sufficiently in advance, and the reasons were more complex than people think (surprise: devout faith had little to do with it; he almost never went to temple). But, characteristic of the honorable, team-first guy he always was, Sandy more than made it up to the Dodgers: complete-game shutouts in his final two starts against a powerful Twins squad, including Game 7, on the road, on two days rest! (Plus, he and Roseboro discovered early on that he was too exhausted to throw a decent curve, so he proceeded to shut out the best slugging team in the majors with one reliable pitch.) Maybe it's just me, but it seems he showed up after all.

Now, having seen this thread getting a little too strained, I'll leave you all with a funny story about Game One. Forced to start 23-game winner Drysdale (not a bad option), Alston strolled out to the mound in the fourth inning to take the ball from Big Don, who got pounded early and often by the Twins. Looking at Alston, Drysdale quipped, "Hey Skip, I bet you're wishing I was Jewish about now." Later, Threaders, let's keep it cool by minding the time-honored golden rules: Don't let it get personal, and keep religion out of it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, that's enough for now. Lefties are a particular fascination for me (being one myself), and getting me started can be dangerous. Thanks for listening, fellow threaders!
Are you familiar with Fever member cjedmonton's lefty rankings? There are a few threads about that throughout the site.

[W_Marone]

I've noticed on this site that there are many Koufax bashers, sure he doesnt have some three hundred wins, only I think about 165 or something around that, but look at it this way, and I'm sure ill get a lot of guff about this and im also sure its already been said but, he retired at the age of 30 when he was coming into his prime, he led his Dodgers to the promised land. Who really knows what Koufax could have done would he have pitched ten more years. All I ever hear on here is that Lefty Grove is the best pitcher of all time, he pitched many more years in baseball and the era (spelling?) was much more different, the 20's-40's of Grove compared to the 50's-60's of Koufax. I know im gonna hear a lot of reasons why Grove will always be better than Koufax, I know I will, but I just think its definanlty hard to say that Koufax was as bad as some people on here say he is.

[W_Marone]

1 Roger Clemens 278
2 Tom Seaver 196
3 Sandy Koufax 192
4 Bob Gibson 186
5 Greg Maddux 177
6 Bob Feller 126
7 Randy Johnson 123
8 Pedro Martinez 119
9 Steve Carlton 101
10 Juan Marichal 71


This is what espn's experts on baseball thoughts, including the great Peter Gammons and Tim Kurkjian (spelling?)
Notice no Grove on the list

[BoSox Rule]

1 Roger Clemens 278
2 Tom Seaver 196
3 Sandy Koufax 192
4 Bob Gibson 186
5 Greg Maddux 177
6 Bob Feller 126
7 Randy Johnson 123
8 Pedro Martinez 119
9 Steve Carlton 101
10 Juan Marichal 71


This is what espn's experts on baseball thoughts, including the great Peter Gammons and Tim Kurkjian (spelling?)
Notice no Grove on the list
It is a good thing Lefty Grove died in 1975 or he'd be pretty angry.

[leecemark]

--I don't think anybody is saying Koufax was a bad pitcher. If so, that poster clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. For 6 years Koufax was amoung the best ever. However, there are some pitchers who were as good (or nearly as good or better) who also have another 5 or 10 or 15 very good or even great years to add to their resume. Koufax just has a few years of mediocrity to add to his peak. That puts him down the list of all time greats.

[The Dude]

I don't think anyones really bashing Koufax that much, just saying he's overrated. I used to rank Koufax as the best, now he's still in my top 20 because his peak was THAT good.

Yes, Koufax may have retired at his prime, so who knows what he would have done. Maybe he would have gone on to have another great 6 or 7 seasons. Or maybe he would have dropped off into nothingness like Robin Roberts who, like Koufax, had 6 great years. Koufax is still ranked 16th by me, ahead of greats like Walsh, Palmer, Marichal, Dazzy, Dizzy, Joss, Mordecai, Ryan, and Blyleven. But it will take an amazing arguement for me to believe that Koufax is better than Gibson, Carlton, Roberts, Feller, Hubbell, and Matty for him to gain entrance back into my top 10, and I don't think that's possible. All of those players had peaks that were less than Koufax's, but were backed up by careers that were of far more value than Koufax's. If Koufax had become Robin Roberts and had a mediocre say, 5 years more, I would rank him higher because his peak was that good, supplimented by a mediocre career.

As for "leading his team to the promised land", everyone I have ranked ahed of him has led his team to a world series.

[W_Marone]

sorry boys i made a mistake that was a vote for still living pitchers, Im just going by recolection however when i say this, I dont believe grove was in thier top three all time pitchers either, however Koufax wasnt either I believe. O well. I guess I just screwed up a chart that I tried to use to my advantage, rats, hahaha.:)

[538280]

Even if it wasn't only living players, you think I would trust the opinions of "experts" Gammons and Kurkjian? I would trust the average poster around here 10 times more. Those ESPN "expert" polls come out every once in a while, and they, without fail, produce horrible and unsensible results. The rating of Sandy Koufax ahead of Greg Maddux is just the latest.

[BoSox Rule]

Even if it wasn't only living players, you think I would trust the opinions of "experts" Gammons and Kurkjian? I would trust the average poster around here 10 times more.I don't know about the 10 average, but I would absolutely take B-F's 10 best over ESPN's 10.

[Taco De Muerte]

Koufax is overrated due to his " dominant " peak. He was great, but not immortal like many of his supporters believe he was. He was helped out by the ERA in which he pitched in, and Dodger Stadium.

Here's the koufax home/road splits in his best years:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010091963.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010101964.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010111965.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010121966.htm

To be honest with you people I don't see much of a difference between Kevin Brown and Koufax. Which either means koufax is overrated, or brown is underrated. Or a little bit of both.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Koufax is overrated due to his " dominant " peak. He was great, but not immortal like many of his supporters believe he was. He was helped out by the ERA in which he pitched in, and Dodger Stadium.

Here's the koufax home/road splits in his best years:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010091963.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010101964.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010111965.htm

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Lkoufs1010121966.htm

To be honest with you people I don't see much of a difference between Kevin Brown and Koufax. Which either means koufax is overrated, or brown is underrated. Or a little bit of both.
In terms of overall career value without looking at peak performance at all, sure. But Brown was not the man on three pennant winners, or pitch four no-hitters, etc. Home park can only be attributed so much with that high level of success.
You need to look at how they got where they ended up, not how they ended up when finished.

[digglahhh]

1 Roger Clemens 278
2 Tom Seaver 196
3 Sandy Koufax 192
4 Bob Gibson 186
5 Greg Maddux 177
6 Bob Feller 126
7 Randy Johnson 123
8 Pedro Martinez 119
9 Steve Carlton 101
10 Juan Marichal 71


This is what espn's experts on baseball thoughts, including the great Peter Gammons and Tim Kurkjian (spelling?)
Notice no Grove on the list

This is as bad as it gets, fellas...

Experts? There is no emotocon here to convey my anger, disappointment, outrage, etc...

Hey Tim Kurkijian, (spelling, shmelling, with opinions like that he does not deserve to courtesy of me looking up the proper spelling) can you say "You want fries with that?" Because from what I've seen that's all these idiots are qualified to do.

BTW, Gomes, Koufax didn't retire in his prime. He retired at the typical peak age, but he retired because he was in so much pain that doctors advised that he may risk losing the use of his left arm if he continued to pitch. There weren't many more of those historic seasons coming.

EDIT: Sorry, just realized that was a list of living pitchers. My comments still stand though, most of these guys aren't atom splitters anyway.

[Taco De Muerte]

In terms of overall career value without looking at peak performance at all, sure. But Brown was not the man on three pennant winners, or pitch four no-hitters, etc. Home park can only be attributed so much with that high level of success.
You need to look at how they got where they ended up, not how they ended up when finished.

Brown's run from 1995-2000 is very comparable to Koufax's run from 1961-1966. Brown had an ERA 67% below league average in 1382 IP - And he averaged about 230 a season. Koufax pitched more innings ( 1632.2 to be exact, and averaged 272 a season), but his ERA was 66% below league average. You also have to take into account that brown pitched in better hitter's parks during his best stretch.

[W_Marone]

Even if it wasn't only living players, you think I would trust the opinions of "experts" Gammons and Kurkjian? I would trust the average poster around here 10 times more. Those ESPN "expert" polls come out every once in a while, and they, without fail, produce horrible and unsensible results. The rating of Sandy Koufax ahead of Greg Maddux is just the latest.

This brings about the question? Anyone on here a sportswriter? Seriously I'm curious? Becuase I do hear smart things on here, but little joe, youre title suits you o' to well, little, 14 years old, cmon man, how many greats have you watched in their prime? Barry Bonds, McGuire and Sosa? Everyone has thier own opinions and to say who's right and who's wrong is an obsurd idea, and as far as what Peter Gammons thinks, he's a HOF writer, so I'll believe him before I believe 99.9% of the people on here, becuase most is milarquie, including what i say. Cmon man, these guys know baseball, their not just your average fan, and as far as Koufax ahead of Maddux, its an older poll, its alright, but I believe you were the one who said he was the best pitcher ever, no way, Clemens and Young were and are better than him. I figure, i'll start handing out the disagreement now being everyone else hear seems to get a kick out of shooting down everyone's opinion and constituting thier own as the absolute correct one.

[Windy City Fan]

This brings about the question? Anyone on here a sportswriter? Seriously I'm curious? Becuase I do hear smart things on here, but little joe, youre title suits you o' to well, little, 14 years old, cmon man, how many greats have you watched in their prime? Barry Bonds, McGuire and Sosa? Everyone has thier own opinions and to say who's right and who's wrong is an obsurd idea, and as far as what Peter Gammons thinks, he's a HOF writer, so I'll believe him before I believe 99.9% of the people on here, becuase most is milarquie, including what i say. Cmon man, these guys know baseball, their not just your average fan, and as far as Koufax ahead of Maddux, its an older poll, its alright, but I believe you were the one who said he was the best pitcher ever, no way, Clemens and Young were and are better than him. I figure, i'll start handing out the disagreement now being everyone else hear seems to get a kick out of shooting down everyone's opinion and constituting thier own as the absolute correct one.

Most sports writers and announcers are not that knowledgeable about the history of the game. If you doubt me, then tell me why guys like Santo, Blyleven, Allen, Belle, Gossage, Quisenberry, and others are still not in the Hall of Fame. Just look at the huge number of undeserving Gold Gloves that are handed out each year.

Most sports writers that I've read don't make era adjustments, use relative stats, ink scores, and other advanced metrics. Most of them still think the triple crown catagories are the best way to measure a player's worth. The average poster here is far more informed than the average sportswriter or broadcaster when it comes to the history of the game and evaluating a player's true value.

You talk about the need to see players play, and to an extent I agree that actually seeing a player on a regular basis can add insight to that player's value, but then you also just said that Young was better than Maddux. Unless you're nearing your 100th birthday, I'll wager you didn't see the Cyclone pitch in person. So how can you make that assessment with confidence? :)

I look at the numbers and see Maddux's peak as good or better than Koufax's (or any other pitcher, but we'll limit the debate to Koufax). I see his ink scores indicate he was dominant in the context of his era as Koufax. One can debate which era had a deeper pool of competition. I'm coming around to the belief that since 60's the overall depth of talent has remained fairly consistent, with it dipping in expansion years and then rising as we continue to scout and recruit from new parts of the world. Others would argue that one era or another is better. I'll also factor in that Maddux pitched in a mild hitter's park, in a hitter's era, against many juiced batters (and was competing with some juiced pitchers). Koufax on the other hand pitched in a pitcher friendly park and era. Lastly, Maddux has a 20 year career with 16 years of good or better production. Koufax has a 12 year career 6 years of good or better production. Even if you view their peaks as even, career weight makes Maddux the better pitcher.

Now if you have in fact seen Koufax pitch and can add some actual insight (rather than just saying Koufax was the best I ever saw), I'd love to hear it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Most sports writers and announcers are not that knowledgeable about the history of the game. If you doubt me, then tell me why guys like Santo, Blyleven, Allen, Belle, Gossage, Quisenberry, and others are still not in the Hall of Fame. Just look at the huge number of undeserving Gold Gloves that are handed out each year.

Most sports writers that I've read don't make era adjustments, use relative stats, ink scores, and other advanced metrics. Most of them still think the triple crown catagories are the best way to measure a player's worth. The average poster here is far more informed than the average sportswriter or broadcaster when it comes to the history of the game and evaluating a player's true value.

You talk about the need to see players play, and to an extent I agree that actually seeing a player on a regular basis can add insight to that player's value, but then you also just said that Young was better than Maddux. Unless you're nearing your 100th birthday, I'll wager you didn't see the Cyclone pitch in person. So how can you make that assessment with confidence? :)

I look at the numbers and see Maddux's peak as good or better than Koufax's (or any other pitcher, but we'll limit the debate to Koufax). I see his ink scores indicate he was dominant in the context of his era as Koufax. One can debate which era had a deeper pool of competition. I'm coming around to the belief that since 60's the overall depth of talent has remained fairly consistent, with it dipping in expansion years and then rising as we continue to scout and recruit from new parts of the world. Others would argue that one era or another is better. I'll also factor in that Maddux pitched in a mild hitter's park, in a hitter's era, against many juiced batters (and was competing with some juiced pitchers). Koufax on the other hand pitched in a pitcher friendly park and era. Lastly, Maddux has a 20 year career with 16 years of good or better production. Koufax has a 12 year career 6 years of good or better production. Even if you view their peaks as even, career weight makes Maddux the better pitcher.

Now if you have in fact seen Koufax pitch and can add some actual insight (rather than just saying Koufax was the best I ever saw), I'd love to hear it.
While I agree with your post for the most part, sportswriters do not vote for Gold Gloves, they are voted on by managers.

[digglahhh]

Gomes,

Have you ever heard a political reporter for a local paper get asked hard hitting questions about the topics about which the write?

What would happen if say, Rush Limbaugh was interviewed and probed by Howard Zinn? The same exact thing that would happen if Tim Kurkigen was interviewed by Bill James...or csh19792001...or from a different angle, ubiquitous.

I work in baseball, and the appreciation for advanced game analysis is virtually nill. "Linear Weights" is a four letter word. While many of us are very knowledgable about baseball history, many are not.

Peter Gammons and the like have confilcting interests. Their careers depend upon their access to players, which makes it in opposition to their own career to go against popular perception and cliche.

ESPN runs the sports media, and just because the lowest common denominator screams loudest, that doesn't mean their voice rings true...

[tommydale1]

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?

[Fuzzy Bear]

That anyone would think that Sandy Koufax was undeserving of the HOF has absolutely no idea of the impact he had on baseball from 1962-66. His seasons during that period were some of the most dominating of all time. Koufax is, arguably, the greatest LHP of all time, in terms of peak value.

[digglahhh]

I have NO problems with Koufax as a HOFer, but I think this does raise an interesting question, one that I have posed to myself several times, and here once or twice, I think.

What does the ordering of player's seasons have to do with how worthy we deem him for the HOF?

What would Koufax's legacy be if the dominance preceded the mediocrity?

Curt Schilling is a borderline candidate in a lot of people's minds, but what if you reordered what he accomplished into the Koufax-like pattern. Wouldn't he LOOK better?

I know that there is some inherent value in consistency, but I think the question I've raised is still valid.

[RuthMayBond]

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?Well he's ALREADY got 686 RBI so I'm trying to figure how a few mediocre years will only get him to 700 :confused:

[flash143817]

I have NO problems with Koufax as a HOFer, but I think this does raise an interesting question, one that I have posed to myself several times, and here once or twice, I think.

What does the ordering of player's seasons have to do with how worthy we deem him for the HOF?

What would Koufax's legacy be if the dominance preceded the mediocrity?

Curt Schilling is a borderline candidate in a lot of people's minds, but what if you reordered what he accomplished into the Koufax-like pattern. Wouldn't he LOOK better?

I know that there is some inherent value in consistency, but I think the question I've raised is still valid.

How is Schilling's pattern different than Koufax? He started out as a mediocre pitcher and then became a great one later in his career. Obviously he didn't dominate as much as Koufax did, but their career patterns are fairly similar.

The best I can think of for the opposite pattern (good/dominant first, then bad/mediocre) was Doc Gooden.

[STLCards2]

Double post. Sorry.

[STLCards2]

How is Schilling's pattern different than Koufax? He started out as a mediocre pitcher and then became a great one later in his career. Obviously he didn't dominate as much as Koufax did, but their career patterns are fairly similar.

The best I can think of for the opposite pattern (good/dominant first, then bad/mediocre) was Doc Gooden.


Schilling did not have a similar pattern as Koufax.

Schillings first 4 years or so were spent mostly as a raw and undisciplined bullpen guy with great stuff, but with mental hang-ups. Schilling's next 8 or so years were all about Schilling being injured a lot ( esp. 94 and 95), Schilling pitching brilliantly for a mediocre team (esp. 92), or pitching mediocre for good teams (esp. 1993). Schilling's last 6 seasons have been either dominance or disabled list. 2000: pitched okay, but missed 6-7 starts with injuries. 2001: First 20 win season. 2002: Another 20 win season. 2003: injured half of the season. 2004: 3rd 20 win season. 2005: injured most of the season. 2006: Very good so far.

I see very few parallels between the two pitcher's patterns.

[digglahhh]

Right.

What I meant was to simply lump all the mediocre and injury laden seasons together at the beginning of his career and then lump his good/great seasons together.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What I meant was to simply lump all the mediocre and injury laden seasons together at the beginning of his career and then lump his good/great seasons together.

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.

Schilling's performance is more like Don Drysdale than Sandy Koufax, but Schilling has reached a higher peak than Drysdale. Schilling is on pace for his 4th 20 win season this year. If he accomplishes this, there will be little doubt that he should be in the HOF.

It IS much better for a pitcher to have his best seasons close together. David Cone and Jim Kaat are much better than a number of HOF pitchers, but their careers were truncated by the spreading out of their best years. To some degree, this argument also applies to Bert Blyleven.

[RuthMayBond]

I can't think of a single pitcher whose career is truly comparable to Koufax's.Not exactly like, but somewhat similar was Dazzy Vance

[KCGHOST]

I think the Legend of Koufax will decline overtime as those of us who saw him pitch pass on. As people who just look at the numbers view Koufax from a distance not aided by seeing him perform they will simply say his win share score is very low, his RSAA is not impressive, Dodger Stadium suppressed scoring, etc. I would not be shocked if in 50 years guys aren't listing him as a "mistake" who got in on the sympathy vote for his short dominance and forced retirement.

He's my favorite all-time player so I would be sad about that.

[yankillaz]

The worst case scenario for Pujols is that injury goes worse, and eventually his numbers suffer. Something like what happened to both Mattingly and Will Clark. Can his first six years numbers take him to Cooperstown???

Of course, they helped Sisler a lot. So will Pujols. So has Koufax.

[DoubleX]

I think if a player has a historic, albeit relatively short peak, he is Hall worthy. Koufax comes to mind, as does Ralph Kiner. I think Pujols is pretty close to that already, if not there.

[flash143817]

I think the Legend of Koufax will decline overtime as those of us who saw him pitch pass on. As people who just look at the numbers view Koufax from a distance not aided by seeing him perform they will simply say his win share score is very low, his RSAA is not impressive, Dodger Stadium suppressed scoring, etc. I would not be shocked if in 50 years guys aren't listing him as a "mistake" who got in on the sympathy vote for his short dominance and forced retirement.

He's my favorite all-time player so I would be sad about that.

I agree. I always hear from my dad (who also has Koufax as his favorite) that Koufax was easily the greatest pitcher he had ever seen pitch. It really wasn't even close in his mind. He has really been damaged by the modern stats that have come out in recent years though. Most people now consider Warren Spahn the greatest lefthander ever. Ask that question 20 years ago before modern stats degraded Koufax and he almost certainly would have won that nod.

[KCGHOST]

Most people now consider Warren Spahn the greatest lefthander ever.

They are wrong, of course. Lefty Grove is the greatest lefty. The Big Unit would be somewhat behind him.

[Yankwood]

I think the Legend of Koufax will decline overtime as those of us who saw him pitch pass on. As people who just look at the numbers view Koufax from a distance not aided by seeing him perform they will simply say his win share score is very low, his RSAA is not impressive, Dodger Stadium suppressed scoring, etc. I would not be shocked if in 50 years guys aren't listing him as a "mistake" who got in on the sympathy vote for his short dominance and forced retirement.

He's my favorite all-time player so I would be sad about that.Just as I shake my head and chuckle when those who never saw Koufax dominate, say that he was overrated, my father's generation does the same when young fans speak the same of Bob Feller.

[Nowbatting7]

I am old enough to have seen Sandy Koufax pitch. He was not only the greatest lefty, but the greatest pitcher of all time. No one since, and certainly no one today, is as good as Koufax. Not even close. He was that extraordinary.

[RuthMayBond]

I am old enough to have seen Sandy Koufax pitch. He was not only the greatest lefty, but the greatest pitcher of all time. No one since, and certainly no one today, is as good as Koufax. Not even close. He was that extraordinary.Let's completely forget about 1955-1960

[Captain Cold Nose]

Let's completely forget about 1955-1960
Right. It's not how a pitcher is at his best that matters, but being kept around as a bonus baby when not ready which is the true indicator.

[RuthMayBond]

Right. It's not how a pitcher is at his best that matters, but being kept around as a bonus baby when not ready which is the true indicator.He was "kept around" for over 100 innings every year starting in 1957 and turned 25 in 1960, not necessarily a baby

[Captain Cold Nose]

He was "kept around" for over 100 innings every year starting in 1957 and turned 25 in 1960, not necessarily a baby
Not saying he was a baby, but bonus baby is the term for young players under such contracts. But I don't think there's much I can sincerely tell you in regards to baseball history you don't know.
I'm just curious why you hold it against Koufax so much for not excelling under 25, but other pitchers you don't say a peep about who didn't come in like gangbusters (Randy Johnson immediately comes to mind). Should we remember how bad a player used to be before applauding what they're doing while in the present, which is what the people saying how great Koufax was? "Gee, Koufax sure looked great on the mound today, but six years ago, he wasn't any good, so today doesn't matter." That's ridiculous!

[RuthMayBond]

I'm just curious why you hold it against Koufax so much for not excelling under 25, but other pitcher you don't day a peep about.It's not that I hold it against Koufax, but he did have five years, not just 1 or 2. And the other pitchers aren't touted as being the best ALL-TIME

<Should we remember how bad a player used to be before applauding what they're ding while in the present, which is what the people saying how great Koufax was. "Gee, he sure looked great on the mound today, but six years ago, he wasn't any good, so today doesn't matter." That's ridiculous!>

I'm saying to include ALL his career, which his supporters tend to forget.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's not that I hold it against Koufax, but he did have five years, not just 1 or 2. And the other pitchers aren't touted as being the best ALL-TIME

<Should we remember how bad a player used to be before applauding what they're ding while in the present, which is what the people saying how great Koufax was. "Gee, he sure looked great on the mound today, but six years ago, he wasn't any good, so today doesn't matter." That's ridiculous!>

I'm saying to include ALL his career, which his supporters tend to forget.
Why shouldn't they remember what is memorable? When someobody is asked who was the best they ever saw pitched, it's different than saying who had the best career.
I think Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball currently. That doesn't necessarily mean he's a better pitcher than Greg Maddux or Roger Clemens in the grand scheme of things. He just is a better pitcher now. Without taking a deeper look at everything, not a crime, Koufax very well could have been the best.

[64Cards]

Not saying he was a baby, but bonus baby is the term for young players under such contracts. But I don't think there's much I can sincerely tell you in regards to baseball history you don't know.
I'm just curious why you hold it against Koufax so much for not excelling under 25, but other pitchers you don't say a peep about who didn't come in like gangbusters (Randy Johnson immediately comes to mind). Should we remember how bad a player used to be before applauding what they're doing while in the present, which is what the people saying how great Koufax was? "Gee, Koufax sure looked great on the mound today, but six years ago, he wasn't any good, so today doesn't matter." That's ridiculous!
Agreed,CCN. When Koufax came to the Dodgers as a bonus baby [and the rule back then was if you signed a player for over a ceratin amount, he had to stay on the 25 man roster for 2 years. It was designed to keep the owners from getting into bidding wars. It worked, for the most part.] he had very little pitching experience in organized baseball, I think he had a year in high school and one year at the Univ. of Cincinnati, where he was on a basketball scholarship. So his first 2 years in Brooklyn were a complete waste, he basically took a seat on the bench and didn't learn much about pitching. 57-60 is when he learned pitching, but he was in the majors. I'd guess LA kept him on the roster, because he just had so much talent and they were pretty desperate for pitchers. It was a backup catcher, Norm Sherry, who taught Sandy not to throw so hard and he finally developed control.

[Yankwood]

Why shouldn't they remember what is memorable? When someobody is asked who was the best they ever saw pitched, it's different than saying who had the best career.
.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

[flash143817]

They are wrong, of course. Lefty Grove is the greatest lefty. The Big Unit would be somewhat behind him.

Whoops blanked on Grove. Yes he is the consensus "greatest lefty" among members here.

My point was that most people here rank Spahn ahead of Koufax when probably 90% or more of people that would have been asked that in the '70s or '80s would have said Koufax was better than Spahn.

I'd personally rank lefties as follows:

1. Grove
2. Koufax
3. Unit
4. Spahn

After those 4 there is a big dropoff unless I am egregiously forgetting someone.

[RuthMayBond]

Whoops blanked on Grove. Yes he is the consensus "greatest lefty" among members here.

My point was that most people here rank Spahn ahead of Koufax when probably 90% or more of people that would have been asked that in the '70s or '80s would have said Koufax was better than Spahn.

I'd personally rank lefties as follows:

1. Grove
2. Koufax
3. Unit
4. Spahn

After those 4 there is a big dropoff unless I am egregiously forgetting someone.Can't eat without a meal ticket :D

[flash143817]

Can't eat without a meal ticket :D

He'd probably be 5th on my list. Probably followed by Whitey Ford.

[STLCards2]

1. Lefty Grove
2. Warren Spahn
3. Randy Johnson
4. Carl Hubell
5. Steve Carlton
6. Whitey Ford
7. Sandy Koufax
8. Eddie Plank
9. Rube Waddell
10.Tom Glavine
11. Hal Newhouser
12. Lefty Gomez

[tommydale1]

Just to clarify...I didn't mean to say that Koufax is not worthy of being enshrined, but I was just questioning is a few GREAT years warrants the praise that Koufax gets. Stats aside (obviously because his career stats don't warrant enshrinement) I was just wondering if a 5000 degree fire that lasts for one minute do the same damage as a 700 degree fire that burns for 10 hours. I think that some people know what I mean.

[DoubleX]

I was just wondering if a 5000 degree fire that lasts for one minute do the same damage as a 700 degree fire that burns for 10 hours. I think that some people know what I mean.

Sounds like a Koufax/Sutton analogy. :)

[ElHalo]

Stats aside (obviously because his career stats don't warrant enshrinement) I was just wondering if a 5000 degree fire that lasts for one minute do the same damage as a 700 degree fire that burns for 10 hours. I think that some people know what I mean.

The London Blitz lasted for essentially a year; the Hiroshima bomb was done exploding in less than a second. Which did more damage?

[flash143817]

Sounds like a Koufax/Sutton analogy. :)

So you taking Koufax or Sutton?



And just because I like being ripped, I'll give a top 10 lefthanded pitchers list for you dogs to chew apart. The top 3 are pretty set in my mind, but the others are open to switch.

1. Grove
2. Koufax
3. Unit
4. Hubbell
5. Carlton
6. Spahn
7. Waddell
8. Ford
9. Newhouser
10. Dalkowski

I was forced to move Spahn below Carlton because they both had fairly similar career longevity totals but Carlton was better at his peak IMO.

[KHenry14]

Just to clarify...I didn't mean to say that Koufax is not worthy of being enshrined, but I was just questioning is a few GREAT years warrants the praise that Koufax gets. Stats aside (obviously because his career stats don't warrant enshrinement) I was just wondering if a 5000 degree fire that lasts for one minute do the same damage as a 700 degree fire that burns for 10 hours. I think that some people know what I mean.

This is one of those cases where you need to look at what his peers said about him. Koufax was universally thought of as being outstanding and the best pitcher of his time. Also, Koufax sailed into the Hall when his time came, which says something about what the writers felt about him. This isn't to denigrate Gibson or Marichal, but Sandy was the King.

But if you are ranking him all time, that is the one time you should use his short career against him. While he was the best pitcher of his time, his career shouldn't be ranked higher than guys like Grove or Spahn because of the numbers. But if you want to pick one lefty for one game, I'll take Koufax every time.

[flash143817]

This is one of those cases where you need to look at what his peers said about him. Koufax was universally thought of as being outstanding and the best pitcher of his time. Also, Koufax sailed into the Hall when his time came, which says something about what the writers felt about him. This isn't to denigrate Gibson or Marichal, but Sandy was the King.

But if you are ranking him all time, that is the one time you should use his short career against him. While he was the best pitcher of his time, his career shouldn't be ranked higher than guys like Grove or Spahn because of the numbers. But if you want to pick one lefty for one game, I'll take Koufax every time.

I agree with almost all of what you said, except the ranking part. If Koufax was the best, then he was the best, short career or not. I might feel differently if his career had ended because of inneffectiveness, but it was because of injury. I might not reward him for that, but I'm definitely not going to penalize him for it. Maybe I just prefer peak guys more than most, but he was unquestionable the best pitcher of his time, and there were some pretty good pitchers that pitched during that time like Spahn, Gibson, and Marichal.

[RuthMayBond]

The London Blitz lasted for essentially a year; the Hiroshima bomb was done exploding in less than a second. Which did more damage?Interesting analogy. How much damage worldwide did Hiroshima save?

[tommydale1]

Two guys that come to mind when I discuss Koufax are Dave Stewart and J.R. Richard. Both toiled in mediocrity, burned brightly for a short period of time, and then abruptly...the flame went out. In Stewart's case, the flame went out a little slower than Richard's. Richard, especially, was feared by hitters. In some cases, batters feared facing him more than Ryan. No one tries to get him into the Hall. I just think it's inconsistant to boost Sandy soooooo much.

[RuthMayBond]

And just because I like being rippedWell, if you insist ;)

<I'll give a top 10 lefthanded pitchers list for you dogs to chew apart. The top 3 are pretty set in my mind, but the others are open to switch.

1. Grove
2. Koufax>

So you're DEFINITELY a peak guy

<3. Unit
4. Hubbell
5. Carlton
6. Spahn
7. Waddell
8. Ford
9. Newhouser>

Still waiting for, uh, Plank, Glavine.

<10. Dalkowski>

Perhaps we need to define "pitcher", and take a second to review Mr. Dalkowski's extensive major league resume

[Captain Cold Nose]

Two guys that come to mind when I discuss Koufax are Dave Stewart and J.R. Richard. Both toiled in mediocrity, burned brightly for a short period of time, and then abruptly...the flame went out. In Stewart's case, the flame went out a little slower than Richard's. Richard, especially, was feared by hitters. In some cases, batters feared facing him more than Ryan. No one tries to get him into the Hall. I just think it's inconsistant to boost Sandy soooooo much.
Not once did I think Stewart or Richard were the best pitchers in all of baseball. Maybe it is an issue of superlatives, as both were excellent pitchers, and Richard very well could have been a Hall of Famer if it weren't for his stroke.

[RuthMayBond]

Not once did I think Stewart or Richard were the best pitchers in all of baseball.What about J. R. in 1979?

[Captain Cold Nose]

What about J. R. in 1979?
I was 8. I thought he was great, but I didn't think he was the best. From what I remember, most people were talking about Tom Seaver as the best then. This is about perception at the time, which Koufax had over those two, and, it does count for something.

[tommydale1]

I'm too young to have seen either Richard or Seaver pitch, but I know that polayers that faced them both were more intimidated and fearful of Richard that Seaver. They might have been more successful against Richard than Seaver...but they would rather face Seaver. K's only hurt for a second....beanballs hurt for a couple of innings.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm too young to have seen either Richard or Seaver pitch, but I know that polayers that faced them both were more intimidated and fearful of Richard that Seaver. They might have been more successful against Richard than Seaver...but they would rather face Seaver. K's only hurt for a second....beanballs hurt for a couple of innings.
The most feared does not necessarily mean the best.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm too young to have seen either Richard or Seaver pitch, but I know that polayers that faced them both were more intimidated and fearful of Richard that Seaver. They might have been more successful against Richard than Seaver...but they would rather face Seaver. K's only hurt for a second....beanballs hurt for a couple of innings.Unless you're JR's teammate Dickie Thon :ughh

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Koufax was universally overrated in his final years, because people didn't realize the degree to which his ballpark helped him. Of course, by the same token, they didn't realize the degree to which an already-great, or at least already-very-good pitcher had been kept down by the preposterously difficult conditions of being a southpaw in the L.A. Colisseum. Among my million or so reasons for picking Grove as the greatest pitcher of all time is the fact he won FOUR ERA titles, after his 35th b-day, as a lefty in Fenway. If you're a knowledgeable fan, you just say that sentence and your mind goes on tilt.

Well, anyone who knows what the outrageous, frankly silly, conditions of the Coliseum were--bye, bye, Duke Snider, whose career went from being grossly inflated by the Fenway-in-reverse shape of Ebbetts to being crushed by the 440-to-right shape of THAT LA Coliseum--has to know Koufax had no chance of shining there.

Anyway, Koufax was way overrated, for a LONG time, because of that ballpark. That's a fact. When ESPN did their Top 50 Sportsfigures of the Century, he was the ONLY pitcher in the group--i.e., they thought he was the best pitcher of the century, which is silly. BUT, even after Adjusted ERA had duly gutted his bloated ERA stats, his career Adjusted ERA is still up among the best... after you eliminate relief pitchers, active pitchers who haven't pitched very long, and 19th Century pitchers. If you also eliminate Dead Ball Era pitchers--other than Johnson and Alexander, who pitched a long time into live-ball baseball--and if you include Pedro, because he's pitched a long time now and is WAY ahead of everyone, the list looks like this (prior to this season):

1. Pedro Martinez, 166 (!)
2. Lefty Grove, 148
3. Walter Johnson, 146
4. Randy Johnson, 142 [and he'd better retire soon, or he'll fall a TON]
5. Greg Maddux, 138
6. Grover Cleveland Alexander, 135

[NOTE: Harry Brecheen is NOT counted. He pitched fewer than 2,000 innings, albeit barely, and fattened up by pitching during 1943, 1944 and
1945, when the real players were all gone to war, going 40-15 in those years. Take those years away and he's 93-77 for his career. Nuff said.]

[Spud Chandler is more of the same, with a HUGE W-L record, but 87 games won outside the war.]

7. Whitey Ford, 132
8. Sandy Koufax, 131

So there it is. I think everyone would agree guys like Tim Hudson, John Franco, Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry don't belong on this list, and since I'm making the list, I'm unilaterally excluding the ones who played entirely, or almost entirely, in the 19th Century. If you want to include guys who played entirely in the Dead Ball Era, possibly with a few years in the 19th Century but a lot more in the 20th, you can add these names:

1. Ed Walsh
2. Addie Josh (now there's a familiar pairing, eh?)
3. Kid Nichols
4. Mordecai "3-finger" Brown
5. Cy Young
6. Christy Mathewson
7. Rube Waddell

[Noodles Hahn is excluded. He won only 130 games and had only 6 years with over 5 wins. He pitched just over 2,000 innings, which, the way "pitching" was done in the Dead Ball Era, was nothing.]

AND THAT'S IT again.

So, if you include post-1900 Dead Ball Era pitchers, Koufax is STILL the #15 Adjusted ERA pitcher of all time. Without those "pitchers" and their stats, Koufax is #8.

Now, would I rather have Mathewson than Koufax? Probably. But Matty pitched in a park where I could have hit HR's on a hung pitch. Koufax pitched where I--a 6'2" man who weighs 265--couldn't have hit one on the best day of my life. And he had great fielders.

In any event, the Adjusted ERA, in which I place a great deal of faith--unlike a lot of other stats (see "Runs Created")--has Koufax either 8th or 15th of all time, depending on whether his competition should include Dead-Ball-ERA-only pitchers.

A huge number of baseball fans will be surprised to learn that. You know how metaphorical pendulums swing like crazy, right, and how you don't want to get nailed by it on its way back? Koufax was a grossly overrated deity for so long, and now it's become de rigeur to trash him as such.

But his place on my two constructions of the Career Adjusted ERA lists shows--clearly, I think--that he has now become underrated.

Baseball History Nut

[RuthMayBond]

Koufax was universally overrated in his final years, because people didn't realize the degree to which his ballpark helped him. Of course, by the same token, they didn't realize the degree to which an already-great, or at least already-very-good pitcher had been kept down by the preposterously difficult conditions of being a southpaw in the L.A. Colisseum. Among my million or so reasons for picking Grove as the greatest pitcher of all time is the fact he won FOUR ERA titles, after his 35th b-day, as a lefty in Fenway. If you're a knowledgeable fan, you just say that sentence and your mind goes on tilt.

Well, anyone who knows what the outrageous, frankly silly, conditions of the Coliseum were--bye, bye, Duke Snider, whose career went from being grossly inflated by the Fenway-in-reverse shape of Ebbetts to being crushed by the 440-to-right shape of THAT LA Coliseum--has to know Koufax had no chance of shining there.

Anyway, Koufax was way overrated, for a LONG time, because of that ballpark. That's a fact. When ESPN did their Top 50 Sportsfigures of the Century, he was the ONLY pitcher in the group--i.e., they thought he was the best pitcher of the century, which is silly. BUT, even after Adjusted ERA had duly gutted his bloated ERA stats, his career Adjusted ERA is still up among the best... after you eliminate relief pitchers, active pitchers who haven't pitched very long, and 19th Century pitchers. If you also eliminate Dead Ball Era pitchers--other than Johnson and Alexander, who pitched a long time into live-ball baseball--and if you include Pedro, because he's pitched a long time now and is WAY ahead of everyone, the list looks like this (prior to this season):

1. Pedro Martinez, 166 (!)
2. Lefty Grove, 148
3. Walter Johnson, 146
4. Randy Johnson, 142 [and he'd better retire soon, or he'll fall a TON]
5. Greg Maddux, 138
6. Grover Cleveland Alexander, 135

[NOTE: Harry Brecheen is NOT counted. He pitched fewer than 2,000 innings, albeit barely, and fattened up by pitching during 1943, 1944 and
1945, when the real players were all gone to war, going 40-15 in those years. Take those years away and he's 93-77 for his career. Nuff said.]

[Spud Chandler is more of the same, with a HUGE W-L record, but 87 games won outside the war.]

7. Whitey Ford, 132
8. Sandy Koufax, 131

So there it is. I think everyone would agree guys like Tim Hudson, John Franco, Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry don't belong on this list, and since I'm making the list, I'm unilaterally excluding the ones who played entirely, or almost entirely, in the 19th Century. If you want to include guys who played entirely in the Dead Ball Era, possibly with a few years in the 19th Century but a lot more in the 20th, you can add these names:

1. Ed Walsh
2. Addie Josh (now there's a familiar pairing, eh?)
3. Kid Nichols
4. Mordecai "3-finger" Brown
5. Cy Young
6. Christy Mathewson
7. Rube Waddell

[Noodles Hahn is excluded. He won only 130 games and had only 6 years with over 5 wins. He pitched just over 2,000 innings, which, the way "pitching" was done in the Dead Ball Era, was nothing.]

AND THAT'S IT again.

So, if you include post-1900 Dead Ball Era pitchers, Koufax is STILL the #15 Adjusted ERA pitcher of all time. Without those "pitchers" and their stats, Koufax is #8.

Now, would I rather have Mathewson than Koufax? Probably. But Matty pitched in a park where I could have hit HR's on a hung pitch. Koufax pitched where I--a 6'2" man who weighs 265--couldn't have hit one on the best day of my life. And he had great fielders.

In any event, the Adjusted ERA, in which I place a great deal of faith--unlike a lot of other stats (see "Runs Created")--has Koufax either 8th or 15th of all time, depending on whether his competition should include Dead-Ball-ERA-only pitchers.

A huge number of baseball fans will be surprised to learn that.We're not surprised to figure where he ranks among the pitchers above in INNINGS

<You know how metaphorical pendulums swing like crazy, right, and how you don't want to get nailed by it on its way back? Koufax was a grossly overrated deity for so long, and now it's become de rigeur to trash him as such.>

Nobody's trashing him, just trying to rate him realistically, not among the five best ever

[flash143817]

Well, if you insist ;)

<I'll give a top 10 lefthanded pitchers list for you dogs to chew apart. The top 3 are pretty set in my mind, but the others are open to switch.

1. Grove
2. Koufax>

So you're DEFINITELY a peak guy

<3. Unit
4. Hubbell
5. Carlton
6. Spahn
7. Waddell
8. Ford
9. Newhouser>

Still waiting for, uh, Plank, Glavine.

<10. Dalkowski>

Perhaps we need to define "pitcher", and take a second to review Mr. Dalkowski's extensive major league resume

Definitely a peak guy. I prefer the guy who was best at his best over the guy who was very good for 25 years.

LOL Dalkowski was obviously a joke, because I didn't like any other lefties that I could have put 10th. Glavine has never impressed me in all the times I've seen him. I think he was the product of a good team and the "outside corner" of the strike zone. Plank can go 10th in Dalkowski's spot if you so insist.

[Whitesoxnut]

Take a look at the innings pitched per year by the Koufaxs, Gibsons, Jenkins, the other greats of the era. Almost all of them had more then a few 300, 320+ inning seasons. And 200+ were the norm,or, the minimum. The only pitch counts were by the owners figuring out how many nickles they were paying starting pitchers, "and they better pitch 8 or 9".

And before the discovery of MRIs they just called it pain and took a few aspirin.

[STLCards2]

[QUOTE=flash143817] Glavine has never impressed me in all the times I've seen him. I think he was the product of a good team and the "outside corner" of the strike zone. QUOTE]

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.

A Baseball Prospectus research done by Michael Wolverton entitled "Banking on The Bullpen" showed that Glavine has the 6th worst bullpen support of any starter since 1963. Remember, the early years Braves' bullpens were horrindous, as have been the Mets the previous 3 seasons. Also remember that the reason the Braves always folded in the playoffs was because of their mediocre bullpens. Even in their best seasons, the Braves bullpen's during the 90's was average to slightly above average.

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. Glavine's DERA is only .07 points higher than his NERA. Defensive help? Yes, but hardly earth-shattering support.

A common mistake often made is that Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, etc. were carried by the Braves team. However, the opposite is true, those three pitchers carried the team. Maddux and Glavine posted an .690 winning % with the Braves during their stint together, which was well, well above the teams winning% with other pitchers (under .580)

And of course Glavine is the only pitcher in major league history to get the benefit of close calls. Clemens and Koufax, etc. never got the close ones.:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I'll bet that my #1 all-time pitcher, Grove, never got the benefit of any close calls, either. I mean, the umpire was only looking at a 20-minute temper tantrum if the close call went the other way. :D

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Whoops blanked on Grove. Yes he is the consensus "greatest lefty" among members here.

My point was that most people here rank Spahn ahead of Koufax when probably 90% or more of people that would have been asked that in the '70s or '80s would have said Koufax was better than Spahn.

I'd personally rank lefties as follows:

1. Grove
2. Koufax
3. Unit
4. Spahn

After those 4 there is a big dropoff unless I am egregiously forgetting someone.

Most I know would rank Hubbell and/or Carlton ahead of Koufax, though clearly Koufax had a better string of years than either of them. It is up to you whether you consider Carlton or Hubbell an "egregious" omission.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

1. Lefty Grove
2. Warren Spahn
3. Randy Johnson
4. Carl Hubell
5. Steve Carlton
6. Whitey Ford
7. Sandy Koufax
8. Eddie Plank
9. Rube Waddell
10.Tom Glavine
11. Hal Newhouser
12. Lefty Gomez

Your Top 8 is identical to mine, the last time I made out a Top 10 lefties list. And I gave serious thought to Waddell as #9 and Glavine as #10.

To see how deeply this runs, let me bounce my (by far) most idiosyncratic selection off of you, and see if we are two baseball hearts that beat as one:

Let's say you were to give Roy Campanella credit for Negro League seasons back to when he was 20 years old. That is the usual age at which a great player comes to the majors, and since he was in multiple All-Star Games in the Negro Leagues, and won 3 MVP's in MLB after he'd already caught about 1,000 games in the NL (starting at age 16), it's clear he was a great player. So, assuming he started in MLB at age 20, and giving him--as I do everyone--credit for time played during WWII, would you rate him as the #1 catcher of all time?

Also, is Grove your #1 total pitcher, or just your #1 lefty? He's my #1 total pitcher, and handily. I'm not clear on whether Clemens, Maddux or Johnson is my #1 righty, but until Pedro's pitched quite a bit more, it's one of those three.

Obviously, I'm trying to find out if we're in fabulous sync on lefties only, or if this is a more general trend. Truth be told, I know quite a few people who are very close to me on Top 8 lefties--but you and I are dead on.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Koufax was universally overrated in his final years, because people didn't realize the degree to which his ballpark helped him. Of course, by the same token, they didn't realize the degree to which an already-great, or at least already-very-good pitcher had been kept down by the preposterously difficult conditions of being a southpaw in the L.A. Colisseum. Among my million or so reasons for picking Grove as the greatest pitcher of all time is the fact he won FOUR ERA titles, after his 35th b-day, as a lefty in Fenway. If you're a knowledgeable fan, you just say that sentence and your mind goes on tilt.

Well, anyone who knows what the outrageous, frankly silly, conditions of the Coliseum were--bye, bye, Duke Snider, whose career went from being grossly inflated by the Fenway-in-reverse shape of Ebbetts to being crushed by the 440-to-right shape of THAT LA Coliseum--has to know Koufax had no chance of shining there.

Anyway, Koufax was way overrated, for a LONG time, because of that ballpark. That's a fact. When ESPN did their Top 50 Sportsfigures of the Century, he was the ONLY pitcher in the group--i.e., they thought he was the best pitcher of the century, which is silly. BUT, even after Adjusted ERA had duly gutted his bloated ERA stats, his career Adjusted ERA is still up among the best... after you eliminate relief pitchers, active pitchers who haven't pitched very long, and 19th Century pitchers. If you also eliminate Dead Ball Era pitchers--other than Johnson and Alexander, who pitched a long time into live-ball baseball--and if you include Pedro, because he's pitched a long time now and is WAY ahead of everyone, the list looks like this (prior to this season):

1. Pedro Martinez, 166 (!)
2. Lefty Grove, 148
3. Walter Johnson, 146
4. Randy Johnson, 142 [and he'd better retire soon, or he'll fall a TON]
5. Greg Maddux, 138
6. Grover Cleveland Alexander, 135

[NOTE: Harry Brecheen is NOT counted. He pitched fewer than 2,000 innings, albeit barely, and fattened up by pitching during 1943, 1944 and
1945, when the real players were all gone to war, going 40-15 in those years. Take those years away and he's 93-77 for his career. Nuff said.]

[Spud Chandler is more of the same, with a HUGE W-L record, but 87 games won outside the war.]

7. Whitey Ford, 132
8. Sandy Koufax, 131

So there it is. I think everyone would agree guys like Tim Hudson, John Franco, Hoyt Wilhelm and Dan Quisenberry don't belong on this list, and since I'm making the list, I'm unilaterally excluding the ones who played entirely, or almost entirely, in the 19th Century. If you want to include guys who played entirely in the Dead Ball Era, possibly with a few years in the 19th Century but a lot more in the 20th, you can add these names:

1. Ed Walsh
2. Addie Josh (now there's a familiar pairing, eh?)
3. Kid Nichols
4. Mordecai "3-finger" Brown
5. Cy Young
6. Christy Mathewson
7. Rube Waddell

[Noodles Hahn is excluded. He won only 130 games and had only 6 years with over 5 wins. He pitched just over 2,000 innings, which, the way "pitching" was done in the Dead Ball Era, was nothing.]

AND THAT'S IT again.

So, if you include post-1900 Dead Ball Era pitchers, Koufax is STILL the #15 Adjusted ERA pitcher of all time. Without those "pitchers" and their stats, Koufax is #8.

Now, would I rather have Mathewson than Koufax? Probably. But Matty pitched in a park where I could have hit HR's on a hung pitch. Koufax pitched where I--a 6'2" man who weighs 265--couldn't have hit one on the best day of my life. And he had great fielders.

In any event, the Adjusted ERA, in which I place a great deal of faith--unlike a lot of other stats (see "Runs Created")--has Koufax either 8th or 15th of all time, depending on whether his competition should include Dead-Ball-ERA-only pitchers.

A huge number of baseball fans will be surprised to learn that. You know how metaphorical pendulums swing like crazy, right, and how you don't want to get nailed by it on its way back? Koufax was a grossly overrated deity for so long, and now it's become de rigeur to trash him as such.

But his place on my two constructions of the Career Adjusted ERA lists shows--clearly, I think--that he has now become underrated.

Baseball History Nut

OOPS. My bad.

I'm sure some are wondering where the hell Clemens is on these lists. The answer is that he should be on the first list, between Walter Johnson and Randy Johnson, at 143, in 4th place.

Sorry, big guy.

BHN

[flash143817]

Most I know would rank Hubbell and/or Carlton ahead of Koufax, though clearly Koufax had a better string of years than either of them. It is up to you whether you consider Carlton or Hubbell an "egregious" omission.

BHN

I did a top 10 a couple posts up from this one and in it I have Hubbell 4th and Carlton 5th, moving Spahn down to 6th. The top 4 you are looking at was off the top of my head and I changed my mind when sitting down and putting together a top 10.

It is the string of years you mentioned that puts Koufax way up there for me. He was unquestionably the best pitcher in baseball during his 5 year peak and that is against guys like Spahn, Gibson, and Marichal, who are all top 20 (probably 15) in their own right.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Spahn and Koufax are both so damned hard to rate.

Spahn pitched forever. He won what was, until Carlton and now Clemens, a hell of a lot more games than any other live ball pitcher. He still has over 20 more wins than any other live ball pitcher. And THIS after being a genuine, large-scale WWII hero and not getting Win #1 until age 25.

But his career Adusted ERA is no big deal. He had a lot of seasons which, despite winning the number of games any rubber-armed teammate of Aaron, Mathews and Adcock would win, really weren't that impressive.

Then again, he had some awesome seasons late, and I do mean LATE, in his career. I was 9 years old in 1962 and remember very well the season he had that year. The Giants' announcers talked about him and Musial like they were deities that season, and with the stats the two of them put up, it's not hard to see why.

Anyway, it's awfully hard to put all of that together and rate Spahn with any confidence.

And then there's Koufax....

Crippled by the ridiculous L.A. Coliseum for a long time, but then outrageously assisted by Dodger Stadium. To this day, it's amazing how few people know that his ERA was one run better at Dodger Stadium than it was on the road. If that doesn't put an invisible asterisk next to his stats--kind of like Ruth's presence in the lineup did for Gehrig's RBI's--it's hard to imagine what would.

But if Dodger Stadium and fast outfielders take some of the luster off his fabulous ERA's for those five years, they don't explain the fabulous W-L records. A lot of other teams had excellent, speedy outfielders in the 1960's. My Giants had Willie Mays, who was a lot better than Willie Davis, and he ran down everything in sight when they played in Dodger Stadium. Koufax still strangled them, time after time. Marichal would face off against Drysdale, and almost always beat him, but Koufax would gobble up Perry or whomever else the Giants served up to him. And the Giants almost never could hit him. I do remember hearing a rookie hit a grand slam off of Koufax in his first MLB at bat--I think it was Jack Hiatt, but it could have been Dick Dietz--but the fact I can recall that 40-some years later tells you how rare it was.

Anyway.... Koufax's ERA can be taken with some salt, as the Adjusted ERA stat has basically done, but he's still got that awesome 165-87 W-L record, a % of 65.5. Among 200 game winners, I think Pedro, Ford, Grove, Mathewson and maybe 1 or 2 others have done better. Pedro is the best inning-for-inning pitcher of all time and Grove is my #1 pitcher of all time, so Koufax is in some pretty rarefied air there, and it sure isn't because those Dodgers' teams were offensively explosive. The Giants outscored them in all five of Koufax's great years, and the Cards outscored them in 4 of 5, and those are the only 2 teams I checked.

So, as much as I've enjoyed seeing Sandy slip off this perch of Sandy-the-Greatest and Sandy-the-Incomparable, well, ok, he wasn't the greatest and he wasn't incomparable. The hyperbole got a little thick in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. But he was very, very, very, very good. I would take Lefty Grove from 1928-1932 over Koufax from 1962-1966, and there are five-year runs of Pedro, Maddux and maybe Walter Johnson I would take over Koufax. But I think that's it. And if you add Roger Clemens, those are the five guys I consider the greatest pitchers in the history of baseball.

That is the kind of company I think Koufax's five-year run put him in. AND, I believe it would have been a longer run, had Dodger Stadium opened in 1960 or 1961. If he had pitched like that for 6 straight years, or 7 straight years, how would we rate him?

Baseball History Nut

[STLCards2]

Your Top 8 is identical to mine, the last time I made out a Top 10 lefties list. And I gave serious thought to Waddell as #9 and Glavine as #10.

To see how deeply this runs, let me bounce my (by far) most idiosyncratic selection off of you, and see if we are two baseball hearts that beat as one:

Let's say you were to give Roy Campanella credit for Negro League seasons back to when he was 20 years old. That is the usual age at which a great player comes to the majors, and since he was in multiple All-Star Games in the Negro Leagues, and won 3 MVP's in MLB after he'd already caught about 1,000 games in the NL (starting at age 16), it's clear he was a great player. So, assuming he started in MLB at age 20, and giving him--as I do everyone--credit for time played during WWII, would you rate him as the #1 catcher of all time?

Also, is Grove your #1 total pitcher, or just your #1 lefty? He's my #1 total pitcher, and handily. I'm not clear on whether Clemens, Maddux or Johnson is my #1 righty, but until Pedro's pitched quite a bit more, it's one of those three.

Obviously, I'm trying to find out if we're in fabulous sync on lefties only, or if this is a more general trend. Truth be told, I know quite a few people who are very close to me on Top 8 lefties--but you and I are dead on.

BHN

As far as Campanella, I do believe he is very underrated, but I will not put him ahead of Bench, Gibson, Berra, or ( maybe Cochrane.) Many around here don't even have Campy in their top 10. factoring in his Negro league years and War time, this is a peculiar ommision to me.

I give some war credit to players, but not as much as some, because I hate to assume they would be great (even though common sense would tell you he they would be). This is probably why I don't have Campy as high as you. This is also why I don't have Feller quite as high as some who give him tons of war credit.

I have had Grove ranked as high as #2, but now have him #5. The recent and numerous posts about Grove being pampered (his starts against good teams being minimized during several of his best years) was at least convincing enough to drop him behind Johnson, Young,Clemens, and Alexander. If somebody could convince me that the usage pattern stuff was balogna, I would raise him again.

I am glad to see that out top 10 lefty pitchers list is the same!

[stan opdyke]

Spahn and Koufax are both so damned hard to rate.

Spahn pitched forever. He won what was, until Carlton and now Clemens, a hell of a lot more games than any other live ball pitcher. He still has over 20 more wins than any other live ball pitcher. And THIS after being a genuine, large-scale WWII hero and not getting Win #1 until age 25.

But his career Adusted ERA is no big deal. He had a lot of seasons which, despite winning the number of games any rubber-armed teammate of Aaron, Mathews and Adcock would win, really weren't that impressive.

Then again, he had some awesome seasons late, and I do mean LATE, in his career. I was 9 years old in 1962 and remember very well the season he had that year. The Giants' announcers talked about him and Musial like they were deities that season, and with the stats the two of them put up, it's not hard to see why.

Anyway, it's awfully hard to put all of that together and rate Spahn with any confidence.

And then there's Koufax....

Crippled by the ridiculous L.A. Coliseum for a long time, but then outrageously assisted by Dodger Stadium. To this day, it's amazing how few people know that his ERA was one run better at Dodger Stadium than it was on the road. If that doesn't put an invisible asterisk next to his stats--kind of like Ruth's presence in the lineup did for Gehrig's RBI's--it's hard to imagine what would.

But if Dodger Stadium and fast outfielders take some of the luster off his fabulous ERA's for those five years, they don't explain the fabulous W-L records. A lot of other teams had excellent, speedy outfielders in the 1960's. My Giants had Willie Mays, who was a lot better than Willie Davis, and he ran down everything in sight when they played in Dodger Stadium. Koufax still strangled them, time after time. Marichal would face off against Drysdale, and almost always beat him, but Koufax would gobble up Perry or whomever else the Giants served up to him. And the Giants almost never could hit him. I do remember hearing a rookie hit a grand slam off of Koufax in his first MLB at bat--I think it was Jack Hiatt, but it could have been Dick Dietz--but the fact I can recall that 40-some years later tells you how rare it was.

Anyway.... Koufax's ERA can be taken with some salt, as the Adjusted ERA stat has basically done, but he's still got that awesome 165-87 W-L record, a % of 65.5. Among 200 game winners, I think Pedro, Ford, Grove, Mathewson and maybe 1 or 2 others have done better. Pedro is the best inning-for-inning pitcher of all time and Grove is my #1 pitcher of all time, so Koufax is in some pretty rarefied air there, and it sure isn't because those Dodgers' teams were offensively explosive. The Giants outscored them in all five of Koufax's great years, and the Cards outscored them in 4 of 5, and those are the only 2 teams I checked.

So, as much as I've enjoyed seeing Sandy slip off this perch of Sandy-the-Greatest and Sandy-the-Incomparable, well, ok, he wasn't the greatest and he wasn't incomparable. The hyperbole got a little thick in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. But he was very, very, very, very good. I would take Lefty Grove from 1928-1932 over Koufax from 1962-1966, and there are five-year runs of Pedro, Maddux and maybe Walter Johnson I would take over Koufax. But I think that's it. And if you add Roger Clemens, those are the five guys I consider the greatest pitchers in the history of baseball.

That is the kind of company I think Koufax's five-year run put him in. AND, I believe it would have been a longer run, had Dodger Stadium opened in 1960 or 1961. If he had pitched like that for 6 straight years, or 7 straight years, how would we rate him?

Baseball History Nut
Sandy pitched way more innings than Pedro. Maddux is awfully good but I don't think he was ever as dominate as Sandy. I don't see either of them pitching on two days rest and going nine innings to win a World Series or the pennant the way Sandy did in 1965 and 1966.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

As Bill James has discussed at length, "pitching" during the Dead Ball Era was fundamentally different and involved not even trying that hard on many/most of your pitches. This was called "pacing," and books were even written on the subject. The reasons for this practice were: (1) You didn't need to worry about a ball's being hit out of the park; and (2) most hitters were crappy, so, with the laughable excuse for a ball, you didn't need to worry about its being hit for a double or triple, either. Obviously nobody "paced" himself too much when Cobb, Speaker, etc., were at the plate, unless they had a burning desire for a runner in scoring position.

If you study Walter Johnson's stats, as I commented at length during my first 2 days at this site, you will find the ground fell out from under him the very same year the live ball came in (1920). You may believe this to be a coincidence if you like, but I do not. One of the main reasons I don't believe it to be a coincidence is that, after having a good year in 1920, Pete Alexander also collapsed in 1921 and became a shadow of his former self. He was 34 at the time; Johnson was 32 during the 1920 season.

Yes, Johnson had good years in 1924 and 1925, but they weren't remotely like many of the years he'd had from 1910-1919. With the live ball, he was never at all the same pitcher again, and any comparison of his Adjusted ERA's from 1910-1919 vis-a-vis his Adjusted ERA's from 1920-1927 will startle you. In Alexander's case, despite his great glory in the 1926 Series, it's the same story. So I just cannot take those guys as seriously as live ball pitchers who bore down on every pitch and still racked up great stats.

Young spent his entire career in the Dead Ball Era, so I cannot rate him too high for the same reason. Indeed, of the Dead Ball pitchers, the one I give the most credit to by far is Johnson. Despite his collapse in the Live Ball (read: REAL BALL) Era, he did have phenomenal stats in the 1910's. They weren't playing real baseball as I define it, but you just cannot ignore all of those years with Adjusted ERA's over 200, 190 or 180.

As for Clemens, I've given thought to whether he should be rated over Grove. The best case for him is that he, and he alone, joins Grove in the club of those with over 5 ERA crowns. Of course, Grove got 9 in 17 years, and all of them in unfavorable parks, and 4 of them after his 35th birthday, in FENWAY, but Clemens' ERA last year--if not tainted by HGH--was the stuff of legends. His Cy Young Awards don't mean near as much to me, because some of them are nonsense (like during the 20-3 year), but those 7 ERA titles are big stuff. And in career ADJUSTED ERA--which does take into account the horrible parks Grove had to pitch in--Clemens' is "only" 5 points below Grove's.

Now, that makes him about 13% below Grove, which is a lot, but Grove didn't pitch to guys who ate steroids and HGH. So as long as Clemens is not found to have cheated, I can see a very plausible case for him as #1. Ditto for Maddux. I don't buy it, but I can see the case.

With Walter Johnson, I guess it all comes down to how much credit you want to give him for that fantastic decade in the 1910's. I'm just not willing to give THAT much credit to ANY Dead Ball pitcher, least of all one who proved my point by collapsing at age 32 in the very year the live ball came in.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Sandy pitched way more innings than Pedro. Maddux is awfully good but I don't think he was ever as dominate as Sandy. I don't see either of them pitching on two days rest and going nine innings to win a World Series or the pennant the way Sandy did in 1965 and 1966.

Well, if you value Adjusted ERA, which I do, Pedro has had seasons which Koufax cannot come close to touching... including the greatest season in the history of baseball as we know it.

And we both know modern pitchers don't pitch anywhere near the number of innings that pitchers in Koufax's time did. Pedro was consistently among the league's Top 10 in innings pitched from 1995-2000 (5 times in 6 years), which is why he has the problems he does now. He has 5 ERA titles, just as Koufax did, and he has FOUR Adjusted ERA's over 200, with another at 196. Koufax's career high was 190.

He has a much better K/IP ratio than Koufax did, despite having to face Steroid/HGH Ball cheats. He has a much better W-L %--which is really saying something, given Koufax's own awesome W-L %. His best 5-year run produces a better W-L %, and a much better Adjusted ERA, than Koufax's legendary 1962-1966 run. He is, in short, a much better pitcher than Koufax was, including at his best. And to say he doesn't qualify because of innings pitched is to disqualify Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux, both of whom have also never pitched even 275 innings, let alone the 300+ which Koufax thrice pitched.

I remember Game 7 of the 1965 Series very well. Not only did I see it live on TV as a 12-year-old kid, I also have the tapes of it. It's probably the single greatest pitching performance of all time, given all of the circumstances. But the single most HEROIC pitching performance of all time was Pedro's pitching six no-hit innings in relief to win the deciding game of the ALDS against Cleveland, in 1999. Nobody who saw either game will ever forget it. I was privileged to see both.

Anyway, I grew up watching Koufax. My praise for him is spattered all over a very long post or two on this thread. But he was no Pedro Martinez. Not on his best day.

Put it this way: If my life were on the line, and I could pick my pitcher, whom would I pick? I'd pick Pedro Martinez in 2000, with his 285 Adjusted ERA, over any year Grove or Koufax ever had. And it wouldn't take me any time at all to make that decision.

BHN

[RuthMayBond]

But the single most HEROIC pitching performance of all time was Pedro's pitching six no-hit innings in relief to win the deciding game of the ALDS against Cleveland, in 1999. Nobody who saw either game will ever forget it.I sure as :grouchy won't forget that :grouchy game

[STLCards2]

Well, if you value Adjusted ERA, which I do, Pedro has had seasons which Koufax cannot come close to touching... including the greatest season in the history of baseball as we know it.

And we both know modern pitchers don't pitch anywhere near the number of innings that pitchers in Koufax's time did. Pedro was consistently among the league's Top 10 in innings pitched from 1995-2000 (5 times in 6 years), which is why he has the problems he does now. He has 5 ERA titles, just as Koufax did, and he has FOUR Adjusted ERA's over 200, with another at 196. Koufax's career high was 190.

He has a much better K/IP ratio than Koufax did, despite having to face Steroid/HGH Ball cheats. He has a much better W-L %--which is really saying something, given Koufax's own awesome W-L %. His best 5-year run produces a better W-L %, and a much better Adjusted ERA, than Koufax's legendary 1962-1966 run. He is, in short, a much better pitcher than Koufax was, including at his best. And to say he doesn't qualify because of innings pitched is to disqualify Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux, both of whom have also never pitched even 275 innings, let alone the 300+ which Koufax thrice pitched.

I remember Game 7 of the 1965 Series very well. Not only did I see it live on TV as a 12-year-old kid, I also have the tapes of it. It's probably the single greatest pitching performance of all time, given all of the circumstances. But the single most HEROIC pitching performance of all time was Pedro's pitching six no-hit innings in relief to win the deciding game of the ALDS against Cleveland, in 1999. Nobody who saw either game will ever forget it. I was privileged to see both.

Anyway, I grew up watching Koufax. My praise for him is spattered all over a very long post or two on this thread. But he was no Pedro Martinez. Not on his best day.

Put it this way: If my life were on the line, and I could pick my pitcher, whom would I pick? I'd pick Pedro Martinez in 2000, with his 285 Adjusted ERA, over any year Grove or Koufax ever had. And it wouldn't take me any time at all to make that decision.

BHN

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. If their dads, grandpas, or Joe Morgans say he was the best ever, that is what they will think. There is nothing wrong with this either. Passing down stories and legends is one of the greatest parts about baseball, even if they are not always accurate. Stats are nice, and I use stats a lot when evaluating players, but our memories really are the best part of the game. I hope no Koufax-is-the-best-ever-fans are upset by this post. I just disagree.

When you speak of adjusted ERAs, they might not even know what that means. Maybe you should explain how adjusted ERA is calculated, (I am assming you are using ERA+)

[DoubleX]

Well, if you value Adjusted ERA, which I do, Pedro has had seasons which Koufax cannot come close to touching... including the greatest season in the history of baseball as we know it.

True, but my biggest beef with Pedro is his lack of durability and his inability to go deep into games like a dominant pitcher should. Certainly, he is a product of his era, but even in his era, he's not pitching as many innings as you would expect from a pitcher as dominant as Pedro. His 285 ERA+ in 2000 is incredible. But it came in just 217 innings, 29 starts and pitching every 5th or 6th day. Koufax's 190 in 1966 came under 323 innings of duress, 41 starts, and pitching every 4th day (not too mention that his arm was practically falling off that year). Certainly, era adjustments tip the scales in Pedro's favor, but the disparity in work between the two is incredible, and Pedro's value has to be considered with the quality of the relievers that were finishing off games for him more often than not.

Pedro has had a fantastic career, and I actually rank him ahead of Koufax in my pitcher rankings. For 6 innings there might not be a pitcher I'd rather have than Pedro Martinez. But for 9 innings or even the longhaul of a single season, I think I'd rather have Koufax. I was in Boston during Pedro's best years, and I saw a lot of Pedro, and I really don't have much confidence, even when he was at his best, in his ability to go 7+ innings every 5 days, dominate entire games, and lead his team to victory like Koufax could and did. When you talk about Pedro, you have to talk about bullpens as well - and that is not limited to just being a product of his era, since a dominant ace should not leave games to the chance of bullpens as much as Pedro has, even in this era.

For example, even the fragile Kevin Brown could throw more than 220 innings with some regularity (topping 230 every season between 96 and 2000). For another example, Pedro was 33 last year and threw 217 innings. When Kevin Brown was 33, he threw 257 innings (with 253 the next year). Roger Clemens at 33 threw 243 innings (with 264 the next year). Greg Maddux threw only 219 innings at 33, but was coming off a 251 inning year and was heading into a 250 inning year. Tom Glavine threw 234 at age 33 (followed by 241). Randy Johnson threw just 213, but then exploded for five straight years of 245+ innings (topping at 272). Kenny Rogers at 33 threw 239 innings. The point is, that irrespective of his era, for a dominant pitcher, Pedro does not have the stamina one would expect from a pitcher of his stature, and that should be held against him to some degree. His inability to regularly go deep into games, even in the context of his era, mitigates his value. Skillwise, Pedro's 2000 was better than Koufax's 66. But in terms of value, Koufax's 66 was probably more valuable than Pedro's 2000.

I also noticed that you mentioned Pedro's arm troubles in your posts. Only twice has Pedro passed 217 IP, and not since '98. I'd like to see how his arm would have held up if he was asked to throw 310+ innings in three out of four years. I suspect, that just like Koufax, he'd be forced out of baseball at a young age (assuming that modern surgical help is not available, as it was not for Koufax).

We had a really great thread a few months ago discussing Pedro Martinez (and I believe in relation to Sandy Koufax). I wish I could find it.

[DoubleX]

We had a really great thread a few months ago discussing Pedro Martinez (and I believe in relation to Sandy Koufax). I wish I could find it.

Here are a few past threads I found in which we talk about Pedro's dominance and durability and/or Koufax being overrated:


Pedro 2000 vs. Doc 1985 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=40717&page=4)

Sandy Koufax Overrated? (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42021)

Greatest Pitching Season of All Time (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=27626&page=2)

Move over Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson: "Pedro's the best I've ever seen", says Palmer (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42184)

I know there are more and probably better ones to be unearthed as well, but the last link in particular was a particularly good discussion, IMO.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Well, the net results speak for themselves. Koufax was finished at 30; Pedro will turn 35 later this year. And as I said, Koufax never touched any of Pedro's top seasons. I mean, it's not even close. It's not like Pedro had that one incredible 285 season. He had FOUR years over 200, and a 196. When he retires, he not only will have vastly more IP's than Koufax, but vastly better numbers in every major category, including:

(1) Adjusted ERA, by a country mile, even if he posts a couple of dreadful years in his dotage;

(2) K/IP;

(3) K/BB, and that's saying something, because Koufax was awesome;

(4) total wins;

(5) W-L %, where Pedro leads ALL pitchers of over 150 wins, let alone 200--and again, Koufax is awesome in this department, too [and please, Bill, don't tell me about that guy from the 1870's ;) ].

I see NO credible case that Koufax was a better pitcher than Pedro. I mean, I'm a lawyer and have to argue stuff I don't believe all the time. I've followed the game for 48+ years and remember Koufax's greatness all too well. But I couldn't stand before an appellate court or my state's supreme court and argue, with a straight face, that Koufax was a better pitcher than Pedro.

Now, if we are talking STRICTLY about "peak value," then I could make the argument. I would not believe it, but I could make it. And I would lean on what you're leaning on: Your Honors, please disregard Pedro's superiority in all of these other categories, and especially his ENORMOUS superiority in Adjusted ERA's. Let's talk about innings pitched, because Pedro only pitched 13, 3, 5, 7, 2 and 3 complete games in his great run of years, and Koufax was a nine-inning pitcher. Pedro had a 212 Adjusted ERA one year, much better than Koufax ever did, but posted only a 14-4 record, because he only completed three of those games; Koufax would have completed every game if he'd ever been that good, and would have gone 26-6, on his 4-man rotation.

I just don't buy it. For one thing, the very "asset" you are proclaiming is what forced him to retire at age 30. For other things:

Pedro is SO much better than Koufax, inning for inning. Hell, Koufax was 32% better than his contemporaries, over the course of his career, once adjustments are made for his ballparks. That's an outstanding figure and puts him among the best ever, as I've said above. But Pedro is more than TWICE that good. He's ahead of the #1 retired pitcher, and my #1 pitcher of all time, Lefty Grove, by a preposterous margin.

Pedro is a pitcher a lot of people despise. He thinks it's all about racism. I agree racism has a lot more to do with American sports than people will cop to, but I don't think the dislike people have for him, in the vast majority of cases, has anything to do with racism. Deliberately hitting all kinds of batters will make you hated. Lord knows I hated Gibson for destroying Jimmy Ray Hart's career, though I do wonder why everyone thinks it's so cute when Clemens does it.

But Pedro can be a dirty player. And he can be really obnoxious, when that's what he wants to do. These characteristics caused morally and intellectually dishonest sportswriters to make the worst Cy Young decision of all time in giving that award to Zito that one year. If Zito'd had class, he'd have flown to the island and given it to Pedro, because he HAD to know he didn't deserve it.

I suppose the BEST argument for Koufax over Pedro in peak is, ultimately, this one: Pedro was injured in 2001 and only went 7-3. Therefore, he never had a great FIVE-year run, if we're talking consecutive years. You have to skip over 2001 and go to his great 2002 season. If that's enough to make Koufax a better "peak" pitcher than Pedro, so be it.

BHN

[DoubleX]

Well, the net results speak for themselves. Koufax was finished at 30; Pedro will turn 35 later this year. And as I said, Koufax never touched any of Pedro's top seasons. I mean, it's not even close. It's not like Pedro had that one incredible 285 season. He had FOUR years over 200, and a 196. When he retires, he not only will have vastly more IP's than Koufax, but vastly better numbers in every major category, including:

(1) Adjusted ERA, by a country mile, even if he posts a couple of dreadful years in his dotage;

(2) K/IP;

(3) K/BB, and that's saying something, because Koufax was awesome;

(4) total wins;

(5) W-L %, where Pedro leads ALL pitchers of over 150 wins, let alone 200--and again, Koufax is awesome in this department, too [and please, Bill, don't tell me about that guy from the 1870's ;) ].

I see NO credible case that Koufax was a better pitcher than Pedro. I mean, I'm a lawyer and have to argue stuff I don't believe all the time. I've followed the game for 48+ years and remember Koufax's greatness all too well. But I couldn't stand before an appellate court or my state's supreme court and argue, with a straight face, that Koufax was a better pitcher than Pedro.

Now, if we are talking STRICTLY about "peak value," then I could make the argument. I would not believe it, but I could make it. And I would lean on what you're leaning on: Your Honors, please disregard Pedro's superiority in all of these other categories, and especially his ENORMOUS superiority in Adjusted ERA's. Let's talk about innings pitched, because Pedro only pitched 13, 3, 5, 7, 2 and 3 complete games in his great run of years, and Koufax was a nine-inning pitcher. Pedro had a 212 Adjusted ERA one year, much better than Koufax ever did, but posted only a 14-4 record, because he only completed three of those games; Koufax would have completed every game if he'd ever been that good, and would have gone 26-6, on his 4-man rotation.

I just don't buy it. For one thing, the very "asset" you are proclaiming is what forced him to retire at age 30. For other things:

Pedro is SO much better than Koufax, inning for inning. Hell, Koufax was 32% better than his contemporaries, over the course of his career, once adjustments are made for his ballparks. That's an outstanding figure and puts him among the best ever, as I've said above. But Pedro is more than TWICE that good. He's ahead of the #1 retired pitcher, and my #1 pitcher of all time, Lefty Grove, by a preposterous margin.

Pedro is a pitcher a lot of people despise. He thinks it's all about racism. I agree racism has a lot more to do with American sports than people will cop to, but I don't think the dislike people have for him, in the vast majority of cases, has anything to do with racism. Deliberately hitting all kinds of batters will make you hated. Lord knows I hated Gibson for destroying Jimmy Ray Hart's career, though I do wonder why everyone thinks it's so cute when Clemens does it.

But Pedro can be a dirty player. And he can be really obnoxious, when that's what he wants to do. These characteristics caused morally and intellectually dishonest sportswriters to make the worst Cy Young decision of all time in giving that award to Zito that one year. If Zito'd had class, he'd have flown to the island and given it to Pedro, because he HAD to know he didn't deserve it.

I suppose the BEST argument for Koufax over Pedro in peak is, ultimately, this one: Pedro was injured in 2001 and only went 7-3. Therefore, he never had a great FIVE-year run, if we're talking consecutive years. You have to skip over 2001 and go to his great 2002 season. If that's enough to make Koufax a better "peak" pitcher than Pedro, so be it.

BHN

I don't think you appreciate just what effect a large amount of innings pitched does to a player. Koufax was done by 30 because he pitched 100+ more innings a year than Pedro and didn't live in a time when things like Tommy John surgery were available.. If Pedro was asked to do that, his ERA+ would be nowhere near 285 (and his career could very well have ended by 30 as well). Conversely, imagine how effective Koufax would have been if he was coddled like Pedro? Instead of pitching like 330 innings and throwing 8 or 9 innings every four days, he pitched 7 innings every 5 or 6 days, missed about 6 starts a year, and went about 215 innings. Don't you think Koufax would have been much more effective and his ERA+ even better? Beyond that, from what can be observed about Pedro, the fact that he breaks down easily, the fact that he can't regularly go late into games, he wouldn't be able to come close to 300 IP even if asked (and probably not even 240). Pedro's a terrific pitcher, no doubt about it and I have him ranked ahead of Koufax, but his fragility, his inability to regularly dominate late into games like the greats should, diminshes his value (and there is a distinction between value and skill that I hope you can see). To me, Pedro was probably a better pitcher at his peak than Koufax, but Koufax was the more valuable. I'd take 320 innings of 190 ERA+ over 210 innings of 280 ERA+ anyday. That difference there could be about 14 more starts, and that could mean as many as 10-12 more wins, and that could make a big difference in a team's success. Of course, era considerations have to be made, but as I pointed out here, and as I and others have pointed out in the threads linked, even compared to his contemporaries, Pedro, with the exception of 97 and 98, has not racked up IP consummate to what one would expect from a player of his skill level. I think it's reasonable to expect 240-250 innings from a modern-day ace. So that's like 5 more games that a team has to rely on lesser pitchers, including all the times a bullpen is called in to finish off the last 2 or 3 innings of a game because Pedro is faltering in the 7th (that seemed to happen almost weekly when he was in Boston). It's no coincidence that Pedro has a number of no decisions in his career - too often he's left close games in the hands of the bullpen only for them to blow it. I think Game 7 of the 2003 is extremely indicative of much Pedro's career. Dominant for 6 innings, falters in the 7th, bullpen comes in and blows it. I saw it time and time again when I followed his career in Boston. That dimishes his value.

I do agree with your observations about why Pedro is generally disliked and how there seems to be a double-standard with his head-hunting (and some of that probably does have to do with some degree sub-conscious racism). I don't like head-hunting at all, though I understand the need for a pitcher to assert his presence over the inside of the plate. I have seen much of Pedro's career from living in Boston and New York, and at times, his head-hunting does have a tinge of cowardice to it, especially when he was in the AL. I say this for two reasons: 1) If he was struggling out there, giving up hits and homeruns, he would always throw at players. He should suck it up and try to find a way to pitch around his struggles. Sure, he wants to put back the intimidation factor, but it was just overkill with him and the timing just made him seem like a baby. 2) He was way too gratuitous with throwing at batters, and he knew he could get away with it in the AL, especially against AL East opponents (I don't know if he ever made a start against the Yankees without hitting at least one, and often multiple players). It's no coincidence that he has lightened up in this regard since coming to the Mets. He knows now that what goes around, comes around. He doesn't throw at nearly as many batters as he used to (and you'd think that since the quality of his stuff has diminished, he'd resort to it more).

Also, and to make sure this isn't lost. In my pitcher rankings, I do have Pedro ahead of Koufax. Pedro is knocking on the door of the top 10, Koufax is like 15 or 16. My only point here is that while Pedro might have been better at peak than Koufax, Koufax may have been more valuable to his team (and their disparity in peak performance isn't as great as it seems because Koufax' dominance came under much more duress than Pedro's).

And why does it seem like every member who is a lawyer here points it out in a discussion? This is not a courtroom. This is just a baseball discussion. :)

[csh19792001]

If you study Walter Johnson's stats, as I commented at length during my first 2 days at this site, you will find the ground fell out from under him the very same year the live ball came in (1920). You may believe this to be a coincidence if you like, but I do not. One of the main reasons I don't believe it to be a coincidence is that, after having a good year in 1920, Pete Alexander also collapsed in 1921 and became a shadow of his former self. He was 34 at the time; Johnson was 32 during the 1920 season.

Yes, Johnson had good years in 1924 and 1925, but they weren't remotely like many of the years he'd had from 1910-1919. With the live ball, he was never at all the same pitcher again, and any comparison of his Adjusted ERA's from 1910-1919 vis-a-vis his Adjusted ERA's from 1920-1927 will startle you. In Alexander's case, despite his great glory in the 1926 Series, it's the same story. So I just cannot take those guys as seriously as live ball pitchers who bore down on every pitch and still racked up great stats.

Young spent his entire career in the Dead Ball Era, so I cannot rate him too high for the same reason. Indeed, of the Dead Ball pitchers, the one I give the most credit to by far is Johnson. Despite his collapse in the Live Ball (read: REAL BALL) Era, he did have phenomenal stats in the 1910's. They weren't playing real baseball as I define it, but you just cannot ignore all of those years with Adjusted ERA's over 200, 190 or 180.

With Walter Johnson, I guess it all comes down to how much credit you want to give him for that fantastic decade in the 1910's. I'm just not willing to give THAT much credit to ANY Dead Ball pitcher, least of all one who proved my point by collapsing at age 32 in the very year the live ball came in.

BHN

I think you're looking almost exclusive at the naked numbers, at the expense of giving proper credence to/neglecting the historical/biographical precedents in play here. First, there's the issue of age. I'd expect that a split half reliability comparison between basically every truly great pitcher pre age 33 and age 33 to age 40+ is going to be quite disparate, often shockingly so, as you put it.

Second, there's the downright abusive workload patterns that conspired to ruin the arms of most pitchers early in the time before 1920- and if not ruin, certainly burn out and decimate the effectiveness of to a much larger extent than today.

As far as Cy Young, well, he didn't play in the 20's, but he did pitch through the greatest offensive era in baseball history, BY FAR. Much more run scoring and offense in Young's prime (which coincided with the mound change in 93') than there was in subsequent decades of offensive prosperity.

In fact, in a discussion of Young's completely unprecedented run at ages 34-36 (in the context of his times, he was ancient), here's something I posted awhile back.

Jim,

In a discussion of Cy Young's move to the AL after signing the contract in March of 1901, Browning discusses the exact topic you're addressing.

"In the end Frank Robison (owner of the Cardinals, among other teams) may have come very close to meeting Boston's offer- in dollar terms Robison may have actually topped it. But Robison would not go beyond a one-year commitment (Boston offered a three year deal), and Stanley Robison explained the club's reasoning- he believed that Cy Young was in decline and would probably not last more than one more year in the National League.

It is easy for us to laugh at Frank Robison's poor judgment. But in fact he had much actuarial experience on his side. Cy Young celebrated his thirty-fourth birthday about the time he signed the new contract. How well had pitchers past their thirty-fourth birthday fared over the past quarter century? Charley Radbourn had done best- 58 wins and 36 losses from the age of 34 on. A few others had continued to be effective enough to hang on in the majors- Pud Galvin with 36 wins, Tim Keefe with 34, Tony Mullane with 25, and Bobby Mathews with 16. But that's about it. Charlie Buffinton, John Clarkson, Silver King, Jim McCormick, Mickey Welch, Jack Stivetts, and Will White had hung up their gloves by the time they were 34. Thus, Robison had history on his side in declining to extend Young a lucrative, mult-year contract."

-Cy Young, A Baseball Life (Browning, p. 92)

And you laud Grove's adaptivity? Nobody ever proved more adaptive to (massive) contextual/conditional changes than Cy Young. Again, Browning writes:

"The second consideration is that Cy Young chalked up his remarkable record of protracted greatness while coping with a stream of alterations in the way baseball was played. There were changes in the rules, most significantly the great discontinuity of 1893 that lengthened the pitching distance, but also the adoption of the foul strike rule in 1903. There were shifts in the definition of bunts and balks, the emergence of a raised mound for the pitcher, the deepening of pitching staffs, the adoption of fielders gloves, the evolving concept of scientific baseball. It was because the game was almost constantly in very visible transition that Cy Young labored so hard to add deliveries to his repertory. And it is a mark of his success both in the year in which major league batting averages reached their all time high (.309 in 1894) and in which they reached what was their alltime low (.239 in 1909) until the 1968 season snuck beneath it. In short, Cy Young lasted as long as he did not simply because he was blessed with a tough body and durable arm, but also because he used his intelligence to study, adapt, and learn. He was one of the smartest pitchers in baseball history.

So, again, was Cy Young the greatest pitcher of all times? We don't know, of course. There's no way-- pace all the sabermetricians in the audience--that we can even out all the changes in equipment, in paying rules, in strike zone dimensions, in ground rules, in travel circumstances, in ball parks, in times of play, in pitchers, in strategy, in training practices, in coaching assistance, in umpiring, in protection of injured players, in media attention, in roster sizes, in housing/travel circumstances, and in off-season activities that have occurred over the years. And that means that there is no way we can compare the distilled pitching essence of Cy Young to the distilled pitching essences of Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Bob Feller, Tom Seaver, or Greg Maddux. Moreover, much depends on how you define "greatest"- are you talking about absolute dominance over a short span of time? Or are you talking about enduring success over a wide span of years? Or perhaps blending these two measures in some unspoken formula? By whatever definition one operates, Cy Young is clearly a candidate for the honor. And the greater the weight you give to sustaining of excellence over a long period of time, and the more you are willing to assume that a man who had proved himself extremely smart and adaptable in his own (ephemeral) day would continue to show those traits in a later era, the stronger Cy Young's candidacy becomes."

As far as Alexander and Walter Johnson's decline after 1920? You're quite right, it's not a coincidence at all. Reading extensively on both of their careers reminded me of the fact that both suffered injuries that (along with the age/old time wear and tear factors already discussed) conspired to limit their (relative) effectiveness from the inception of the liveball era until their careers commenced.

Johnson developed a sore arm for the first time in his career in 1920. He arrived in spring training with what was basically a dead arm.

Henry Thomas himself noted that during spring training of that year that Johnson had said "I couldn't raise his arm to my necktie" and that "The cold had settled into my arm". Later in the year, in fact, the pain became so bad that Johnson went to Rochester to see the venerable Dr. "Bonesetter" Knight, to no real avail. At the end of the season, in fact, things got so bad that Johnson seriously considered retirement after 1920, but Griffith and Mike Martin successfully talked him out of it. The cold/soreness in his shoulder never really left him- it came and went, and was particularly bad each spring. Being a fireball pitcher who was absolutely counted on to pitch 350 innings a year and never relied on junk pitches will tend to do that to one's arm.

Now, as to Alexander and his ostensible demise (which you attribute to the lively ball)...his 342nd field artillery unit in France was part of the Argonne offensive (one of the biggest battles of WWI).

John Skipper writes:

"Both Alex and Mathewson, the winningest pitchers in the National League, came out of the war alive, but both came out broken men......When (Alex) returned in (1919), he was, in many ways, a broken man. He was entirely deaf in his left ear from enduring the sound of bombing for seven straight weeks. He was hit with shrapnel in his right outer ear, an injury that resulted in development of cancer in that ear later in life- which resulted in later amputation of the ear."

It was also Alex's duty to pull the lanyard to fire the howitzer cannons- and it irreparably damaged his shoulder/biceps in his right arm. The shell shock also greatly exacerbated his epilepsy, which had been mainly latent up to that point, and which he had been able to keep in check with alcohol. As the seizures worsened, so to do the drinking.

Skipper finishes the chapter by aptly noting:

"When the Cubs got Alexander in the trade with the Phillies, they were getting the best active pitcher in the National League, a great athlete who had won 30 or more games three years in a row and who seemed destined for even greater stardom. What the Cubs had when he came back from the war was a scarred, shell shocked, half deaf epileptic and alcoholic whose zest for life, without the inducement of liquor, was left somewhere on a muddy battlefield thousands of miles away.”

So, it's true, just looking at the numberswould lead one to believe that it must've been the live ball killed these guys, and that they were strictly a product of their pitching amenable era. But a more in depth analysis proves that there's quite a bit more to the story than that, and to chalk the decline in performance to the liveball is dismissive of the truth of what actually happened.

[csh19792001]

I don't think you appreciate just what effect a large amount of innings pitched does to a player. Koufax was done by 30 because he pitched 100+ more innings a year than Pedro and didn't live in a time when things like Tommy John surgery were available.

And why does it seem like every member who is a lawyer here points it out in a discussion? This is not a courtroom. This is just a baseball discussion. :)

XX- Nice work. I agree with pretty much everything you said here, and what you say is logical and well formulated.

BaseballHistoryNut,

Re: Koufax vs. Pedro.

We've had this discussion many times. I'll refer everyone to this thread Koufax vs. Pedro (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=283442#post283442) starting with this post (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=283442&postcount=81) and continuing on between Metal Ed and Hitchedtoaspark for quite awhile afterwards. It was one of the most erudite, informed discussions I ever saw at this site. If only we had more members like those two, that actually contributed regularly here....

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I pointed out my profession ONLY to say that arguing Koufax's career value over Pedro's is something I could not do with a straight face, even though my profession requires me to make arguments I don't believe. I don't think I like the insinuation I said it to make myself look like a hotshot. If I were out to do that, there is a lot more I could have said, but I enjoy being here--like I'm sure we all do--to unwind and avoid the stress attendant to everyday life.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

XX- Nice work. I agree with pretty much everything you said here, and what you say is logical and well formulated.

BaseballHistoryNut,

Re: Koufax vs. Pedro.

We've had this discussion many times. I'll refer everyone to this thread Koufax vs. Pedro (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=283442#post283442) starting with this post (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=283442&postcount=81) and continuing on between Metal Ed and Hitchedtoaspark for quite awhile afterwards. It was one of the most erudite, informed discussions I ever saw at this site. If only we had more members like those two, that actually contributed regularly here....

I've already explained why the lawyer crack was out of line. I'm not sure why you saw fit to reproduce that part of the quote, but I'm hurt that you did.

I went through all of this stuff about Johnson and Alexander when I first arrived here, being greeted initially with a firestorm of criticism, then a bunch of "Well, you may have a point; you've given me something new to chew on" responses. I don't buy the coincidence that those two guys melted down in 1920 and 1921. They played a totally different game than Grove did, though I've come to realize at this site that it wasn't until 1921 Johnson's cavernous ballpark was for certain an asset. Doesn't seem to have helped him much.

As for "Henry Thomas," you of course know he is Johnson's grandson. He wrote that book almost specifically for the purpose of denouncing the views of Bill James and most other experts I've read that Grove, not Johnson, is the greatest pitcher ever. I think the book is laughably bad, falling more into the category of a hagiography than an objective biography. I will acknowledge, though, that the Johnson biography I'm reading now, by Jack Kavanagh, is vastly better and still makes Johnson out to have been an enormously great pitcher in the 1910's. (I haven't gotten any further yet.) 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.

But I wouldn't cite Henry Thomas's book as a proposition for anything other than the fact relatives can reach any conclusion they want to, by straining hard enough and selectively presenting the evidence. Point One: Thomas whines that Johnson would have had a great W-L record, too--i.e., like Grove--if he'd had Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons. Now, I'm sure Johnson's W-L record WOULD have been a lot better with those bats in his lineup. But at no point Thomas say one word about Grove's nine E.R.A. titles in 17 years, in hitters' parks, which vastly outshines Johnson's ERA-title achievements. This is intellectual dishonesty at an art-form level. The thundering bats of Foxx, Cochrane and Simmons probably didn't have much to do with Grove's unparalleled achievements in ERA titles, eh?

But why let facts get in the way of a predetermined result, huh, Grandsonny? It's like reading the decision of the five lifelong fierce states' rights advocates who ordered a state to stop counting its votes in Bush v. Gore.

Seriously, Thomas's book is arguably the worst sports bio I have ever read. I am glad I bought the Kavanagh book, so I have a good--if not literarily, at least from a baseball standpoint--Johnson bio. I will admit that I AM learning quite a bit about Johnson's career from Kavanagh's book, and when I'm done reading it, Johnson may move up from his present position as my #3 right-handed pitcher.

But I have to chafe at the notion I'm being shallow in my analysis. Jack Dunn kept Lefty Grove tied up for 5 years in the minors. The standard perception that he wasn't that good at first is rubbish. He led the league in K's his first 7 years, and won the first of his mind-bending 9 ERA crowns in his second year. At a minimum, he lost out on 40-50 wins because of being tied to that Orioles team for those years. If he'd won 340 to 380 games, and 10 to 12 ERA titles, nobody could possibly dispute his status as the greatest pitcher ever.

Continuing now:

Alexander was not so demolished by WWI that he fell apart immediately. Not until 1921 did his precipitate and precipitous decline occur. The alcoholism and seizures, of course, were central to his decline, and I'm willing to believe his innings pitched had something to do with it, too. It is a fact, however, that the guy collapsed with the live ball after having been the NL's Superman in the Dead Ball Era. It's hard not to be taken with the similarity to Johnson, and if you're asking me to place any credence in what Grandsonny says, well, it ain't gonna happen.

As for Johnson: OK, so he couldn't adjust to being a finesse pitcher after having been a great fastball pitcher. Surely you realize that is exactly what Grove did. In 1934, Grove had perhaps the worst ERA season ever by a legendary pitcher who was not totally washed up. He had blown out his arm and lost the fastball which so many people had said was faster than Johnson's, and which so many would later say was faster than Feller's. And he thereupon reinvented himself as a finesse pitcher, had a 5-year run nearly as good as 1928-1932, and proceeded to win 4 more ERA crowns, after his 35th birthday, as a southpaw in Fenway Park, without a real fastball.

I really just don't see any case at all for Johnson over Grove. Maddux or Clemens? Maybe. Not likely, but maybe a sufficiently persuasive advocate could win me over. To me, Johnson is a guy who had a phenomenal decade as a Dead Ball Era pitcher, and was never the same again. If it's purely coincidence, and if it's purely coincidence in Alexander's case--if these two titans of the Dead Ball Era came down when they did for reasons unrelated to the advent of live/real ball, then I apologize to their memories for having shorted them.

But I still couldn't see putting either ahead of Grove. I would, however, probably put Johnson on top of my RHP's.

BHN

[ElHalo]

And why does it seem like every member who is a lawyer here points it out in a discussion? This is not a courtroom. This is just a baseball discussion. :)

It's very simple, really; if a random stranger came up to you on the street with one of the following, which would you pay more attention to:

"Hi, sorry to bother you, but I'm a dermatologist, and I think that discoloration on your face might be melanoma; you should really have that checked out."

"Hi, sorry to bother you, but I'm a pianist, and I think that discoloration on your face might be melanoma; you should really have that checked out."

I would assume that you'd pay closer attention to the former than the latter. While an intimate knowledge of the works of Handel might imbue one with a certain understanding of how to chemically induce ephoria based on progressive aural stimuli, it doesn't really do much for one's knowledge of skin disease. Their being a doctor, the first speaker and their opinion about your disgusting disfigurement are granted a certain aura of weight and moment informing and bolstering their case as to why their opinion should matter more than others'.

And the way doctors are automatically granted a higher priority of belief whenever they opine on all things medical? Well, the opinions of attorneys are automatically possessed of a similar mien of automatic reverence and automatic deference, with the only difference being that while doctors are to be deferred to regarding their opinions on all things medical, lawyers are to be deferred to regarding all things, full stop.

Or at least that's the way many attorneys I know would like you to believe.

[DoubleX]

It's very simple, really; if a random stranger came up to you on the street with one of the following, which would you pay more attention to:

"Hi, sorry to bother you, but I'm a dermatologist, and I think that discoloration on your face might be melanoma; you should really have that checked out."

"Hi, sorry to bother you, but I'm a pianist, and I think that discoloration on your face might be melanoma; you should really have that checked out."

I would assume that you'd pay closer attention to the former than the latter. While an intimate knowledge of the works of Handel might imbue one with a certain understanding of how to chemically induce ephoria based on progressive aural stimuli, it doesn't really do much for one's knowledge of skin disease. Their being a doctor, the first speaker and their opinion about your disgusting disfigurement are granted a certain aura of weight and moment informing and bolstering their case as to why their opinion should matter more than others'.

And the way doctors are automatically granted a higher priority of belief whenever they opine on all things medical? Well, the opinions of attorneys are automatically possessed of a similar mien of automatic reverence and automatic deference, with the only difference being that while doctors are to be deferred to regarding their opinions on all things medical, lawyers are to be deferred to regarding all things, full stop.

Or at least that's the way many attorneys I know would like you to believe.

It's no wonder that much of the world is scornful and mistrustful of lawyers... :ughh

Tell me, EH, would "these attorneys you know" by any chance include you? :)

[DoubleX]

I've already explained why the lawyer crack was out of line. I'm not sure why you saw fit to reproduce that part of the quote, but I'm hurt that you did.

To Chris' defense, he reproduced that comment before you explained it. I found the rest of your post pretty interesting though. I'll have to give it a more thorough read tomorrow.

[SABR Matt]

1 - Grove
2 - RJ
3 - Hubbell
4 - Koufax

That's what I have at the moment.

[stan opdyke]

I pointed out my profession ONLY to say that arguing Koufax's career value over Pedro's is something I could not do with a straight face, even though my profession requires me to make arguments I don't believe. I don't think I like the insinuation I said it to make myself look like a hotshot. If I were out to do that, there is a lot more I could have said, but I enjoy being here--like I'm sure we all do--to unwind and avoid the stress attendant to everyday life.

BHN
I think it is awfully tough to try to compare pitchers from different eras; Johnson/Grove or Koufax/Pedro. I do think if the Dodgers had traded Koufax for Pedro they would not have won pennants in 1965 or 1966, unless of course Pedro could have pitched more innings in the lower scoring era of the 1960's. I for one doubt that he could have done that.

I remember Pedro's performance against the Indians in 2000. He totally dominated an excellent hitting team. To me though, Sandy pitching the Dodgers to the pennant on two days rest in a complete against the Braves in 65, then pitching a complete game shoutout in game five of the World Series that same year and then two days later pitching a complete game shutout against the Twins in game seven is more impressive. The next year he did the same thing, pitching a complete game on two days rest against the Phillies on the last day of the season to pitch the Dodgers to the pennant. If I had one game I had to win, there is no one else I would want on the mound other than Sandy. Pedro is a quality pitcher no doubt, but there is no way he could dupicate what Sandy did in 1965 and 1966. For that matter, I don't think any of Sandy's contemporaries could have pitched so magnificently so often on such little rest in such pressure situations. At his peak I have never seen anyone to rival Sandy.

[flash143817]

1 - Grove
2 - RJ
3 - Hubbell
4 - Koufax

That's what I have at the moment.

Out of curiosity, where do these guys rank on your overall pitcher rankings?

[SABR Matt]

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

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Grove is 4th??? <flush>

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm the first to admit I don't know squat about ERA+ other than its somehow adjusted to the league average. What goes into it and how much weight is placed on what..clueless.

re: Pedro/Koufax

The more AB a hitter has during the season, the more likely he is to revert to the mean in terms on batting average. It gives a wider and longer picture of a players true greatness that year. So can we look at Pedro's outstanding ERA+ in much the same way that you would, say, Bonds' high batting averages in the years where he was walking 200 times? Is that how ERA+ works. If Pedro was more of a workhorse, his ERA would have no choice but to revert, correct? Or no?

[rugbyfreak]

So you taking Koufax or Sutton?



And just because I like being ripped, I'll give a top 10 lefthanded pitchers list for you dogs to chew apart. The top 3 are pretty set in my mind, but the others are open to switch.

1. Grove
2. Koufax
3. Unit
4. Hubbell
5. Carlton
6. Spahn
7. Waddell
8. Ford
9. Newhouser
10. Dalkowski

I was forced to move Spahn below Carlton because they both had fairly similar career longevity totals but Carlton was better at his peak IMO.

I was considering not jumping in, but just reading, the threads tonight, but then I see Spahn ranked SIXTH on the alltime lefties list, and I am forced into action.

True, I am on record on this site as a huge Spahn supporter (even touted him in the "Extreme Positions" thread as the top pitcher of all time, just to start the dogs chewing, as you would say, Flash). But I am also on record as a big admirer of Koufax, and fully behind his HOF status, because I have read all about how he pitched and dominated, and have watched entire games of his on film.

If you looked strictly at his lifetime numbers and had never seen him in action, however, I suppose you could easily question his election. Thankfully, the HOF, for all its flaws, has shown itself to have a broader perspective about electees than simply their numbers. It is not the LPGA HOF, whereby you must win X number of tournaments, or you don't get in. The baseball HOF considers other qualities, like impact upon the game, and the immensity of a man's talent. Justice Warren Burger (I believe) said it once about pornography: "I cannot precisely define what pornography is. But I know it when I see it."

Same with Koufax. Forgotting about numbers for a second, he simply had HOF quality. Can anybody deny that? Older old-timers say exactly the same about Dean, who also was cut down by injury before he could build huge lifetime numbers.

So clearly, I deduct little or nothing from a player's ranking due to a shortened career. But I most certainly add points for a longer career--what's wrong with that? Spahn, quite simply, had the greatest LONG career of possibly anybody except Cy Young.

I won't insult this crowd with a long list of Spahn's numbers, because you all know them. But I will just hit you with two:

1.) Number of 20-win seasons: 13. Any idea what a sick number that is in the post-war era? That is more than Koufax's number of total seasons played.

2.) His 1963 season, at age 42: 23-7, 2.60, 7 shutouts, 22 CG. The latter figure topped everyone in the NL, including 27-year-old Cy winner Koufax, and marked the 7th CONSECUTIVE year he had led in that category.

Oh, I forgot to add: He didn't win his first ML game until he was 25.

I know you're big on "peaks" when considering a man's career, and so am I. But I'm even more impressed by sustained brilliance. I'm sure you're aware that your man, Grove, did not win 20 games the last six years of his career, and watching Carlton hang on after he turned 40 was sheer torture for his fans.

In conclusion, I almost never quibble with BBF people over a rung or two in player rankings, and I won't do so here. But, in a list of all-time lefthanders, putting Spahn SIXTH? Whatever the folks are smoking up your way, I need to place an order right now!

freak

[SABR Matt]

Grove is 4th??? <flush>

The three people in front of him are Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Roger Clemens...I'm OK with that...LOL

[SABR Matt]

Warren Spahn had a very good and very long career, but his career was utterly bereft of true and total DOMINANCE over the game the way Koufax, Grove, RJ, Newhouser, and Hubbell dominated in their primes. He was just very consistently above average for a long time. Nothing wrong with that, but there's no reason for me to place him ahead of any of those five I mentioned.

[csh19792001]

This'll be truncated, and I'll get to the rest later- it's half past late here and I just got in.

I've already explained why the lawyer crack was out of line. I'm not sure why you saw fit to reproduce that part of the quote, but I'm hurt that you did.

BHN-
I'm not sure what you mean here...what are you hurt by? I didn't even know you made a lawyer crack, and certainly wasn't responding to it.


He wrote that book almost specifically for the purpose of denouncing the views of Bill James and most other experts I've read that Grove, not Johnson, is the greatest pitcher ever.

Actually, Bill James realigned his rankings quite significantly in his latest abstract- in fact, as of 2001 (when he wrote the book), he ranked Walter Johnson as the greatest pitcher ever- and gives his complete rationale (along with a heads up comparison with Grove, and why his mind was changed) on pages 846-48 in the New Abstract.

Also, out of curiosity, because I can never get all of these lists straight- which of the other premier baseball historians have Grove ahead of Johnson, and vice versa? When you say "most other experts", I'm wondering which guys you're referring to.

[csh19792001]

Is that how ERA+ works. If Pedro was more of a workhorse, his ERA would have no choice but to revert, correct? Or no?

Yes, I believe it's called regression to the mean.

Not that I think the frail Martinez could pitch 325 innings in ANY season without incurring a serious injury- he's proved frail even with the relatively paltry workload he's been saddled with. So if he was throwing the Koufax workload, his ERA+ would drop precipitously- and that's if he didn't injure/ruin his shoulder or elbow in the process, due to the massive, ongoing strain of pitching 9 innings every fourth day.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I was considering not jumping in, but just reading, the threads tonight, but then I see Spahn ranked SIXTH on the alltime lefties list, and I am forced into action.

True, I am on record on this site as a huge Spahn supporter (even touted him in the "Extreme Positions" thread as the top pitcher of all time, just to start the dogs chewing, as you would say, Flash). But I am also on record as a big admirer of Koufax, and fully behind his HOF status, because I have read all about how he pitched and dominated, and have watched entire games of his on film.

If you looked strictly at his lifetime numbers and had never seen him in action, however, I suppose you could easily question his election. Thankfully, the HOF, for all its flaws, has shown itself to have a broader perspective about electees than simply their numbers. It is not the LPGA HOF, whereby you must win X number of tournaments, or you don't get in. The baseball HOF considers other qualities, like impact upon the game, and the immensity of a man's talent. Justice Warren Burger (I believe) said it once about pornography: "I cannot precisely define what pornography is. But I know it when I see it."

Same with Koufax. Forgotting about numbers for a second, he simply had HOF quality. Can anybody deny that? Older old-timers say exactly the same about Dean, who also was cut down by injury before he could build huge lifetime numbers.

So clearly, I deduct little or nothing from a player's ranking due to a shortened career. But I most certainly add points for a longer career--what's wrong with that? Spahn, quite simply, had the greatest LONG career of possibly anybody except Cy Young.

I won't insult this crowd with a long list of Spahn's numbers, because you all know them. But I will just hit you with two:

1.) Number of 20-win seasons: 13. Any idea what a sick number that is in the post-war era? That is more than Koufax's number of total seasons played.

2.) His 1963 season, at age 42: 23-7, 2.60, 7 shutouts, 22 CG. The latter figure topped everyone in the NL, including 27-year-old Cy winner Koufax, and marked the 7th CONSECUTIVE year he had led in that category.

Oh, I forgot to add: He didn't win his first ML game until he was 25.

I know you're big on "peaks" when considering a man's career, and so am I. But I'm even more impressed by sustained brilliance. I'm sure you're aware that your man, Grove, did not win 20 games the last six years of his career, and watching Carlton hang on after he turned 40 was sheer torture for his fans.

In conclusion, I almost never quibble with BBF people over a rung or two in player rankings, and I won't do so here. But, in a list of all-time lefthanders, putting Spahn SIXTH? Whatever the folks are smoking up your way, I need to place an order right now!

freak

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

[BaseballHistoryNut]

This'll be truncated, and I'll get to the rest later- it's half past late here and I just got in.



BHN-
I'm not sure what you mean here...what are you hurt by? I didn't even know you made a lawyer crack, and certainly wasn't responding to it.

You posted a quotation of somebody else's previous remark; it included a snide swipe that person had made about lawyers at this site who often see fit to mention they are lawyers. I felt there was no reason for you to duplicate that mean-spirited portion of the post, especially since you should now know me well enough to know I am not a blowhard. If I were, I would say a great deal more than just that I am a lawyer. If this is not making sense to you, then you simply stepped in something by copying that sentence, and I apologize for overreacting, and you should read back up a few posts to understand what this is all about.

Actually, Bill James realigned his rankings quite significantly in his latest abstract- in fact, as of 2001 (when he wrote the book), he ranked Walter Johnson as the greatest pitcher ever- and gives his complete rationale (along with a heads up comparison with Grove, and why his mind was changed) on pages 846-48 in the New Abstract.

This isn't exactly correct. James apologized all over himself for rating Johnson over Grove. He said Grove was 8% better than Johnson according to his system, but Johnson had 50% more innings, and he couldn't convince himself that 8% better made up for 50% more innings. He went on and on about it, saying that 24% would be ok, but not 50%. He was downright apologetic about it, because he'd gone on at great length in his previous historical abstract about how obviously, and clearly, and unquestionably, Grove is the greatest pitcher ever.

He should have left well enough alone. Every thing he said in that first book was correct. Everything about "pitching" in the Dead Ball Era. Everything about Grove's lost years on Dunn's team. Every thing about every aspect of Grove's incomparable career, and how he was the first great pitcher who had to really pitch on every pitch.

I have seen multiple other lists in my life which put Grove at #1. Some have been "Top Ten" lists, but most have simply been "All-Time Team" lists, and he's been the pitcher. And, of course, James' initial Historical Abstract, when he didn't feel like a slave to his numbers, offered a very detailed explanation of why Grove is #1. The book you are talking about says "Johnson is #1 because my system says so," and then spends a lot of time apologizing for it, because he recognizes Grove was 8% better a pitcher (I'd say more than that, but OK, 8%), but Johnson threw all of those extra innings and he doesn't reckon the years Grove lost on the Orioles can make up the difference.

In terms of sheer innings pitched, he is, of course, right.

Also, out of curiosity, because I can never get all of these lists straight- which of the other premier baseball historians have Grove ahead of Johnson, and vice versa? When you say "most other experts", I'm wondering which guys you're referring to.

Well, see above, for starters.

I think we've all seen a lot of people select an all-time team. Almost every time I've seen one selected by an expert, as opposed to the fans (who choose Nolan Freakin' Ryan!), Grove is the choice. I know that either 7 or 8 members of my all-time team were chosen on the list my friend showed me from her sports publication (I'll try to remember to call her tomorrow--actually, much later today--and ask her what it was). Grove was among them. That portion of the discussion began, "For some inexplicable reason, the greatest pitcher of all time is not even on a lot of lists...." I am now trying to remember whether they differed from me on only one, or two, players. I know they differed at catcher, where I have Campanella (my quirky choice). Yes, that's it. We were 8 for 9 in agreement.

But I have a confession to make, which will elicit peals of derisive laughter that will (rightly) follow me about for some time. On my all-time team at that point, the starting LF--as in the mag's team--was Rickey Henderson. Not Williams or Musial. Elsewhere, you'll find nothing to laugh at: Mays, Ruth, Schmidt, Wagner, Morgan, Gehrig and Grove. I think they had Bench, not Berra, at catcher.

BHN

[SABR Matt]

t's good to know my ranting and raving about Ford being badly overrated got through to at least one good baseball fan out there. :D

[RuthMayBond]

It's no wonder that much of the world is scornful and mistrustful of lawyers... :ughh

Tell me, EH, would "these attorneys you know" by any chance include you? :)Hopefully, ElHalo wouldn't be a part of any group that would have HIM as a member . . .
. . . present company excluded :D

[flash143817]

I was considering not jumping in, but just reading, the threads tonight, but then I see Spahn ranked SIXTH on the alltime lefties list, and I am forced into action.

True, I am on record on this site as a huge Spahn supporter (even touted him in the "Extreme Positions" thread as the top pitcher of all time, just to start the dogs chewing, as you would say, Flash). But I am also on record as a big admirer of Koufax, and fully behind his HOF status, because I have read all about how he pitched and dominated, and have watched entire games of his on film.

If you looked strictly at his lifetime numbers and had never seen him in action, however, I suppose you could easily question his election. Thankfully, the HOF, for all its flaws, has shown itself to have a broader perspective about electees than simply their numbers. It is not the LPGA HOF, whereby you must win X number of tournaments, or you don't get in. The baseball HOF considers other qualities, like impact upon the game, and the immensity of a man's talent. Justice Warren Burger (I believe) said it once about pornography: "I cannot precisely define what pornography is. But I know it when I see it."

Same with Koufax. Forgotting about numbers for a second, he simply had HOF quality. Can anybody deny that? Older old-timers say exactly the same about Dean, who also was cut down by injury before he could build huge lifetime numbers.

So clearly, I deduct little or nothing from a player's ranking due to a shortened career. But I most certainly add points for a longer career--what's wrong with that? Spahn, quite simply, had the greatest LONG career of possibly anybody except Cy Young.

I won't insult this crowd with a long list of Spahn's numbers, because you all know them. But I will just hit you with two:

1.) Number of 20-win seasons: 13. Any idea what a sick number that is in the post-war era? That is more than Koufax's number of total seasons played.

2.) His 1963 season, at age 42: 23-7, 2.60, 7 shutouts, 22 CG. The latter figure topped everyone in the NL, including 27-year-old Cy winner Koufax, and marked the 7th CONSECUTIVE year he had led in that category.

Oh, I forgot to add: He didn't win his first ML game until he was 25.

I know you're big on "peaks" when considering a man's career, and so am I. But I'm even more impressed by sustained brilliance. I'm sure you're aware that your man, Grove, did not win 20 games the last six years of his career, and watching Carlton hang on after he turned 40 was sheer torture for his fans.

In conclusion, I almost never quibble with BBF people over a rung or two in player rankings, and I won't do so here. But, in a list of all-time lefthanders, putting Spahn SIXTH? Whatever the folks are smoking up your way, I need to place an order right now!

freak

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.

[DoubleX]

Warren Spahn had a very good and very long career, but his career was utterly bereft of true and total DOMINANCE over the game the way Koufax, Grove, RJ, Newhouser, and Hubbell dominated in their primes. He was just very consistently above average for a long time. Nothing wrong with that, but there's no reason for me to place him ahead of any of those five I mentioned.

I posted a similar comment about Spahn like a year ago when explaining why I had him a little lower in my rankings then most. Great long career, but no real period of sustained dominance. Since then, however, I'm starting to think that maybe that had something to do with the pitching landscape of the NL during his career. ERA+ in the NL during the 50s seemed down overall (though I haven't done the research to support this, only a superificial look). Spahn's ERA+, usually between 115-125, were almost always good for being in the top 10 every year, if not top 5. I don't know how many other eras that an ERA+ like that would consistently rank among the best in the league. The same seems to go for Robin Roberts, whose ERA+ was a little bit higher, in the 120-135 range, but was good enough for top 5 most years. Anyway, I was wondering if you've noticed anything about the pitching landscape in the NL in the 50s?

[ElHalo]

Hopefully, ElHalo wouldn't be a part of any group that would have HIM as a member . . .
. . . present company excluded :D
Absolutely true. I know my own limitations, and I set the bar very, very low as a result. I don't expect anyone to believe a single word I say, much less every word I say.

[RuthMayBond]

Absolutely true. I know my own limitations, and I set the bar very, very low as a result. I don't expect anyone to believe a single word I say, much less every word I say.OK, I don't believe a single word that . . . I shouldn't believe a single word of yours. Wait a minute, that means I SHOULD believe you. Ah, the world of lawyers ;)

[SABR Matt]

I posted a similar comment about Spahn like a year ago when explaining why I had him a little lower in my rankings then most. Great long career, but no real period of sustained dominance. Since then, however, I'm starting to think that maybe that had something to do with the pitching landscape of the NL during his career. ERA+ in the NL during the 50s seemed down overall (though I haven't done the research to support this, only a superificial look). Spahn's ERA+, usually between 115-125, were almost always good for being in the top 10 every year, if not top 5. I don't know how many other eras that an ERA+ like that would consistently rank among the best in the league. The same seems to go for Robin Roberts, whose ERA+ was a little bit higher, in the 120-135 range, but was good enough for top 5 most years. Anyway, I was wondering if you've noticed anything about the pitching landscape in the NL in the 50s?

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. Spahn's problem was that he relied more on defense than other great pitchers to whom he is compared, even relative to the league.

[DoubleX]

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. Spahn's problem was that he relied more on defense than other great pitchers to whom he is compared, even relative to the league.

How does Roberts come out?

[csh19792001]

Well, see above, for starters.

I think we've all seen a lot of people select an all-time team.

BHN

BHN,

I've actually hardly seen any historians who rank Grove ahead of Johnson. We might be looking at different sources....but...

In 1999 the members of SABR, collectively, chose Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever. That includes John Thorn, who next to Bill James, is probably the most well reknowned baseball historian in the country today. He doesn't have the hype and panache, but he knows at least as much about the game's history as James.

Last time we ran a poll of our constituency here (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=538931&postcount=88) , Johnson was came out #1 alltime by a good margin.

We ended up with Johnson, Clemens, and Young as our top 3 so far. When we ran the same thing a year ago, Johnson again won handily, with Grove ending up #3. The slight drop in Grove's rankings this time around is probably due mainly to WJackman's extensive contributions regarding Grove's 1929'-31' seasons- Grove's greatest- and the years when he staked his claim to being the best in the world. Those seasons were undoubtedly artificially augmented during due to Mack's coddling usage pattern. He hardly faced the Yankees at all when they put together the greatest offenses in baseball history...and like Whitey Ford, he had the tremendous advantage of never had to face his own awesome lineup, either. I can't see how these aren't vital components of the Grove puzzle.

And either without Jackman's historical info on Grove's peak taken into account....as far as value and statistical means, I've yet to see any published means of derivation that ranks Grove ahead of Johnson.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that as a result of all everything I've been exposed to, when I heard James had put Grove #1 in his 1985 abstact, I was really surprised, however I wasn't shocked at his update for his latest book. The only guy that I've seen that people are giving a shot to dethrone Johnson is Roger Clemens...but I myself vacillate on that one because I'm suspicious of his old age years.

Here's one poll we had apropos to Clemens' place amongst the alltime greats:

Is Roger Clemens the greatest pitcher ever? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1753)

So what are we all missing? Perhaps I (or maybe people in general) need to further edify ourselves on Grove in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective on his life and career. At the moment I've got two baseball history books going, but would love to procure some recommended reading for the near future. :o

[SABR Matt]

Oh BTW...I was wrong...

Grove is 4th on my list
Johnson is 9th
but Hubbell is 10th
and Koufax is 17th

Spahn is 24th BTW (7th among lefties, also behind Waddell and Newhouser)

And Roberts is a good solid 38th on the pitching list.

[WJackman]

During his early tenure as skipper of the Red Sox, Joe Cronin did not have a handle on his players. His fielding was atrocious and players like Foxx, Grove and Wes Ferrell were disgusted every time he took the field. Grove hated to pitch in cold spring weather and his career is dotted with missed starts in which his teammates had to take up the slack. Damn everyone else's stats as long as Lefty's didn't take a wallop.

After Boston acquired Pinky Higgins over the winter of '36-'37 to play third base, the Sox projected infield looked to be Foxx at first, Cronin at second, McNair at short and Higgins at third. Everyone in baseball at that time felt McNair to be the superior shortstop over Cronin. No one expected Bobby Doerr to excel to the level that he did. This caused Foxx, who disliked Cronin as much as Grove did, to declare publically that there was no room in the infield for Clark Griffith's son-in-law.

Unfortunately McNair's wife had died during childbirth early in 1937 and the still grieving player had to leave his infant child at home to report to spring training. "McNair's case is a sad one," said Sox GM Eddie Collins, "Time is the only healer. He's in good physical shape but it still shaken up. There isn't a thing you can do about it and we're all hoping it wears off soon."

With McNair's not up to par, Cronin took the opportunity to move himself back to shortstop.

Two days later, on April 7, 1937, Cronin's wife delivered twins in Sarasota, where the Sox were having spring training. Tragically, both babies died. The very next day Oscar Melillo, whose wife had given birth just a week earlier in Chicago, took a turn for the worse. He headed home to Chicago and McNair was home in Mississippi seeing to his child.

Cronin stayed with his wife in Florida as the team broke camp and moved north. Herb Pennock was running the team when they stopped in Atlanta for an exhibition game that Grove started.

Typical of Lefty, he became all pissy when his makeshift and depleted infield made a first inning error.

"Mr. Grove staged one of his typical tempermental outbursts that are fast ceasing even to be slightly funny," reported the Boston Globe. "He divided his time between tossing up his sandlot-ish balloon ball and his medium fast ball through the slot for the Crackers to take batting practice. Even the numerous local rooters didn't appreciate Mr. Grove's humor and sat in stunned silence throughout the Grovian burlesque."

Pennock was incensed and he and Grove almost came to blows. Grove grabbed his gear and stalked off the field. "While little has been about the matter," continued the Globe, "it was such ructions by Mr. Grove on occasions last year that helped considerably to undermine the morale of the Yawkey forces. And the same club has been hampered enough by events beyond its control already this season not to care for any handicaps manufactured under their own steam."

Grove opened the season with his typical litany of complaints and did little pitching until the weather got warm.

Grove's career is littered with incidents like this.

[csh19792001]

Grove's career is littered with incidents like this.

Dick,
Man, I sure wished you had the time (or perhaps inclination?) to post here more. This site is in desperate need of historians.

And beyond the numbers, when I continue to read stuff like this about Grove, it makes me think less of him as a pitcher, not more.

Also- how's the biography going?

[WJackman]

The Jackman project is tedious but rewarding. I have over 250 of his pitching boxscores in the database. I hope to have something on him in SABR's The National Pastime next year.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

BHN,

I've actually hardly seen any historians who rank Grove ahead of Johnson. We might be looking at different sources....but...

In 1999 the members of SABR, collectively, chose Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever. That includes John Thorn, who next to Bill James, is probably the most well reknowned baseball historian in the country today. He doesn't have the hype and panache, but he knows at least as much about the game's history as James.

Last time we ran a poll of our constituency here (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=538931&postcount=88) , Johnson was came out #1 alltime by a good margin.

We ended up with Johnson, Clemens, and Young as our top 3 so far. When we ran the same thing a year ago, Johnson again won handily, with Grove ending up #3. The slight drop in Grove's rankings this time around is probably due mainly to WJackman's extensive contributions regarding Grove's 1929'-31' seasons- Grove's greatest- and the years when he staked his claim to being the best in the world. Those seasons were undoubtedly artificially augmented during due to Mack's coddling usage pattern. He hardly faced the Yankees at all when they put together the greatest offenses in baseball history...and like Whitey Ford, he had the tremendous advantage of never had to face his own awesome lineup, either. I can't see how these aren't vital components of the Grove puzzle.

And either without Jackman's historical info on Grove's peak taken into account....as far as value and statistical means, I've yet to see any published means of derivation that ranks Grove ahead of Johnson.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that as a result of all everything I've been exposed to, when I heard James had put Grove #1 in his 1985 abstact, I was really surprised, however I wasn't shocked at his update for his latest book. The only guy that I've seen that people are giving a shot to dethrone Johnson is Roger Clemens...but I myself vacillate on that one because I'm suspicious of his old age years.

Here's one poll we had apropos to Clemens' place amongst the alltime greats:

Is Roger Clemens the greatest pitcher ever? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1753)

So what are we all missing? Perhaps I (or maybe people in general) need to further edify ourselves on Grove in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective on his life and career. At the moment I've got two baseball history books going, but would love to procure some recommended reading for the near future. :o

I am not sure how anyone can "miss" 9 ERA titles in those parks, in a career which was truncated by 4 or 5 years, because Grove was locked up contractually on a privately owened minor league team, posting ludicrously good records. As I said, it's an irrefragable fact he hit the ground with his feet running in MLB, as shown by his strikeout and ERA feats. So it seems hard to me to deny he would have won AT LEAST 40 more games, probably 60 to 80 more, had he started 4 years earlier. And he would have won at least 1 or 2 more ERA titles, I believe, although that fact is not "irrefragable." The only possible counter-argument is this:

The guy was an early-day Randy Johnson. He was "only" 6'2.5" or 6'3", but he had unnaturally long arms and could scrape the pitcher's mound with his knuckles. (He also had that impossible-to-pick-up motion of Johnson's, so the ball was almost on you before you saw it.) He only weighed something like 170 pounds. And he threw nothing but that incredible fastball. That being the case, even though he was throwing that fastball all the time in the minors, he MIGHT have thrown it harder once he hit MLB, and he thus might have had to throw harder at age 21 had he been in MLB, and thus he might have REALLY blown out his arm--as in finis, kaput--at age 34, or younger, leaving no room for the greatest reincarnation in baseball history (and there's no dispute that's what he had from 1935-1939, IMO; Tommy John or whoever isn't close).

AS FOR BIO'S: I don't know if I can help you, BUT: The bio I read on him was titled "Lefty Grove American Original," and was written by Jim Kaplan. It's got the SABR logo at the top of its spine, so you've probably read it.

If not, you should. It was well-reviewed by baseball history authors, and I mean GREAT ones (see below), but I'm not sure why. It's certainly not a well-written book from a literary standpoint, like Alexander's bio of Cobb, let alone Creamer's masterpiece about Ruth's incredible life.

The bio does, however, lay out all of Grove's career, in detail, and it saves 28 whole pages at the end for the 34 years of his life after baseball. The final chapter is analytical, and is titled: "The best pitcher ever? Grove? Johnson? Koufax?"

In his analysis, Kaplan gives more weight to Johnson's 1924 and 1925 seasons than I do, but he still concludes Grove "trumps" Johnson, and this without the benefit of Adjusted ERA. As for Koufax, it is inarguable that Grove had a better career than him and only the blindest person would suggest otherwise. The only question is who had the better peak... a question incapable of precise resolution, since Grove pitched under enormously more difficult conditions (great hitters' era versus miserable one; good hitters' park and then fantastic RH hitters' park vs. abominable hitters' park), but on the other hand Koufax's raw ERA's and other numbers were significantly better. And Koufax had to pitch to Mays and Aaron. Grove did not have to pitch to Foxx during his prime, and, for a short period, did not pitch much to Ruth or Gehrig--though the extent to which this is true has, I believe, been vastly exaggerated at this site. It was, of course, GROVE who ended the Yankees' legendary, unbreakable, 308-game consecutive streak of not being shutout on August 3, 1933.

The simple fact is that, just as this site has many people who are relentlessly result-oriented in their pursuit of the conclusion Cobb was the greatest player ever, it also has quite a few--none more driven than Mr. Jackman--who will process only evidence which works against Grove. I'm fine with that evidence. I'm NOT fine with result-oriented analysis, which, of course, is my problem with Henry Thomas's book about Grandpappy.

Anyway, Kaplan gives the edge to Grove over Johnson and did not, as of the time he wrote the book in 2000, see any case for anyone else over Grove. How he would feel about Maddux or Clemens, or about the peaks of Pedro or Maddux, I do not know. I will admit that I, looking at those matters fairly, see some genuinely arguable issues there.

Kaplan also did not really say how he had resolved the issue of Grove's peak value vs. Koufax's. He measured a lot of numbers, many of which came out in Grove's favor (including wins and W-L%), and many of which came out in Koufax's (most dramatically, of course, raw ERA).

Comments about the book:

"It's astonishing how today's list makers keep overlooking Lefty Grove, who if not the best pitcher in baseball history is very close to it. Now Jim Kaplan in this marvelously researched [note: he did not say `marvelously written'] biography gives the great lefthander the attention he so richly deserves." ROBERT CREAMER.

"Finally, the best pitcher in baseball history gets the recognition he deserves, in a biography fully worthy of its subject. Those who do not recognize Grove's greatness should be compelled to read Jim Kaplan's fine book; if they remain unconvinced, they're beyond salvation." DANIEL OKRENT.

Those are a couple of pretty big names, wouldn't you agree?

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

During his early tenure as skipper of the Red Sox, Joe Cronin did not have a handle on his players. His fielding was atrocious and players like Foxx, Grove and Wes Ferrell were disgusted every time he took the field. Grove hated to pitch in cold spring weather and his career is dotted with missed starts in which his teammates had to take up the slack. Damn everyone else's stats as long as Lefty's didn't take a wallop.

After Boston acquired Pinky Higgins over the winter of '36-'37 to play third base, the Sox projected infield looked to be Foxx at first, Cronin at second, McNair at short and Higgins at third. Everyone in baseball at that time felt McNair to be the superior shortstop over Cronin. No one expected Bobby Doerr to excel to the level that he did. This caused Foxx, who disliked Cronin as much as Grove did, to declare publically that there was no room in the infield for Clark Griffith's son-in-law.

Unfortunately McNair's wife had died during childbirth early in 1937 and the still grieving player had to leave his infant child at home to report to spring training. "McNair's case is a sad one," said Sox GM Eddie Collins, "Time is the only healer. He's in good physical shape but it still shaken up. There isn't a thing you can do about it and we're all hoping it wears off soon."

With McNair's not up to par, Cronin took the opportunity to move himself back to shortstop.

Two days later, on April 7, 1937, Cronin's wife delivered twins in Sarasota, where the Sox were having spring training. Tragically, both babies died. The very next day Oscar Melillo, whose wife had given birth just a week earlier in Chicago, took a turn for the worse. He headed home to Chicago and McNair was home in Mississippi seeing to his child.

Cronin stayed with his wife in Florida as the team broke camp and moved north. Herb Pennock was running the team when they stopped in Atlanta for an exhibition game that Grove started.

Typical of Lefty, he became all pissy when his makeshift and depleted infield made a first inning error.

"Mr. Grove staged one of his typical tempermental outbursts that are fast ceasing even to be slightly funny," reported the Boston Globe. "He divided his time between tossing up his sandlot-ish balloon ball and his medium fast ball through the slot for the Crackers to take batting practice. Even the numerous local rooters didn't appreciate Mr. Grove's humor and sat in stunned silence throughout the Grovian burlesque."

Pennock was incensed and he and Grove almost came to blows. Grove grabbed his gear and stalked off the field. "While little has been about the matter," continued the Globe, "it was such ructions by Mr. Grove on occasions last year that helped considerably to undermine the morale of the Yawkey forces. And the same club has been hampered enough by events beyond its control already this season not to care for any handicaps manufactured under their own steam."

Grove opened the season with his typical litany of complaints and did little pitching until the weather got warm.

Grove's career is littered with incidents like this.

I am certain all of this is true.

The story about Grove's tearing apart the visitors' locker room in Sportsman's Park, locker by locker, and showerhead by showerhead, is also true. That occurred after lazy Al Simmons took a day off, and a rookie's error caused Grove to lose 1-0, thereby ending his 16-game winning streak in 1931, the year he went 31-4.

Grove was a gracious guy off the field and a monster on it. And, to his great detriment, he didn't have the sense or the good grace to keep that fury channeled solely toward his opponents. It is, without doubt, his greatest negative point as a player.

On the other hand, that same burning fury is what made him such a great pitcher. He was the Clemens/Pedro of his day toward opponents, and just as their appalling attitudes have helped make them the incredible pitchers they are, it helped make him the greatest pitcher of all time. Without it, do you think that Grove, a one-pitch pitcher at that time, could have gone 79-15 from 1929-1931, or 128-33 from 1928-1932?

Not any more than Cobb could have been, at a minimum, one of the five greatest players ever--I would say, one of the best 2 or 3--without his atavistic, animalistic attitudes on the field. And it is BY NO MEANS clear to me, after reading History Professor Charles Alexander's scholarly biography of Cobb, that his furies and selfish attitudes about his statistics were good for his team. I know they all stood behind him when he went into the stands after that heckler in, what, 1912? But anyone who really reads that book will find a lot of ways in which Cobb's furies--and obsessions with his own magnificent statistics--were anything but healthy for his team.

Are we to knock him down a few rungs, too? Not at this site, for sure. And I don't believe we should, at any site, because newspaper writers don't really know any more than we do about how the antics of Cobb or Grove actually affected a team. Grove won his last ERA titles in 1938 and 1939. Look at the stats of Foxx for those two years, and of a young rookie named Ted Williams for 1939. Looks like they were really down in the dumps, huh?

BHN

[WJackman]

Three reasons for Grove's 1929-1931 won-lost record.

1. He was a great pitcher.
2. He didn't pitch very much against the Yankees.
3. He didn't have to pitch against the Atheltics.

What do you think his won-lost record would have looked like had he played those same three seasons for the Red Sox? Ruffing was 36-96 during his years with Boston, so I doubt that Grove would have been much better.

[csh19792001]

Three reasons for Grove's 1929-1931 won-lost record.

1. He was a great pitcher.
2. He didn't pitch very much against the Yankees.
3. He didn't have to pitch against the Atheltics.

What do you think his won-lost record would have looked like had he played those same three seasons for the Red Sox? Ruffing was 36-96 during his years with Boston, so I doubt that Grove would have been much better.

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.

[BoSox Rule]

Three reasons for Grove's 1929-1931 won-lost record.

1. He was a great pitcher.
2. He didn't pitch very much against the Yankees.
3. He didn't have to pitch against the Atheltics.

What do you think his won-lost record would have looked like had he played those same three seasons for the Red Sox? Ruffing was 36-96 during his years with Boston, so I doubt that Grove would have been much better.You say he was a great pitcher but go on to say his W/L% wouldn't have been much better than .273. What gives.

[SABR Matt]

He's saying both Grove and Ruffing were great pitchers...but people don't talk about Ruffing because of who he pitched for.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Three reasons for Grove's 1929-1931 won-lost record.

1. He was a great pitcher.
2. He didn't pitch very much against the Yankees.
3. He didn't have to pitch against the Atheltics.

What do you think his won-lost record would have looked like had he played those same three seasons for the Red Sox? Ruffing was 36-96 during his years with Boston, so I doubt that Grove would have been much better.

That is comical. Lefty Grove vs. Red Ruffing. Put that on the cover of your books, would you, please? How many ERA titles did Ruffing win? How many times did Ruffing lead the league in K's? (Red Ruffing. <giggle> Next week on this channel: Grove, compared to Ron Herbel; Christy Mathewson, compared to Dennis "Oil Can" Boyd; and Pedro Martinez compared to Rube Walberg.)

I'll tell you this: You will never see me intimate that Cy Young or Walter Johnson was an early day version of Don Sutton or Tommy John, because the strength of my conviction about Grove as #1 does not cause me to say ridiculous things or hold ridiculous beliefs about other pitchers. It won't cause me to say that Johnson had tremendous fielders (which he did), and a HR-proof ballpark (which he did), and that he therefore had everything in his favor and wasn't nearly as great as people think (which would be an ignorant, result-oriented, non sequitur).

Anyway, the above is the sort of silly post someone with an agenda makes. When I first got to this site, I was cautioned about your anti-Grove agenda. The person who gave me that cautionary word was right. You go with your posts and books. Anyone who can look up ERA titles, much less W-L records, will see the truth.

But since you're a professional historian, and since you surely want to be objective, why don't you post a list of the number of innings Grove pitched, year-by-year, against various teams throughout his career? Let's see just how pampered he was for all of those 17 years. Let's see exactly how phony all of those magnificent ERA's and Adjusted ERA's are. Let's see just how fraudulent that 300-141 record, or those mindbending 3-year and 5-year runs of W-L records, are.

Conclusional assertions are nice, and I realize MACK started not using Grove against the Yankees in, what, 1929? And yes, I know Grove was a sorehead of world-class proportions when he did lose a game. But was his headline-news shutout of the Yankee dynasty in 1933 his first start against them in 4 years? I doubt it.

Please put the stats there for all of us to benefit from. Year by year. Not just one or two years that tend to support your position. THE WHOLE THING, so we get the whole truth, not just what suits your preconceived agenda.

Anyone can write something with a predetermined goal in mind. Five supposedly fierce, lifelong states' rights advocates did it in Bush v. Gore, ordering a sovereign state to stop counting its votes IMMEDIATELY. I see appellate courts do it all the time, reaching the result they desire no matter what the facts and the supposedly controlling law dictate.

I don't need to see it in baseball history discussions.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

He's saying both Grove and Ruffing were great pitchers...but people don't talk about Ruffing because of who he pitched for.

That's a bit kind, Matt. He said a lot more than that.