Warren Spahn vs. Sandy Koufax

[The Kid]

The two greatest southpaws ever. Who do you think was better? I say Koufax-great numbers an injury shortened career. Spahn comes close though. Very close.

[BoSox Rule]

Spahn. And I'd say Grove has a tiny, well no its actually huge, chance to be one of the two greatest southpaws. Forget that. He's number one.

[mwiggins]

Peak - Koufax by a mile
Career - Spahn by a mile

I rank Spahn higher overall. I have him 12th and Koufax 14.


But Lefty Grove is by far the best lefty ever. He's got a better peak than Koufax and more career value than Spahn. Those two would be 3rd and 4th behind him and Randy Johnson.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The two greatest southpaws ever.
Lefty Grove and Randy Johnson say hi. :waving

[IJoshKetisa]

era: koufax
k/9: koufax
0.95 postseason era and three ws: koufax
h/9: koufax
best peak ever: koufax

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I can't decide on my vote. This is a philosophical question,really. Are we talking peak value or career value or both?

[W_Marone]

Sandy Koufax is probably my second all time favorite pitcher behind Juan Marichal, so I can't vote in this poll, not with fair rational toward each pitcher....Both outstanding pitchers though... Most of today's pitchers would give thier right arm to pitch like these guys.... get it, becuase they were lefties....hahahaha

[KCGHOST]

Koufax is my all-time favorite player, but careerwise he is no match for Spahn.

[Murderers Row]

The fact that Koufax even recieved votes boggles the mind.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Except that Koufax murders Spahn in peak value, and he was lights out in the WS. I like Koufax's curve.

[Murderers Row]

It's nice to have a great peak, but other than that, what did Koufax do?

[EvanAparra]

World Series. I'd say that quantifies as something.

[Murderers Row]

Weren't those WS during his peak years???

[torez77]

Koufax is my all-time favorite player, but careerwise he is no match for Spahn.

Compare Koufax's career averages to Spahn's, and you'll see Koufax is way better. Now I know Spahn had more years to bring his averages down, but it really doesn't matter, because Spahn's peak doesn't even approach Sandy's. Also, keep in mind that Koufax's first 6 years weren't pretty. The strikeouts were there, but the control was not, and his ERAs and winning percentages were nothing to write home about. And still his career K/BB ratio is so much better than Spahn's, his winning percentage is 50-plus points better, and his ERA+ is 13 points better. Virtually all of this is due to his last 5 years, but hey, Koufax accomplished more in those 5 years than most pitchers do in their careers. Koufax may be the best one-game pitcher of all time, and if I had a choice between Spahn and Koufax to win one game for me, I wouldn't hesitate to choose Koufax. The only thing Spahn has Koufax beat in is longevity, and that's only career longevity, cuz in his busiest seasons Koufax pitched more innings than Spahn did in his busiest seasons.

Don't get me wrong. Spahn was great, and his remarkable consistency throughout his entire career cannot be overlooked. But when you compare the two at their respective peaks, it's not even close. Koufax WAS better, case closed. I can see, however, why someone would rank Spahn over Koufax, cuz Spahn = career value, Koufax = peak value. I choose to go with peak value on this one.

[EvanAparra]

Weren't those WS during his peak years???

I was unaware that the post-season counts towards peak seasons. In that case, it just makes his peak so much better than it already was before..

That being said, I still voted Spahn.

[Edgartohof]

Spahn, because he lasted so much longer than Sandy, though it is still close.

[torez77]

In my last post, I said Spahn = career value, Koufax = peak value. It's actually Koufax = peak and career value. Just cuz his career was short does not in any way mean he lacked career value. Some people think career value means longevity only. Not at all.

[Murderers Row]

Koufax had 241 pitching runs and an ERA+ of 131 in 2324 innings
Spahn had 365 pitching runs and an ERA+ of 118 in 5243 innings.

How does Koufax have more career value?

[torez77]

It depends on how you define career value. If you value quantity over quality, you'll take Spahn. Koufax averages a lot more pitching runs than Spahn, and his ERA+ is 13 points better despite his rough first 6 years. Koufax's career averages are much better in every department.

[Murderers Row]

It's easier to have higher career average when you pitch 3000 less innings.

[torez77]

Very true. But as I said before, Koufax struggled for half of his career, and Spahn did not have a long period of struggles to bring his averages down. His averages were pretty much the same throughout his whole career. Now this could be seen as knock on Koufax, and a testament to Spahn for his consistency. But my point is, Koufax's career numbers are among the best in history, whether or not his career was short. You can't just look at how much of each stat they compiled at the end of their careers, you have to look at how good their averages were.

[Murderers Row]

Yes but his career was short. You act as if half of his career is a long time. It's only 5 years.

[torez77]

No, I'm taking Koufax's entire 12-year career into account, and comparing his career averages to Spahn's.

[plask_stirlac]

Spahn definitely wins in career value, as he is pretty much the definition (or one of the Top 5).

Koufax had four superb years in the 60s, but Spahn went from the 40s to the 60s with terrific pitching as well against better offense, with one World Series triumph and the very cusp of defending it. It's like gauging the impact of Kennedy aganst FDR, Kennedy did a ton but not as much overall.

Sandy could win in career value if Warren had retired after the 1957 series, about 12 seasons since he stuck in the majors. But of course he played quite a few more years, very well.

[Murderers Row]

No, I'm taking Koufax's entire 12-year career into account, and comparing his career averages to Spahn's.

You don't think theres anything wrong with comapring 12 year averages to 21 year averages?

[torez77]

Not when one's averages are so far superior to another.

[Murderers Row]

I disagree. We're never going to agree on this so I'm not going to try.

[torez77]

Well, it's not like Koufax's career was only 5 years (though some people wrongly look at him as just a 5-year pitcher). He pitched for 12 years, which is a long enough time for a pitcher to establish a career that can be ranked.

[iPod]

Through his first 12 seasons, Spahn's ERA+ was 126, nearly as good as Koufax's 131. But Spahn won 20 games 5 times after that point. If you take Koufax and I take Spahn, how are you going to feel during that decade after Koufax burns out and Spahn keeps on plugging away year after year? To me, if I were to choose one to have from the start till the end of their careers, I'd take Spahn. If that means I think Spahn is better, then I guess Spahn is better.

[Brian McKenna]

The two greatest southpaws ever. Who do you think was better? I say Koufax-great numbers an injury shortened career. Spahn comes close though. Very close.

Grove was better than both of these guys. Perhaps the best or second best pitcher regardless of dominant hand.

What is it with all these flawed polls on BBF omitting the obvious?

Of the flawed poll, though, How could anyone not vote for Spahn?

[The Kid]

How does Koufax have more career value?

You forget that Koufax put up great numbers while still battleling career threatening arm injuries.

[Murderers Row]

That's unfortunate, but I'm not giving him credit for that.

[Ubiquitous]

You forget that Koufax put up great numbers while still battleling career threatening arm injuries.

And Warren Spahn put up great numbers while battling injuries caused by the Germans. Guess which one I think trumps the other.

[mwiggins]

You forget that Koufax put up great numbers while still battleling career threatening arm injuries.


He did have that arm injury running the bases, in '64 I believe. But much of his problem was that his arm just wasn't made for pitching the way he did. The things that made his peak so great - tons of innings, throwing very hard, and his wicked curve - also made it likely his arm woudn't be able to handle the strain.

[538280]

Why does Koufax having a better peak eliminate the fact that Koufax's rate stats are inflated due to a short career? If Koufax had the same peak, but just stuck around as mediocre for another 3000 or so innings would you be able to say his rates are so much better? They'd probably be worse.

[plask_stirlac]

If I'm a GM combined with manager, I want Spahn. Perhaps he was never as transcendant as Koufax's Big 4 seasons other than 1953, but he's the rare type of pitcher who could have had children after the war, and still been a Top 10 NL arm by the time they're graduating high school.

He and Sain more or less closed out August and September in 1957, like the saying. I've read about it and it was pretty impressive, I usually hadn't seen Spahn as a truly incredible arm. So the possibility of a team run was there as it was for the Dodgers, but in 1946 you could also date a 1963 scorecard with Spahnie and still get a great start when the time came.

Koufax was better in his peak and proved more valuable, there was enough of a sample to say that even though he had better conditions for pitchers. And maybe he had enough to prove he was more effective overall, depending on how you look at it, I won't rule that out. It's just that you can you can take the value from two Spahn innings against Sandy's. Pujols has proven he can hit with nearly everyone in MLB history, consistently (including his insane AB totals before this year, 590 +/- 2) from 2001-06 (like Koufax 61-66), but if he decided that he had done enough and proven himself as a modern Jimmie Foxx that would probably be ridiculous.

[rugbyfreak]

This is a great thread because it pits two opposing HOF philosophies smack against one another: the value of peak vs. that of career. Plus, you couldn't pick two better, more extreme examples of each. Personally, I happen to be a career guy, with the caveat that an extremely impressive peak can also carry one to the HOF, provided there is some minimum longevity logged. Koufax, thankfully ducked in under the bar there, where even the most ardent career guys, for the most part, consider him a HOF pitcher. But IMO he BARELY made it, and needed every inch of his career. Just think if he had retired after '64 (when he had that season-ending injury), or even after '65 (his greatest year, start to finish). Minus that last year or two, I'm not sure he makes it, or at least, he'd be the most discussed and controversial HOF ever. Not in the same, dubious way that Beauty Bancroft or High Pockets Kelly are discussed, but for the endless debate about what constitutes a full, HOF career.

Those of you who know me by now as a huge Spahn guy know that I'm pleased that he took this poll, although I was surprised by the large margin, since I have noticed how big Koufax's support is around here (from me included). But in all-time rankings, I put Spahn pretty solidly ahead of Koufax, but that's because of the way I value longtime, sustained greatness over meteoric greatness. I especially believe this about pitching, since the strain on the arm is so great and makes longevity so iffy. And Koufax, as we all know, is Exhibit A for what a heavy pitching load can do to the arm.

But talk about two different animals! Spahn will never win anybody's "One game, one pitcher" poll, because in such a poll, we will always take the peak guy over the career workhorse. Koufax wins many of these polls (including my vote), and rightfully so.

But that doesn't matter. There are so many impressive things to cite about Spahnie that one never knows where to start. But I always point out what a great OLD pitcher he was. From his age-35 season through his age-42 season ('56-'63), consider the following:

--A 20-game winner 7 of those 8 years, 18 W the other (sorry, old-school stat or not, that's impressive);
--CYA at age 36 ('57);
--AS every year but one;
--ERA+ of 114 or better every year but one (ERA champ at age 40);
--260 or more IP in EVERY year (led league at ages 37 and 38);
--Led league in SHO at ages 38 and 40);
--First two career no-hitters at ages 39 and 40;
--Finally, most sick of all, led NL in complete games EACH of those last seven years! ('57 -'63).

I haven't even discussed the first 10 years of his career ('46-'55--I don't count a 4-game stint in '42, before he went off to war). There is no need to. Those last 8 full years of his career (before declining into part-time play in '64 and '65) are ALMOST enough by themselves to warrant a HOF nod.

Simply an incredible career. After some thousands of viewings, I am still dumbfounded by the last of these final 8 seasons--1963, at age 42. Not only still holding his own, but it was the BEST one of all, and arguably, the best year of his entire 21-year career. I invite everyone to give that stat line one more gander. It speaks for itself.

[AlecBoy006]

HELLO! Somebody put Carlton as one of the best lefties of all time.

Anyway, Spahn murders Koufax.

[csh19792001]

Do you honestly disagree?

Carlton WAS one of the best lefties ever. He put up one of the greatest pitching seasons in baseball history, winning almost half of the Phillies' games in 1972. He also won 20 six times, was the last guy to throw 300 innings, and will probably be 11th alltime in wins forever (that includes guys pitching in the three man rotation).

He's one of the top few lefties ever. If his agent hadn't screwed him out of a fortune (well over a million dollars) he would have been able to retire much earlier, and his rate stats (which almost everyone here seems to prefer) would have been much better.

[AlecBoy006]

I'd probably rate Carlton #3-4ish for lefties. 1-2 is stretching it I think.

[wrgptfan]

A few years ago I came up with a metric in which I attempted to measure a pitcher's performance based on career productivity and peak value. I calculated the pitcher's career Adjusted Games Saved (AGS) and added to that his AGS for his top 5 years and added to that his AGS for his best 3 consecutive years. The methodology used can be found in this thread:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=27614

Using this metric, Koufax and Spahn had he following "values":



Pitcher Career 5 Best 3 Consecutive Total
================================================== =====
Sandy Koufax 67.03 61.71 42.51 171.24
Warren Spahn 88.45 46.67 26.01 161.13


Obviously if you decided to use career + either of 5 best years or 3 consecutive years, Spahn would come out ahead. So depending on how you want to weigh career vs peak, either one of them could come out as being the better pitcher. For me, Koufax is marginally better.

However, using the 3 categories above, one pitcher is the leader in all 3. Surprise, surprise, it is Walter Johnson. He had a career AGS of almost 216 (~25 better than Cy Young - using only data from 1901+), 5 best seasons of 103 AGS and best 3 consecutive seasons of almost 64 AGS for a total AGS "value" of 383.

[Fatbill]

The only reason Sandy Koufax was so freakish was because he destroyed his arm doing it (his fault).
Warren Spahn pitched probably 3x the innings of Koufax and was almost as good, so Spahn is much better.

Greatest Lefty's Ever
1. Randy Johnson
2. Warren Spahn
3. Steve Carlton
4. Sandy Koufax
5. Whitey Ford

[Myankee4life]

FatBill, you forgot the # 1 lefty ever.

Lefty Grove

[Mariano_Rivera]

One day i go wtih peak the other I go with longevity. I go with Spahn here though

BTW Interesting fact is that BP has one of Spahn's years only being slightly worse than Koufax's best year

[Fatbill]

FatBill, you forgot the # 1 lefty ever.

Lefty Grove
It was 4 in the morning, give me a break.

Greatest Lefty's Ever
1. Randy Johnson
2. Warren Spahn
3. Lefty Grove
4. Steve Carlton
5. Whitey Ford