Robb is correct in that starting pitchers have very little if any input into how deep they are able to pitch in games. These guys today are making a lot of money and teams are going to try and manage the workloads of their best pitchers in order to preserve them.
The game has fundamentally changed over the past 50 years. It's like comparing QB stats of today vs those from the 1970s.
This debate does raise an interesting topic however. Why are pitchers today, even with pitch counts and more rest days between starts breaking down and requiring arm surgery at such an alarming rate? My theory is that one of the reasons is that pitchers are taught to throw as hard as they can for 100 pitches so you are seeing much higher velocity for pitches on average, but that kind of effort is bound to be more damaging to the arm. Guys want to throw high 90s now because that's how they get noticed by scouts. Years ago, a hard fastball was 90 mph (Bob Feller aside). Now it's 96-97 mph.
Also, pitchers are pitching competitively year round. Years ago, guys had an off season to recuperate. That is no longer the case. And young pitchers are throwing breaking balls when they're not fully developed, too.
So I believe there are a number of factors that have contributed to these fundamental changes, for better or worse, depending on your perspective. I also believe that relievers today on the whole are better and throw much harder than those from decades ago. In that respect, the game has grown more specialized with the use of the bullpen, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@fergie23 said:
The starting pitcher has almost no say in pitching complete games. You simply don't understand the modern game if you believe otherwise. In Koufax's day over 20% of games were complete games, today it is under 2%. FYI in 1998 6% of games were complete games so I doubt Shilling would be allowed to pitch 15 complete games today. I actually agree that it is a mistake for teams to pull their starters so early but the pitchers don't control that regardless of your personal belief.
As for your declaration that K-BB% is the end all be all for a pitcher's ability, I and many baseball experts and players disagree. I believe WHIP is a better indicator of a pitcher's ability and many others agree. Kershaw has a superior WHIP to Koufax. Even with our disagreement about the importance of K-BB% you ignore the fact that both Koufax and Kershaw exceeded the league average by about 10% (9.7 vs 11.2). Funny how relative to the league average is important in K-BB% but seemingly irrelevant when you discussed Pedro's ERA of 1.74 compared to the league average of 4.91. Based on your Pedro ERA logic one could say it was easier to exceed the league K-BB% average in Koufax's day.
In the end no argument you make can account for the fact that Koufax was great for only 5 seasons. No GM would take 5 great seasons of Koufax over Kershaw's 8 great seasons.
Robb
YES!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@fergie23 said:
The starting pitcher has almost no say in pitching complete games. You simply don't understand the modern game if you believe otherwise. In Koufax's day over 20% of games were complete games, today it is under 2%. FYI in 1998 6% of games were complete games so I doubt Shilling would be allowed to pitch 15 complete games today. I actually agree that it is a mistake for teams to pull their starters so early but the pitchers don't control that regardless of your personal belief.
As for your declaration that K-BB% is the end all be all for a pitcher's ability, I and many baseball experts and players disagree. I believe WHIP is a better indicator of a pitcher's ability and many others agree. Kershaw has a superior WHIP to Koufax. Even with our disagreement about the importance of K-BB% you ignore the fact that both Koufax and Kershaw exceeded the league average by about 10% (9.7 vs 11.2). Funny how relative to the league average is important in K-BB% but seemingly irrelevant when you discussed Pedro's ERA of 1.74 compared to the league average of 4.91. Based on your Pedro ERA logic one could say it was easier to exceed the league K-BB% average in Koufax's day.
In the end no argument you make can account for the fact that Koufax was great for only 5 seasons. No GM would take 5 great seasons of Koufax over Kershaw's 8 great seasons.
Robb
YES!
NO!! I'd submit that the type of GM's who care about winning a world series would take Koufax. The type of GM's that think paying David Price a quarter billion dollars to choke in the playoffs will take Kershaw and overpay him.
NO!! I'd submit that the type of GM's who care about winning a world series would take Koufax. The type of GM's that think paying David Price a quarter billion dollars to choke in the playoffs will take Kershaw and overpay him.
NO!! I'd submit that the type of GM's who care about winning a world series would take Koufax. The type of GM's that think paying David Price a quarter billion dollars to choke in the playoffs will take Kershaw and overpay him.
thread winner
NO! ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
NO!! I'd submit that the type of GM's who care about winning a world series would take Koufax. The type of GM's that think paying David Price a quarter billion dollars to choke in the playoffs will take Kershaw and overpay him.
thread winner
I'm going old school and agreeing with these guys. It isn't worth paying a starting pitcher that much money if he can only pitch six innings and not have the ability/stamina to keep pitching at an elite level through October.
I'll take Koufax and save the money on a worthless closer and put it toward an elite hitter, and beat Kershaw/Jansen team 85% of the time we play them. I know Koufax could do that because he did. I also know Koufax could pitch in today's game and go lights out for six innings because he did that too(and then some), and getting to face the Joey Gallo's of the world watch his strikeouts rise.
I don't know if Kershaw could do it for nine innings if trained to do so. Actually, the evidence shows he cannot.
It isn't like football. The rules haven't changed like it did for QB's causing the passing game to emerge more. Still the same rules in baseball. Still the same equipment(unlike the early 1900's where equipment caused a different game). Sorry, good try though.
And banzi, yes, there are better doctors and more options to explore medically.. Also, you keep forgetting that Koufax dominated with that elbow condition...and a smarter GM would have paid him to stay, and he would have because money talks. So the point of only getting five elite years out of koufax is wrong. A smart GM would have gotten another ten elite out of him. So you can throw away that point.
Kershaw exceeded the league average k-bb% by 84%
Koufax exceeded the league average k-bb% BY 207%
BIG DIFFERENCE. Keep in mind, Koufax had a lot more prime years left to make those numbers even better!
If you can show it was easier to exceeed the league k/bb% like I did for ERA+, then do the same exercise and see if it is true. It indeed was easier to exceed the ERA+.
In the end, no GM worth anything would only get five elite years out of Koufax. A good GM gets eight to ten more elite years out of him. Don't forget how cheap the Dodgers were with Koufax and Drysdale, and the animosity the two pitchers had toward them with their holdout. Like I said, a good GM changes everything
So the argument of saying, "You would only get five elite years out of Koufax" is wrong...because I wouldn't .
"Sanford, I want to talk about the next five years."
Sanford: "I don't know. My elbow has been bothering me forever. I don't want to be a cripple."
"No worries kid. You get 150 million for the next five years. You can buy a new elbow."
@Skin2 said:
In the end, no GM worth anything would only get five elite years out of Koufax. A good GM gets eight to ten more elite years out of him. Don't forget how cheap the Dodgers were with Koufax and Drysdale, and the animosity the two pitchers had toward them with their holdout. Like I said, a good GM changes everything
So the argument of saying, "You would only get five elite years out of Koufax" is wrong...because I wouldn't .
"Sanford, I want to talk about the next five years."
Sanford: "I don't know. My elbow has been bothering me forever. I don't want to be a cripple."
"No worries kid. You get 150 million for the next five years. You can buy a new elbow."
Sanford: "Where do I sign sir?"
You're wrong, but you never give up. I like that about you! ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Skin2 said:
In the end, no GM worth anything would only get five elite years out of Koufax. A good GM gets eight to ten more elite years out of him. Don't forget how cheap the Dodgers were with Koufax and Drysdale, and the animosity the two pitchers had toward them with their holdout. Like I said, a good GM changes everything
So the argument of saying, "You would only get five elite years out of Koufax" is wrong...because I wouldn't .
"Sanford, I want to talk about the next five years."
Sanford: "I don't know. My elbow has been bothering me forever. I don't want to be a cripple."
"No worries kid. You get 150 million for the next five years. You can buy a new elbow."
Sanford: "Where do I sign sir?"
You're wrong, but you never give up. I like that about you! ;-)
LOL, that is why I would not have let him retire. It would actually have been an EASY task to get 8-10 more elite years out of Koufax...so the notion of him being only a five year pitcher is wrong. That is only the case for people who are weak minded, cheap, or with no vision, because others would get far more out of him.
In 19 career post season starts, he never pitched a complete game. Never pitched eight innings in a game. He pitched seven innings four times. He threw 120+ pitches in one career post season start(ironically, that is one of the games he won).
Forget about Sandy Koufax, because it would be too embarrassing for a side by side comparison here.
Check out Justin Verlander. In 21 career post season starts, he threw TWO complete games. He pitched FOUR times 8+ innings, then FOUR more times 7+ innings. Seven times he threw 120+ pitches, two of which were 130+.
Verlander is from the same era as Kershaw. He has shown to be more of a horse. Not quite as good of a horse as generations before, but certainly more so than Kershaw.
Koufax was brought in to throw batting practice to the 1981 Dodgers before the World Series. According to Tommy LaSorda, Koufax was making some of the Dodger hitters look bad, and he had Koufax stop throwing before he put someone in a slump. There are conflicting stories if he indeed was making Dodger hitters look bad, however, the only conflicting story and evidence to the contrary was that Pedro Guerrero took him deep...but that does NOT negate Lasorda's assertion that Koufax was making hitters look bad...probably just not Guerrero, lol.
Koufax was 46 in 1981, and it is not surprising that he could still bring it...especially if he chose to heat it up outside the realm of batting practice. Nonetheless, it still shows he could throw quite well...and the reason why Lasorda used him was for the team to get ready for the lefties they were going to face in the World Series. Just the fact that Lasorda knew Koufax could throw well enough to emulate facing a MLB left hander is evidence enough that the dude still had a live arm at age 46.
Koufax also threw batting practice to the 1988 Dodgers before the World Series. 53 years old, he was also rumored to have made them look bad. Nonetheless, he was still out there firing a meanginful BP.
Dodgers won both of those World Series, and Koufax had a hand, or arm, in it.
Here is a clip of Koufax throwing a few warm up pitches in a 1990 Old Timers game...looking smooth as silk at 55 years old. Minute 1:07.
Here is another one from opening day 2013. Koufax looking good without a warm up. 78 years old. Ironically, Kershaw went out and threw a complete game after that. Listening to that crowd, I wouldn't be surprised if Koufax inspired him a bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QamPyp0nzw
you make me want to go see a baseball old timers game. I used to see hockey old timers games every year with my dad when he was still alive. I totally forgot how much fun that was.
It is certainly interesting that Koufax exceeded the league average by 11.2% while Kershaw exceeded the league average by 9.7% but not particularly telling when WHIP tells a slightly different but more accurate tale. You are choosing to focus on a stat that you prefer when many experts disagree with your assertion that k/bb% is the best stat for pitcher effectiveness.
Sadly all your typing aside Koufax only pitched 5 great seasons. He couldn't throw another season because he destroyed his arm - batting practice or old timers games aside. Unless of course you are saying Koufax wasn't the competitor you are claiming and simply quit on his team and baseball after his last season. FYI managers and players use a lot of hyperbole when describing other players especially those they consider great.
Sadly Kershaw has proven he can't pitch nearly as well in the postseason. However 19 games is a small sample size with a few terrible outings skewing his statistics some what. It will always be a black mark against Kershaw that he couldn't translate his regular season brilliance to the postseason.
The game has changed. You spent quite a bit of time explaining how hitters are easier to strikeout now and used that to justify why Kershaw's superior k-BB% wasn't meaningful. Then disingenuously say complete games matter when comparing pitchers when they are more than 90% rarer now than in Koufax's day.
In the end Koufax was a great pitcher for 5 seasons, not as great as Kershaw, but still great.
@bronco2078 said:
you make me want to go see a baseball old timers game. I used to see hockey old timers games every year with my dad when he was still alive. I totally forgot how much fun that was.
I watched an old game from 1967 Boston vs. Minnesota last or second to last game of season. Was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT better to watch than how they play now, and the screen wasn't full of garbage at the top and bottom.
@Skin2 said:
In the end, no GM worth anything would only get five elite years out of Koufax. A good GM gets eight to ten more elite years out of him. Don't forget how cheap the Dodgers were with Koufax and Drysdale, and the animosity the two pitchers had toward them with their holdout. Like I said, a good GM changes everything
So the argument of saying, "You would only get five elite years out of Koufax" is wrong...because I wouldn't .
"Sanford, I want to talk about the next five years."
Sanford: "I don't know. My elbow has been bothering me forever. I don't want to be a cripple."
"No worries kid. You get 150 million for the next five years. You can buy a new elbow."
Sanford: "Where do I sign sir?"
You're wrong, but you never give up. I like that about you! ;-)
LOL, that is why I would not have let him retire. It would actually have been an EASY task to get 8-10 more elite years out of Koufax...so the notion of him being only a five year pitcher is wrong. That is only the case for people who are weak minded, cheap, or with no vision, because others would get far more out of him.
I would have simply had him pitch right handed. That arm was fine. then we could have gotten 20 right handed years out of him and by then we could fix his left arm and gotten another 10.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@bronco2078 said:
you make me want to go see a baseball old timers game. I used to see hockey old timers games every year with my dad when he was still alive. I totally forgot how much fun that was.
I watched an old game from 1967 Boston vs. Minnesota last or second to last game of season. Was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT better to watch than how they play now, and the screen wasn't full of garbage at the top and bottom.
@Skin2 said:
In the end, no GM worth anything would only get five elite years out of Koufax. A good GM gets eight to ten more elite years out of him. Don't forget how cheap the Dodgers were with Koufax and Drysdale, and the animosity the two pitchers had toward them with their holdout. Like I said, a good GM changes everything
So the argument of saying, "You would only get five elite years out of Koufax" is wrong...because I wouldn't .
"Sanford, I want to talk about the next five years."
Sanford: "I don't know. My elbow has been bothering me forever. I don't want to be a cripple."
"No worries kid. You get 150 million for the next five years. You can buy a new elbow."
Sanford: "Where do I sign sir?"
You're wrong, but you never give up. I like that about you! ;-)
LOL, that is why I would not have let him retire. It would actually have been an EASY task to get 8-10 more elite years out of Koufax...so the notion of him being only a five year pitcher is wrong. That is only the case for people who are weak minded, cheap, or with no vision, because others would get far more out of him.
I would have simply had him pitch right handed. That arm was fine. then we could have gotten 20 right handed years out of him and by then we could fix his left arm and gotten another 10.
@fergie23 said:
It is certainly interesting that Koufax exceeded the league average by 11.2% while Kershaw exceeded the league average by 9.7% but not particularly telling when WHIP tells a slightly different but more accurate tale. You are choosing to focus on a stat that you prefer when many experts disagree with your assertion that k/bb% is the best stat for pitcher effectiveness.
Sadly all your typing aside Koufax only pitched 5 great seasons. He couldn't throw another season because he destroyed his arm - batting practice or old timers games aside. Unless of course you are saying Koufax wasn't the competitor you are claiming and simply quit on his team and baseball after his last season. FYI managers and players use a lot of hyperbole when describing other players especially those they consider great.
Sadly Kershaw has proven he can't pitch nearly as well in the postseason. However 19 games is a small sample size with a few terrible outings skewing his statistics some what. It will always be a black mark against Kershaw that he couldn't translate his regular season brilliance to the postseason.
The game has changed. You spent quite a bit of time explaining how hitters are easier to strikeout now and used that to justify why Kershaw's superior k-BB% wasn't meaningful. Then disingenuously say complete games matter when comparing pitchers when they are more than 90% rarer now than in Koufax's day.
In the end Koufax was a great pitcher for 5 seasons, not as great as Kershaw, but still great.
Robb
Yup, great pitcher for five seasons and with more in him without a cheap owner, or with better diagnosis/treatment for an arm that he thougt he would be crippled for life with(why he chose to retire). The question was who do you choose? That gives me the power, and it is easy to change the course Koufax chose in those circumstances.
Also, Koufax wasn't crap in the previous seasons. He was league average, which was pretty darn good for a kid thrust at such a young age into MLB without much training or consistent playing time. Again, a different approach/circumstance alters that too. That aspect cannot be ignored either.
Contemporary guys shoulder more workload than Kershaw. Also, yes, it is rare for complete games now, but ultimately that may just mean SP value just isn't the same as guys who proved they could do it. Maybe with training, Kershaw could be better, but evidence doesn't support he could.
Verlander managed some complete games in post season...and a pretty big one last World Series. Nobody stopped him from doing it . He also threw 130+ pitches in post season. Nobody stopped him. Didn't see Kershaw taking the bull by the horns and doing anything like that. That is an easy thing to do. It is a choice/demeanor.
Ultimately, even when looking at Koufax's great five seasons, and not thinking about the several more seasons he had in him...he probably did enough in those five seasons to outshine whatever career Kershaw puts together.
Actually, when you look at it, Kershaw has only pitched 200+ innings five times. I wouldn't call those 140 innings pitched seasons great per say, even by today's standards. So he really only has five or six truly great seasons himself. Unless he bucks the trend of his injuries of the last three years, his book is closing pretty fast itself.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Are we really using anecdotal stories from BP to declare whether Sandy could have pitched longer than he did? For an analyst like yourself, Skin, that does seem to be a bit off the rails.
I wonder what Dallas thinks about all this. Would be interested in reading his opinion.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
There are no ifs or butts. Koufax did and could throw complete games with a high degree of effecitveness and consistency. Kershaw could not. Pretty straightforward.
Koufax can give me 300+ innings at a run prevention rate among top 2% of the league with modern equipment . Kershaw cannot. No ifs there. Just what one man could do, and another couldn't.
Oh BUT it is the era Kershaw is playing in. IF it were different, then...etc. So you are the ones using ifs and buts, lol..
Koufax has an ability greater than Kershaw. He could pitch to a high degree of effectiveness and for more innings per game and per season....and in October. PERIOD. I'll take that Koufax ability all day and beat Kershaw and the string of releivers, and use that money and spend it on hitters. Even if I could only use it for five seasons, doesn't matter...because I could rely on it (him) to get me to the World Series and win it.
If we are putting that kind of weight on postseason performance, it is a different argument from simply comparing the careers as a whole between both pitchers. I don't think anyone here is asserting that Koufax did not have a dominant postseason record compared to Kershaw's.
But at the end of the day, Koufax had 4 otherworldly seasons and 1 very good one. His lifetime ERA was still higher than 3.00 away from Chez Ravine during an era in which run scoring was tougher compared to Kershaw's era. The first half of Koufax's career just wasn't that remarkable.
Comparing IP from the 1960s vs today is like comparing QB stats from today to those from the 1970s. The game has fundamentally changed. Using several outlier performances by Verlander does not mitigate that fact. Repeat that. (And Verlander is a HOFer in his own right, too.) If you refuse to acknowledge that reality, then any debate will likewise be fundamentally flawed.
I do agree that Kershaw's legacy is somewhat marred by his postseason performance. Then again, Arod and Bonds were considered postseason failures until they weren't. Given a large enough sample size, the vast majority of players do revert to their mean. Kershaw still has some time to remedy that, assuming he can remain healthy.
I think Robb summed things up pretty well above. I'd still like to hear Dallas"s take on this debate. I do think both pitchers are exceptional players and first ballot HOFers in their own right.
Game over, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Came back to check the Post game recap after the game was over. Nothing added to of significance in post game thread.
QB's now to then are are result of the rules of the game changing...so not even a close comparison to that of Kershaw not being able to throw 300+ innings at en elite run prevention rate.
I guess Bumgarner is an outlier too being capable of throwing 9 innings in October, lol. No endurance from Kershaw, Sorry again.
Funny thing about it, Koufax is still alive and could probably still go out there and throw six innings, and still get some strikeouts.
And part of the reason the run scoring is higher in Kershaw's era because the mediocre/bad get lit up like Christmas Trees...not because it is harder for an Ace. Already explained that.
How exactly does regurgitating points that I made two days earlier result in a game over?
Skin likes to get the last word in, even if it isn't his or entirely accurate at times, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Skin2 said:
Yup, and remember, a smart GM would get eight more elite years out of Koufax easily. Easily.
This is pure fantasy but nice to imagine...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Skin2 said:
Came back to check the Post game recap after the game was over. Nothing added to of significance in post game thread.
QB's now to then are are result of the rules of the game changing...so not even a close comparison to that of Kershaw not being able to throw 300+ innings at en elite run prevention rate.
I guess Bumgarner is an outlier too being capable of throwing 9 innings in October, lol. No endurance from Kershaw, Sorry again.
Funny thing about it, Koufax is still alive and could probably still go out there and throw six innings, and still get some strikeouts.
And part of the reason the run scoring is higher in Kershaw's era because the mediocre/bad get lit up like Christmas Trees...not because it is harder for an Ace. Already explained that.
The lowering of the mound doesn't equate to a rule change? Or the reconfiguration of ballpark dimensions in a clear and concentrated effort to increase scoring and run production? You're slipping, skin, my friend.
I'd still like to hear Dallas's take on this debate.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Speaking of endurance and outliers, Kershaw's career average IP per start is still higher than both Verlander's and Bumgarner's, also.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@Skin2 said:
Came back to check the Post game recap after the game was over. Nothing added to of significance in post game thread.
QB's now to then are are result of the rules of the game changing...so not even a close comparison to that of Kershaw not being able to throw 300+ innings at en elite run prevention rate.
I guess Bumgarner is an outlier too being capable of throwing 9 innings in October, lol. No endurance from Kershaw, Sorry again.
Funny thing about it, Koufax is still alive and could probably still go out there and throw six innings, and still get some strikeouts.
And part of the reason the run scoring is higher in Kershaw's era because the mediocre/bad get lit up like Christmas Trees...not because it is harder for an Ace. Already explained that.
The lowering of the mound doesn't equate to a rule change? Or the reconfiguration of ballpark dimensions in a clear and concentrated effort to increase scoring and run production? You're slipping, skin.
I'd still like to hear Dallas's take on this debate.
HELLO more facts, please stop!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
_ And part of the reason the run scoring is higher in Kershaw's era because the mediocre/bad get lit up like Christmas Trees...not because it is harder for an Ace. Already explained that. _
There are far fewer pitchers pitching to ERAs under 3.00 today than in Koufax's era. One needs only to look at the ERA league leaders to recognize that. In 2017, a grand total of 8 starting pitchers (including Kershaw) pitched to an ERA under 3.00. In 1965, there were 27.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Another factor could be expansion. With more teams it thins the talent pool and many major league starters should be in AAA so we we seeing a higher run scoring environment.
@craig44 said:
Another factor could be expansion. With more teams it thins the talent pool and many major league starters should be in AAA so we we seeing a higher run scoring environment.
That is true to an extent though the impact of expansion is also mitigated by the influx and previously untapped talent pool of players from other countries today vs 50 years ago, particularly from Asia.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The proper analogy to a QB would be Tom Brady leaving the game after three quarters to get a fresh body in there for the fourth quarter. Or Michael Jordan sitting the last five minutes and someone else doing his job for him. Dumb. Whether by choice or by a guy not being able to do it. Dumb either way.
All you have to do is look at ERA+ and notice that the elite amass higher ERA pluses now, which means the rest of the league is getting lit up, because many don't belong there, don't know how to pitch, and because they aren't as equipped to take advantage of the high strikeout players(while not getting hurt as bad by the high home run totals). That makes Kershaw's ERA compared to the league look better.
Who wouldn't look better when you are being compared to a lot of guys who don't belong there?? THrowing hard doesn't mean one belongs in MLB...because all that means is the ball goes further when it is hit off of you
.....yet Kershaw isn' capable of pitching deep into games in October nor capable of throwing 130 pitches that late in the season.
And you can count the asian players on two hands that have made any real impact in MLB. The rest of the world population was already being drawn in to MLB for a long time, so that is moot.
It really boils down to this, at their two year prime Koufax was better. Same for four year prime. Five year prime too(but closer). Kershaw wins anything after that.
It is the same old thing, who do you take, the prime guy or the guy with the longer career?
There is one big circumstance and that is Koufax retired by choice after he pitched his best season ever. No question he had more in the tank. Like I said before, that wouldn't happen with a better GM/Owner. You guys may want to disagree, but that is fine. I've dealt with a lot of people with limited visions, so that doesn't surprise me.
If you want to disagree with the above, as for Kershaw, his prime six years are great, but his other seasons are also shortened...and right now he is actually hampering his team because of his insane salary. Salary wise Kershaw is certainly a negative this year, and two more years like this year at 35 million a year could negate his value to a team far more than Koufax not even pitching, and take a chunk out of the value he provided before.
On the flip side, Koufax's value he was giving to the Ddogers as a kid wasn't that bad to begin with becuase he was still above league average....but for pennies on the dollar. So that was still great for the team.
So when you point at Koufax and say, well he only was gret for five years and gave the team nothing after that...don't forget to point at Kershaw and say he was great for eight years, then killed his team by being a part time pitcher while commanding the highest salary on the team and in the league. THat is worse.
So when you point at Koufax and say, well he only was gret for five years and gave the team nothing after that...don't forget to point at Kershaw and say he was great for eight years, then killed his team by being a part time pitcher while commanding the highest salary on the team and in the league. THat is worse.
Is his salary suckjob worse than what david"fortnite" price is doing to the red sox ? It just can't be worse , I feel like I'd rather price was on IR earning his salary than pitching
On the flip side, Koufax's value he was giving to the Ddogers as a kid wasn't that bad to begin with becuase he was still above league average....but for pennies on the dollar. So that was still great for the team.
You are wrong. Koufax was a "Bonus Baby" so he not only got a big signing bonus he couldn't be sent down to the minors for two years, so he took up another players roster spot as well. That's not "pennies on the dollar".
The Dodgers also had another "bonus baby" at the same time, Roberto Clemente and sent him down and he was grabbed by the Pirates!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Yes, pennies on the dollar. He may have been forced to be kept as a roster spot, but he wasn't being paid much to do it, and in his first three years he still pitched at a rate of 102 ERA+, so he was providing value.
So when you point at Koufax and say, well he only was gret for five years and gave the team nothing after that...don't forget to point at Kershaw and say he was great for eight years, then killed his team by being a part time pitcher while commanding the highest salary on the team and in the league. THat is worse.
Is his salary suckjob worse than what david"fortnite" price is doing to the red sox ? It just can't be worse , I feel like I'd rather price was on IR earning his salary than pitching
Price too...so in either case, it is a worse 'crime' than Koufax retiring at age 30 after his best season. Big giant suckholes of team resources.
JoeBanzi, I thought you didn't agree with ballpark adjustments?? That being said, can you find another post WWII pitcher that had a 1.86 ERA over a four year span, while pitching 1,192 innings??
You can't on one hand claim that Larry Walker is being penalized for having a Coors field adjustment to his stats...and then say that Koufax needs a Dodger stadium adjustment. Because if Koufax doesn't need an era adjustment or ballpark adjustment, THEN his 1.86 ERA over 1,192 innings stands as the benchmark for post WWII pitchers at their peak.
Also, how many of these people arguing on here against Koufax, end up arguing with Dallasactuary about guys like Roy White??? LMAO. When he says guys like Roy White are better than Jim Rice, he is taking into account the era and ballpark that he played in....yet now when it comes to Koufax, you are all of a sudden agreeing with that method when you say Kershaw is better than Koufax...but not agree with that method when it comes to Gene Teance, Roy White???
SO which is it? Either Dallasactuary is right about players like Gene Tenace and Roy White being better than Jim Rice, or if he is wrong, then that means you have to take Koufax's numbers at face value and NOT add a ballpark effect nor an adjustment for the era...and you CERTAINLY cannot argue against the innings pitch aspect....which makes him untouchable for guys like Kershaw.
Either the era and ballpark adjustments matter or they don't! Now maybe you guys can all apologize to Dallasactuary when you never understood his arguments about Gene Teance and Roy White.
Now that I see some of you guys use sabermetric methodology in the case of Kershaw vs Koufax, you maybe now will finally understand the value of a base on balls, etc... Becuase without sabermetric methodology, there is no way Kershaw is better than Koufax, because you can only take their stats as what they would say on the back of the baseball card, and the Innings pitched, complete games, etc...all would make Koufax's value insurmountable to players like Kershaw.
Like I said, Game over(to some posters on here).
PS, Joe Banzi, you actually have the nerve to disagree with the notion of Koufax retiring early being taken into account, yet when it came to Larry Walker you said the opposite, and that he could have played longer and should not be penalized for retiring early. LMAO. You guys kill me. 1951 Wheathies premium, you spouted nonsense for so much times using old school methodology, yet now when it comes to Koufax, you reverse that switch and do the opoisite. What hypocrites. NO wonder why this country is messed up.
JoeBanzi, you even spouted so much on how Killebrew lost so many stats due to his situation when he was young, but now when it comes to koufax you say the opposite.
Glad to see you guys finally understand things now. Soon I will give the true and accurate take on Koufax. SOme of the stuff I said is true, while others, well it is just too old school and easy to disprove. Grote was correct on a lot of aspects BTW. Now the posters that agreed with him must finally understand other things like the value of a walk. Good lord it took a long time
You couldn't be more wrong, but that's not a surprise. You OBVIOUSLY don't read my posts, you just look for ways to muddy the waters when you are incorrect. You are right so often, you just cannot believe it when you make a mistake, then you redouble your efforts bringing in other players and situations to derail the argument.
The facts in the Kershaw/Koufax debate are clear, both great pitchers in their time, ending up (so far) with comparable numbers. They achieved them in completely different ways. Kershaw was very good every year, while Koufax was average for 1/2 the time and unbelievable for the other 1/2. Seems to me you get a similar value out of both players, but Kershaw put up the numbers every year. I value consistency above Koufax's peak.
Koufax vs. Walker; Koufax is in HOF, Walker despite incredible numbers (OPS 15th All-Time) is not. Slight difference here. Both had a home park advantage. I NEVER said there wasn't a home field advantage for either player, in fact I was going to bring up the Walker example to show how YOU are inconsistent; Koufax HOF, Walker OVERRATED! Walker (as far as I have been able to ascertain) retired when he could have still played. Walker's 1997-2002 peak (hurt in 2000) is almost as impressive as Koufax's 1962-1966 (both in "easy" parks to perform in). Larry Walker NEVER had a bad year looking at YOUR STAT, OPS+ his worst year was 1990 in Montreal (not Colorado) where for 5 years he averaged 130 (that's damn good, isn't it?), which is the same number he hit in his final year in St. Louis (again, not Colorado).
Koufax's arm was so arthritic he could not have continued to pitch, even if he could have taken the pain, without risking permanent injury. This is a FACT and yet you continue to claim he could have pitched longer. As the best pitcher in baseball, you actually think he WANTED to retire......HE HAD TO! This fact has been reported in countless books and articles discussing what a shame it is he HAD TO retire when he did. If you read anything other than a line of statistics you would KNOW this.
I have NEVER disputed the fact that Koufax had the best four year peak of any pitcher, he was amazing. Plus he was amazing in the W.S. as well. TOTALLY dominant. He also had 5 very average years where he didn't contribute much to his team. Both facts. I fully recognize his great years while you ignore his average ones. Koufax also had the advantage of playing on a team that was in the WS in 1963, 1965 and 1966, when he had his peak. Walker was in 1 WS where he had a 1.366 OPS.
Killebrew vs, Koufax; Killebrew sat for 2 years on a last place team before being sent down to the minors. He should have been able to play and learn. Washington was not going to finish much worse than 43-45 games back even if he was a bad fielder and cost them a few meaningless games. don't see how you can bring this into it, but there's the point I was making. Doesn't apply here, but there you are.
Value in early years; again if you read anything about the history of the game other than stats, you would realize how the "Bonus" rule worked, and how much it cost the teams of that era. I won't bother to try to explain it to you. Suffice it to say that the Dodgers wouldn't keep both Koufax and Clemente on the Major League roster and ended up losing Roberto.
Actually you probably aware of all the facts you are just unable to admit it. You need to "punish" those who disagree!!!!
Aufwiedersehen!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I use old school methodology ALWAYS and my understanding of the sport. I'm just curious why you seem to think it faulty when it's leads to us being on the same side. Often.
Forgive me for being unimpressed by your ability to put NOTHING but numbers and percentages into MY conceptual argument and then take a bow on.
I'm not interested in being Bill Hicks to your Denis Leary. Do your own thinking or give credit where it's do.
Game over
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Comments
Robb is correct in that starting pitchers have very little if any input into how deep they are able to pitch in games. These guys today are making a lot of money and teams are going to try and manage the workloads of their best pitchers in order to preserve them.
The game has fundamentally changed over the past 50 years. It's like comparing QB stats of today vs those from the 1970s.
This debate does raise an interesting topic however. Why are pitchers today, even with pitch counts and more rest days between starts breaking down and requiring arm surgery at such an alarming rate? My theory is that one of the reasons is that pitchers are taught to throw as hard as they can for 100 pitches so you are seeing much higher velocity for pitches on average, but that kind of effort is bound to be more damaging to the arm. Guys want to throw high 90s now because that's how they get noticed by scouts. Years ago, a hard fastball was 90 mph (Bob Feller aside). Now it's 96-97 mph.
Also, pitchers are pitching competitively year round. Years ago, guys had an off season to recuperate. That is no longer the case. And young pitchers are throwing breaking balls when they're not fully developed, too.
So I believe there are a number of factors that have contributed to these fundamental changes, for better or worse, depending on your perspective. I also believe that relievers today on the whole are better and throw much harder than those from decades ago. In that respect, the game has grown more specialized with the use of the bullpen, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
YES!
NO!!
I'd submit that the type of GM's who care about winning a world series would take Koufax. The type of GM's that think paying David Price a quarter billion dollars to choke in the playoffs will take Kershaw and overpay him.
thread winner
NO! ;-)
I'm going old school and agreeing with these guys. It isn't worth paying a starting pitcher that much money if he can only pitch six innings and not have the ability/stamina to keep pitching at an elite level through October.
I'll take Koufax and save the money on a worthless closer and put it toward an elite hitter, and beat Kershaw/Jansen team 85% of the time we play them. I know Koufax could do that because he did. I also know Koufax could pitch in today's game and go lights out for six innings because he did that too(and then some), and getting to face the Joey Gallo's of the world watch his strikeouts rise.
I don't know if Kershaw could do it for nine innings if trained to do so. Actually, the evidence shows he cannot.
It isn't like football. The rules haven't changed like it did for QB's causing the passing game to emerge more. Still the same rules in baseball. Still the same equipment(unlike the early 1900's where equipment caused a different game). Sorry, good try though.
And banzi, yes, there are better doctors and more options to explore medically.. Also, you keep forgetting that Koufax dominated with that elbow condition...and a smarter GM would have paid him to stay, and he would have because money talks. So the point of only getting five elite years out of koufax is wrong. A smart GM would have gotten another ten elite out of him. So you can throw away that point.
Kershaw exceeded the league average k-bb% by 84%
Koufax exceeded the league average k-bb% BY 207%
BIG DIFFERENCE. Keep in mind, Koufax had a lot more prime years left to make those numbers even better!
If you can show it was easier to exceeed the league k/bb% like I did for ERA+, then do the same exercise and see if it is true. It indeed was easier to exceed the ERA+.
Bobby orr
In the end, no GM worth anything would only get five elite years out of Koufax. A good GM gets eight to ten more elite years out of him. Don't forget how cheap the Dodgers were with Koufax and Drysdale, and the animosity the two pitchers had toward them with their holdout. Like I said, a good GM changes everything
So the argument of saying, "You would only get five elite years out of Koufax" is wrong...because I wouldn't
.
"Sanford, I want to talk about the next five years."
Sanford: "I don't know. My elbow has been bothering me forever. I don't want to be a cripple."
"No worries kid. You get 150 million for the next five years. You can buy a new elbow."
Sanford: "Where do I sign sir?"
You're wrong, but you never give up. I like that about you! ;-)
What's the value of a Sandy Koufax autograph versus a Clayton Kershaw autograph?
Case closed.
Alright, i admit it...I just felt like jumping the shark.
LOL, that is why I would not have let him retire. It would actually have been an EASY task to get 8-10 more elite years out of Koufax...so the notion of him being only a five year pitcher is wrong. That is only the case for people who are weak minded, cheap, or with no vision, because others would get far more out of him.
A couple things about Kershaw:
In 19 career post season starts, he never pitched a complete game. Never pitched eight innings in a game. He pitched seven innings four times. He threw 120+ pitches in one career post season start(ironically, that is one of the games he won).
Forget about Sandy Koufax, because it would be too embarrassing for a side by side comparison here.
Check out Justin Verlander. In 21 career post season starts, he threw TWO complete games. He pitched FOUR times 8+ innings, then FOUR more times 7+ innings. Seven times he threw 120+ pitches, two of which were 130+.
Verlander is from the same era as Kershaw. He has shown to be more of a horse. Not quite as good of a horse as generations before, but certainly more so than Kershaw.
Koufax was brought in to throw batting practice to the 1981 Dodgers before the World Series. According to Tommy LaSorda, Koufax was making some of the Dodger hitters look bad, and he had Koufax stop throwing before he put someone in a slump. There are conflicting stories if he indeed was making Dodger hitters look bad, however, the only conflicting story and evidence to the contrary was that Pedro Guerrero took him deep...but that does NOT negate Lasorda's assertion that Koufax was making hitters look bad...probably just not Guerrero, lol.
Koufax was 46 in 1981, and it is not surprising that he could still bring it...especially if he chose to heat it up outside the realm of batting practice. Nonetheless, it still shows he could throw quite well...and the reason why Lasorda used him was for the team to get ready for the lefties they were going to face in the World Series. Just the fact that Lasorda knew Koufax could throw well enough to emulate facing a MLB left hander is evidence enough that the dude still had a live arm at age 46.
Koufax also threw batting practice to the 1988 Dodgers before the World Series. 53 years old, he was also rumored to have made them look bad. Nonetheless, he was still out there firing a meanginful BP.
Dodgers won both of those World Series, and Koufax had a hand, or arm, in it.
Here is a clip of Koufax throwing a few warm up pitches in a 1990 Old Timers game...looking smooth as silk at 55 years old. Minute 1:07.
Here is another one from opening day 2013. Koufax looking good without a warm up. 78 years old. Ironically, Kershaw went out and threw a complete game after that. Listening to that crowd, I wouldn't be surprised if Koufax inspired him a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QamPyp0nzw
In an old timers game in 1986, rearing up.
https://calisphere.org/item/45d7ad7c7b939827ff4855d0e03cca1a/
you make me want to go see a baseball old timers game. I used to see hockey old timers games every year with my dad when he was still alive. I totally forgot how much fun that was.
It is certainly interesting that Koufax exceeded the league average by 11.2% while Kershaw exceeded the league average by 9.7% but not particularly telling when WHIP tells a slightly different but more accurate tale. You are choosing to focus on a stat that you prefer when many experts disagree with your assertion that k/bb% is the best stat for pitcher effectiveness.
Sadly all your typing aside Koufax only pitched 5 great seasons. He couldn't throw another season because he destroyed his arm - batting practice or old timers games aside. Unless of course you are saying Koufax wasn't the competitor you are claiming and simply quit on his team and baseball after his last season. FYI managers and players use a lot of hyperbole when describing other players especially those they consider great.
Sadly Kershaw has proven he can't pitch nearly as well in the postseason. However 19 games is a small sample size with a few terrible outings skewing his statistics some what. It will always be a black mark against Kershaw that he couldn't translate his regular season brilliance to the postseason.
The game has changed. You spent quite a bit of time explaining how hitters are easier to strikeout now and used that to justify why Kershaw's superior k-BB% wasn't meaningful. Then disingenuously say complete games matter when comparing pitchers when they are more than 90% rarer now than in Koufax's day.
In the end Koufax was a great pitcher for 5 seasons, not as great as Kershaw, but still great.
Robb
I watched an old game from 1967 Boston vs. Minnesota last or second to last game of season. Was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT better to watch than how they play now, and the screen wasn't full of garbage at the top and bottom.
Those were the good old days!> @Skin2 said:
I would have simply had him pitch right handed. That arm was fine. then we could have gotten 20 right handed years out of him and by then we could fix his left arm and gotten another 10.
LOL, good idea!
Yup, great pitcher for five seasons and with more in him without a cheap owner, or with better diagnosis/treatment for an arm that he thougt he would be crippled for life with(why he chose to retire). The question was who do you choose? That gives me the power, and it is easy to change the course Koufax chose in those circumstances.
Also, Koufax wasn't crap in the previous seasons. He was league average, which was pretty darn good for a kid thrust at such a young age into MLB without much training or consistent playing time. Again, a different approach/circumstance alters that too. That aspect cannot be ignored either.
Contemporary guys shoulder more workload than Kershaw. Also, yes, it is rare for complete games now, but ultimately that may just mean SP value just isn't the same as guys who proved they could do it. Maybe with training, Kershaw could be better, but evidence doesn't support he could.
Verlander managed some complete games in post season...and a pretty big one last World Series. Nobody stopped him from doing it
. He also threw 130+ pitches in post season. Nobody stopped him. Didn't see Kershaw taking the bull by the horns and doing anything like that. That is an easy thing to do. It is a choice/demeanor.
Ultimately, even when looking at Koufax's great five seasons, and not thinking about the several more seasons he had in him...he probably did enough in those five seasons to outshine whatever career Kershaw puts together.
Actually, when you look at it, Kershaw has only pitched 200+ innings five times. I wouldn't call those 140 innings pitched seasons great per say, even by today's standards. So he really only has five or six truly great seasons himself. Unless he bucks the trend of his injuries of the last three years, his book is closing pretty fast itself.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
Are we really using anecdotal stories from BP to declare whether Sandy could have pitched longer than he did? For an analyst like yourself, Skin, that does seem to be a bit off the rails.
I wonder what Dallas thinks about all this. Would be interested in reading his opinion.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There are no ifs or butts. Koufax did and could throw complete games with a high degree of effecitveness and consistency. Kershaw could not. Pretty straightforward.
Koufax can give me 300+ innings at a run prevention rate among top 2% of the league with modern equipment . Kershaw cannot. No ifs there. Just what one man could do, and another couldn't.
Kershaw wasn't capable of pitching eight innings October. Koufax could. Verlander could. Verlander could. Repeat that.
Oh BUT it is the era Kershaw is playing in. IF it were different, then...etc. So you are the ones using ifs and buts, lol..
Koufax has an ability greater than Kershaw. He could pitch to a high degree of effectiveness and for more innings per game and per season....and in October. PERIOD. I'll take that Koufax ability all day and beat Kershaw and the string of releivers, and use that money and spend it on hitters. Even if I could only use it for five seasons, doesn't matter...because I could rely on it (him) to get me to the World Series and win it.
Game over.
If we are putting that kind of weight on postseason performance, it is a different argument from simply comparing the careers as a whole between both pitchers. I don't think anyone here is asserting that Koufax did not have a dominant postseason record compared to Kershaw's.
But at the end of the day, Koufax had 4 otherworldly seasons and 1 very good one. His lifetime ERA was still higher than 3.00 away from Chez Ravine during an era in which run scoring was tougher compared to Kershaw's era. The first half of Koufax's career just wasn't that remarkable.
Comparing IP from the 1960s vs today is like comparing QB stats from today to those from the 1970s. The game has fundamentally changed. Using several outlier performances by Verlander does not mitigate that fact. Repeat that. (And Verlander is a HOFer in his own right, too.) If you refuse to acknowledge that reality, then any debate will likewise be fundamentally flawed.
I do agree that Kershaw's legacy is somewhat marred by his postseason performance. Then again, Arod and Bonds were considered postseason failures until they weren't. Given a large enough sample size, the vast majority of players do revert to their mean. Kershaw still has some time to remedy that, assuming he can remain healthy.
I think Robb summed things up pretty well above. I'd still like to hear Dallas"s take on this debate. I do think both pitchers are exceptional players and first ballot HOFers in their own right.
Game over, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If Sandy Koufax were to pitch in today's MLB era, he might only win 10 games a year and have an ERA around 4.00 or 5.00
But don't forget, he's 82 years old.
Came back to check the Post game recap after the game was over. Nothing added to of significance in post game thread.
QB's now to then are are result of the rules of the game changing...so not even a close comparison to that of Kershaw not being able to throw 300+ innings at en elite run prevention rate.
I guess Bumgarner is an outlier too being capable of throwing 9 innings in October, lol. No endurance from Kershaw, Sorry again.
Funny thing about it, Koufax is still alive and could probably still go out there and throw six innings, and still get some strikeouts.
And part of the reason the run scoring is higher in Kershaw's era because the mediocre/bad get lit up like Christmas Trees...not because it is harder for an Ace. Already explained that.
The heck with it, Koufax is better NOW than Kershaw.
End of story.
Yup, and remember, a smart GM would get eight more elite years out of Koufax easily. Easily.
Funny thing is Koufax would get torched today. Stop living in a fantasy world.
Robb
Yeah maybe because he is over 80 years old...but even then, he would still have the moxie to pitch seven innings, lol.
@Skin2
How exactly does regurgitating points that I made two days earlier result in a game over?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Skin likes to get the last word in, even if it isn't his or entirely accurate at times, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This is pure fantasy but nice to imagine...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The lowering of the mound doesn't equate to a rule change? Or the reconfiguration of ballpark dimensions in a clear and concentrated effort to increase scoring and run production? You're slipping, skin, my friend.
I'd still like to hear Dallas's take on this debate.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Steve Dalkowski END OF STORY!!!!!!!!!
https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/delving-into-the-dalkowski-depths/
Speaking of endurance and outliers, Kershaw's career average IP per start is still higher than both Verlander's and Bumgarner's, also.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Stop confusing the situation with the facts.
A good GM would have made Dalkowsi stop walking batters and he would have been the best ever!!!!!!!
HELLO more facts, please stop!
_ And part of the reason the run scoring is higher in Kershaw's era because the mediocre/bad get lit up like Christmas Trees...not because it is harder for an Ace. Already explained that. _
There are far fewer pitchers pitching to ERAs under 3.00 today than in Koufax's era. One needs only to look at the ERA league leaders to recognize that. In 2017, a grand total of 8 starting pitchers (including Kershaw) pitched to an ERA under 3.00. In 1965, there were 27.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Another factor could be expansion. With more teams it thins the talent pool and many major league starters should be in AAA so we we seeing a higher run scoring environment.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think I would take Gibson over either of these two anyways.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That is true to an extent though the impact of expansion is also mitigated by the influx and previously untapped talent pool of players from other countries today vs 50 years ago, particularly from Asia.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If only Karl Spooner could have kept it up like 1954!
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/spoonka01.shtml
The proper analogy to a QB would be Tom Brady leaving the game after three quarters to get a fresh body in there for the fourth quarter. Or Michael Jordan sitting the last five minutes and someone else doing his job for him. Dumb. Whether by choice or by a guy not being able to do it. Dumb either way.
All you have to do is look at ERA+ and notice that the elite amass higher ERA pluses now, which means the rest of the league is getting lit up, because many don't belong there, don't know how to pitch, and because they aren't as equipped to take advantage of the high strikeout players(while not getting hurt as bad by the high home run totals). That makes Kershaw's ERA compared to the league look better.
Who wouldn't look better when you are being compared to a lot of guys who don't belong there?? THrowing hard doesn't mean one belongs in MLB...because all that means is the ball goes further when it is hit off of you
.....yet Kershaw isn' capable of pitching deep into games in October nor capable of throwing 130 pitches that late in the season.
And you can count the asian players on two hands that have made any real impact in MLB. The rest of the world population was already being drawn in to MLB for a long time, so that is moot.
It really boils down to this, at their two year prime Koufax was better. Same for four year prime. Five year prime too(but closer). Kershaw wins anything after that.
It is the same old thing, who do you take, the prime guy or the guy with the longer career?
There is one big circumstance and that is Koufax retired by choice after he pitched his best season ever. No question he had more in the tank. Like I said before, that wouldn't happen with a better GM/Owner. You guys may want to disagree, but that is fine. I've dealt with a lot of people with limited visions, so that doesn't surprise me.
If you want to disagree with the above, as for Kershaw, his prime six years are great, but his other seasons are also shortened...and right now he is actually hampering his team because of his insane salary. Salary wise Kershaw is certainly a negative this year, and two more years like this year at 35 million a year could negate his value to a team far more than Koufax not even pitching, and take a chunk out of the value he provided before.
On the flip side, Koufax's value he was giving to the Ddogers as a kid wasn't that bad to begin with becuase he was still above league average....but for pennies on the dollar. So that was still great for the team.
So when you point at Koufax and say, well he only was gret for five years and gave the team nothing after that...don't forget to point at Kershaw and say he was great for eight years, then killed his team by being a part time pitcher while commanding the highest salary on the team and in the league. THat is worse.
Is his salary suckjob worse than what david"fortnite" price is doing to the red sox ? It just can't be worse , I feel like I'd rather price was on IR earning his salary than pitching
You are wrong. Koufax was a "Bonus Baby" so he not only got a big signing bonus he couldn't be sent down to the minors for two years, so he took up another players roster spot as well. That's not "pennies on the dollar".
The Dodgers also had another "bonus baby" at the same time, Roberto Clemente and sent him down and he was grabbed by the Pirates!
Yes, pennies on the dollar. He may have been forced to be kept as a roster spot, but he wasn't being paid much to do it, and in his first three years he still pitched at a rate of 102 ERA+, so he was providing value.
Price too...so in either case, it is a worse 'crime' than Koufax retiring at age 30 after his best season. Big giant suckholes of team resources.
JoeBanzi, I thought you didn't agree with ballpark adjustments?? That being said, can you find another post WWII pitcher that had a 1.86 ERA over a four year span, while pitching 1,192 innings??
You can't on one hand claim that Larry Walker is being penalized for having a Coors field adjustment to his stats...and then say that Koufax needs a Dodger stadium adjustment. Because if Koufax doesn't need an era adjustment or ballpark adjustment, THEN his 1.86 ERA over 1,192 innings stands as the benchmark for post WWII pitchers at their peak.
Also, how many of these people arguing on here against Koufax, end up arguing with Dallasactuary about guys like Roy White??? LMAO. When he says guys like Roy White are better than Jim Rice, he is taking into account the era and ballpark that he played in....yet now when it comes to Koufax, you are all of a sudden agreeing with that method when you say Kershaw is better than Koufax...but not agree with that method when it comes to Gene Teance, Roy White???
SO which is it? Either Dallasactuary is right about players like Gene Tenace and Roy White being better than Jim Rice, or if he is wrong, then that means you have to take Koufax's numbers at face value and NOT add a ballpark effect nor an adjustment for the era...and you CERTAINLY cannot argue against the innings pitch aspect....which makes him untouchable for guys like Kershaw.
Either the era and ballpark adjustments matter or they don't! Now maybe you guys can all apologize to Dallasactuary when you never understood his arguments about Gene Teance and Roy White.
Now that I see some of you guys use sabermetric methodology in the case of Kershaw vs Koufax, you maybe now will finally understand the value of a base on balls, etc... Becuase without sabermetric methodology, there is no way Kershaw is better than Koufax, because you can only take their stats as what they would say on the back of the baseball card, and the Innings pitched, complete games, etc...all would make Koufax's value insurmountable to players like Kershaw.
Like I said, Game over(to some posters on here).
PS, Joe Banzi, you actually have the nerve to disagree with the notion of Koufax retiring early being taken into account, yet when it came to Larry Walker you said the opposite, and that he could have played longer and should not be penalized for retiring early. LMAO. You guys kill me. 1951 Wheathies premium, you spouted nonsense for so much times using old school methodology, yet now when it comes to Koufax, you reverse that switch and do the opoisite. What hypocrites. NO wonder why this country is messed up.
JoeBanzi, you even spouted so much on how Killebrew lost so many stats due to his situation when he was young, but now when it comes to koufax you say the opposite.
Glad to see you guys finally understand things now. Soon I will give the true and accurate take on Koufax. SOme of the stuff I said is true, while others, well it is just too old school and easy to disprove. Grote was correct on a lot of aspects BTW. Now the posters that agreed with him must finally understand other things like the value of a walk. Good lord it took a long time
You couldn't be more wrong, but that's not a surprise. You OBVIOUSLY don't read my posts, you just look for ways to muddy the waters when you are incorrect. You are right so often, you just cannot believe it when you make a mistake, then you redouble your efforts bringing in other players and situations to derail the argument.
The facts in the Kershaw/Koufax debate are clear, both great pitchers in their time, ending up (so far) with comparable numbers. They achieved them in completely different ways. Kershaw was very good every year, while Koufax was average for 1/2 the time and unbelievable for the other 1/2. Seems to me you get a similar value out of both players, but Kershaw put up the numbers every year. I value consistency above Koufax's peak.
Koufax vs. Walker; Koufax is in HOF, Walker despite incredible numbers (OPS 15th All-Time) is not. Slight difference here. Both had a home park advantage. I NEVER said there wasn't a home field advantage for either player, in fact I was going to bring up the Walker example to show how YOU are inconsistent; Koufax HOF, Walker OVERRATED! Walker (as far as I have been able to ascertain) retired when he could have still played. Walker's 1997-2002 peak (hurt in 2000) is almost as impressive as Koufax's 1962-1966 (both in "easy" parks to perform in). Larry Walker NEVER had a bad year looking at YOUR STAT, OPS+ his worst year was 1990 in Montreal (not Colorado) where for 5 years he averaged 130 (that's damn good, isn't it?), which is the same number he hit in his final year in St. Louis (again, not Colorado).
Koufax's arm was so arthritic he could not have continued to pitch, even if he could have taken the pain, without risking permanent injury. This is a FACT and yet you continue to claim he could have pitched longer. As the best pitcher in baseball, you actually think he WANTED to retire......HE HAD TO! This fact has been reported in countless books and articles discussing what a shame it is he HAD TO retire when he did. If you read anything other than a line of statistics you would KNOW this.
I have NEVER disputed the fact that Koufax had the best four year peak of any pitcher, he was amazing. Plus he was amazing in the W.S. as well. TOTALLY dominant. He also had 5 very average years where he didn't contribute much to his team. Both facts. I fully recognize his great years while you ignore his average ones. Koufax also had the advantage of playing on a team that was in the WS in 1963, 1965 and 1966, when he had his peak. Walker was in 1 WS where he had a 1.366 OPS.
Killebrew vs, Koufax; Killebrew sat for 2 years on a last place team before being sent down to the minors. He should have been able to play and learn. Washington was not going to finish much worse than 43-45 games back even if he was a bad fielder and cost them a few meaningless games. don't see how you can bring this into it, but there's the point I was making. Doesn't apply here, but there you are.
Value in early years; again if you read anything about the history of the game other than stats, you would realize how the "Bonus" rule worked, and how much it cost the teams of that era. I won't bother to try to explain it to you. Suffice it to say that the Dodgers wouldn't keep both Koufax and Clemente on the Major League roster and ended up losing Roberto.
Actually you probably aware of all the facts you are just unable to admit it. You need to "punish" those who disagree!!!!
Aufwiedersehen!
@Skin2
I use old school methodology ALWAYS and my understanding of the sport. I'm just curious why you seem to think it faulty when it's leads to us being on the same side. Often.
Forgive me for being unimpressed by your ability to put NOTHING but numbers and percentages into MY conceptual argument and then take a bow on.
I'm not interested in being Bill Hicks to your Denis Leary. Do your own thinking or give credit where it's do.
Game over
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest