@1970s said:
Career Leaders
Rank Player Adjusted ERA+
1 Mariano Rivera 205
2 Clayton Kershaw 159
3 Pedro Martínez 154
4 Jim Devlin 150
5 Lefty Grove 148
T-6 Walter Johnson 147
Hoyt Wilhelm
T-8 Dan Quisenberry 146
Smoky Joe Wood
10 Ed Walsh 145
11 Roger Clemens 143
T-12 Addie Joss 142
Brandon Webb
14 Trevor Hoffman 141
15 Kid Nichols 140
16 Mordecai Brown 139
T-17 John Franco 138
Chris Sale
Cy Young
T-20 Johan Santana 136
Bruce Sutter
T-22 Pete Alexander 135
Christy Mathewson
Randy Johnson
Rube Waddell Whitey Ford 133
Does not look all that out of place so I added Whitey and his ERA+.
Randy Johnson is two above Ford and in the discussion for GOAT but not so for Whitey? Whitey had more complete games and more shutouts than Randy, too, but obviously fewer Ks and Cy Young’s. And around 50 of Randy Johnson’s wins came after age 40 and he was a very average pitcher hanging on at that point and pitching for wins and trading on reputation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@keets said:
so stevek "closes the case" on my comment but agrees with someone who agrees with me. that is quite weird. I'm not a Koufax basher, I just think an opinion on an entire career should be based on an entire career and not half a career.
Koufax won, I don't know how many awards. That is an outstanding career, and in totality in my view is the GOAT regardless of the brevity of his great years.
I think you keep misconstruing my comments, and I'm not going to try and figure it out - LOL
Suffice to say that I respect everyone's opinion on some of the other names mentioned here as GOAT.
Godwin's Law is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
Godwin's Law has been amended to include that if an internet discussion about MLB pitching goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will post the video of Randy Johnson killing the bird.
Godwin's Law is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
Godwin's Law has been amended to include that if an internet discussion about MLB pitching goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will post the video of Randy Johnson killing the bird.
While I don’t expect this to be a popular take...
...I blame the bird. After all, I’ve known plenty of people who had a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Godwin's Law has been amended to include that if an internet discussion about MLB pitching goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will post the video of Randy Johnson killing the bird.
Your scathing remark doesn't seem to grasp the point as to why I posted those WS stats on Koufax...................And my guess is that you selectively missed the posted fact.......................If you wish to be a Koufax basher........................
@1970s said:
With 1970s explanation of the strike zone from 1963 to 1968, he pretty much did this to the advocates for Sandy Koufax and Whitey Ford, who pitched during the expanded strike zone era.
Huh?
Whitey Ford didn’t pitch in 1968, barely pitched in 1967, and pitched a half season in 1966. His stats were outstanding in ‘63-65 but honestly look like just another year for Whitey Ford.
Whitey Ford’s two era crowns were 1956 and 1958. And his worst ERA prior to ‘63 was 3.21.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
Whitey Ford - ERA with a normal strike zone.
>
1950 (age 21) 2.84 ERA
1953 (age 24) 3.00 ERA
1954 (age 25) 2.82 ERA
1955 (age 26). 2.63 ERA
1956 (age 27) 2.47 ERA
1957 (age 28) 2.57 ERA
1958 (age 29) 2.01 ERA
1959 ERA 3.04
1960 ERA 3.08
1961 ERA 3.21
1962 ERA 2.90
This was when the strike zone was from the arm pits to the knees.
Now, let's look at when they made the zone from the top of the shoulders to the knees, and offense in the major leagues went down the tubes.
1963 (age 35) ERA 2.74
1964 (age 36) ERA 2.13
1965 (age 37) ERA 3.24
1966 (age 38) ERA 2.47
1967 (age 39) ERA 1.64
Notice a difference ?
Not really, no. And again, Whitey barely pitched in 66 and 67. I see a pitcher less effective in his 30s. He was too great before then, anyway, to say that 3.5 seasons in your window made his career. It did not.
(I added the full ERA run)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@keets said: Your scathing remark doesn't seem to grasp the point as to why I posted those WS stats on Koufax...................And my guess is that you selectively missed the posted fact.......................If you wish to be a Koufax basher........................
I haven't really misconstrued anything.
Okay, whatever.
In any event you did state "but Koufax, on balance, ends up being just another of many very good pitchers."
And you stated, "I'm not a Koufax basher"
Anyone who calls the GREAT Sandy Koufax, a "very good pitcher" which is a nasty backhanded compliment, is a Koufax basher whether you care to admit it or not.
Yes, the span that in my opinion made Koufax the GOAT, was shorter than other Hall of Fame pitchers. However certainly any "very good pitcher" who every played in the major leagues, as well as probably any Hall of Fame pitcher, would dream of having a spectacular span such as that, and you know it.
At least you didn't say that Koufax shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. But perhaps you just didn't get around to mentioning that yet?
dude, he sucked for half his career and achieved greatness for the other half.
think about it, if the two had been switched, meaning he was great for six years and then sucked for six years, nobody would talk much about him. nobody would call him the GOAT. that's my whole point, if you look at his career overall there are better pitchers. if you look at those six years, there might be none better.
I really think it's a fair statement to say a player should be judged on the entire body of his work. viewed like that he is, to me, a very, very good pitcher. if you can't handle that then maybe hero worship isn't something you should engage in.
No, not really ?????????????
So his ERA in the mid 2's from age 35-39 has nothing to do with the better strike zone, then
his ERA from age 31-34 of 3.10 ???
No difference ???????????????
Look at the full run of ERA’s from 1950-1965 (1967 he pitched in 7 games! 1.47 means nothing whether the strike zone was ‘anywhere near home plate’ or normal since the sample size is too small.)
I am aware of larger strike zone; for Whitey Ford does it really do much? No, it does not. He was an ERA league leader BOTH before and after the change so, again, I don’t see much of a difference.
I can see this used in the argument against Koufax (without much merit, but the overlap is much more considerable, in his prime and therefore impactful).
All it did for Whitey Ford was soften his statistical decline; he was already incredible for 10 seasons prior within the confines of the original strike zone.
That’s my point.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
What do you mean by "without much merit" when talking about Koufax and his incredible run with the expanded strike zone, compared to his pedestrian run before the strike zone was increased ?
Put succinctly, what difference does it make that the entire league’s ERA was lower when yours is the lowest the entire time?
Not to mention that Koufax’s first two great seasons came before 1963; neither 1961 nor 1962 could be described as pedestrian in my opinion.
So, that’s what I meant by without much merit.
And certainly not John J. Rambo worthy, my friend.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@keets said:
dude, he sucked for half his career and achieved greatness for the other half.
think about it, if the two had been switched, meaning he was great for six years and then sucked for six years, nobody would talk much about him. nobody would call him the GOAT. that's my whole point, if you look at his career overall there are better pitchers. if you look at those six years, there might be none better.
I really think it's a fair statement to say a player should be judged on the entire body of his work. viewed like that he is, to me, a very, very good pitcher. if you can't handle that then maybe hero worship isn't something you should engage in.
this case is closed!!
Well, the Hall of Fame voters obviously strongly disagreed with you, and they were absolutely right to do so.
Hero worship with sports stars? Not me. I simply enjoy sports, always have and always will for the fun and entertainment involved with watching and discussing it, rooting for my teams, and the competitiveness when playing it.
And I LOVE baseball and football cards. Something about those beautiful little printed works of art, does something for me. I'm not yet sure what it is, but whatever it is, it's been quite enjoyable.
@Darin said:
I've hired legal counsel to help me with this issue.
And now I believe its safe to say,
"Case closed"
I'm just trying to figure out how Perry Mason whose final TV case was in 1966, is defending a diagram of MLB pitchers which has at the top of it, a player born in 1963?
Am I gaining any ground with Whitey? Just curious - you post a lot of good stuff in sports talk even if I don’t always agree...
I understand how you feel about Whitey. Same way I feel about Catfish Hunter during his time with Oakland. When you love a guy, you just love a guy, and nothing can be said to put your guy down.
That's why I continue to say Whitey was a great pitcher, on great teams, and he was very good in the postseason, and he belongs in the conversation of some of the best lefties ever.
If you honestly look at the situation though, Whitey was helped, as every other pitcher was, during the expanded strike zone era, even though you say not that much. Plus, his lifetime numbers are not quite Lefty Grove like when you compare them.
If you look at the charts I presented on comparing Grove to Johnson to Koufax, Grove comes out on top. Grove comes out on top of Whitey as well. We can only go on the numbers, because we never saw Grove pitch. No left handed pitcher has overall better numbers than Lefty Grove. No one.
If you don't believe pitchers were helped by the league expanding the strike zone to above the shoulders, just watch major league hitters today try and hit the high strike. Most can't touch the fastball if it's at chest level. If it's slightly above chest level, they are toast. Just imagine if they tried to hit it if it's at the shoulder level. It's almost impossible. Guys with good heaters like Koufax, Gibson, and Ford took advantage of that, as would any other hard thrower.
Well, I think the only conclusion you can draw from the data offered is that Lefty Grove was considerably better than his peers.
Statistics that attempt to ‘level the playing field’ are good but certainly imperfect. I’m not one who believes that ‘athletes today are so much better’ - that is utter nonsense. Humans have not evolved that much in 80-100 years.
The days of Whitey Ford having devastating high heat were long gone by 1963. He was a much different pitcher then Gibson and Koufax by then and was throwing a lot of ‘stuff’ - as mentioned Ed earlier - rather than blowing people away.
Lefty Grove was spectacular; took a deep dive yesterday.
So thanks - knew who he was, had never looked that close.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Whitey pitched 140ish postseason innings; through his whole career across age and ability. That’s a pretty basic premise governing baseball - the more IP, the closer your numbers get to career averages.
And Lefty Grove had just three postseasons: all in a row ages 29-31during his best three seasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Good thing he played on a good team when he was pitching well.
57 innings should not put him at #2 in my opinion.
Yes they were important innings. BY the way he couldn't have been pitching much better than the opponents guy as his record was 4-3.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Good thing he played on a good team when he was pitching well.
57 innings should not put him at #2 in my opinion.
Yes they were important innings. BY the way he couldn't have been pitching much better than the opponents guy as his record was 4-3.
Against the Twins, Koufax lost his first game 5-1, and then shut the Twins out in the next two games. The last one was in your ballpark in game 7. Any pitcher who shuts out the opponent in their own ballpark in the 7th game of the world series, has stones.
Koufax pitched Game 5 and Game 7. So I'm sure he didn't have much rest either. He went the distance in both games. No relievers. He struck out 10 in each game.
You're telling me that he doesn't deserve "extra credit" for what he did in the postseason ?
That's fine. But all professional athletes will tell you that they don't remember who came
in 2nd place. It's all about the rings, and those who come up big in the postseason deserve the extra credit they earned.
I am quite familiar with the 1965 WS, Koufax pitched fantastic!
Sure he deserves SOME extra credit!
How about a pitcher who pitches almost 3,000 more regular season innings and has the the EXACT SAME W-L record in the WS? Spahn was very good in the WS too (not as good as Sandy) with a 1.071 WHIP.
BTW the 57-58 Yankees might have been a bit better than the 1965 Twins. Ya think? Better even than the 1963 Yankees in my opinion as well.
Spahn won 20 or more games THIRTEEN TIMES! Koufax's entire career was only twelve years, and 2 of those were 2 win seasons.
Spahn has 382 complete (no relievers here either) games. Koufax had 314 starts!
Give me Spahn's 13 seasons of 119 or better ERA+ over Koufax's 6 (I am not counting 1955).
Extra credit is one thing, but that's simply too much credit for me.
If you want to talk about "domination" that's another story. Koufax was MUCH more of a dominant pitcher, probably why his arm fell off after 1966.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Whitey pitched 140ish postseason innings; through his whole career across age and ability. That’s a pretty basic premise governing baseball - the more IP, the closer your numbers get to career averages.
And Lefty Grove had just three postseasons: all in a row ages 29-31during his best three seasons.
We can't discredit Left Grove or Sandy Koufax because their teams were not as good as the Yankees. They could only perform in the postseason games that they played in. They both pitched 50 plus innings each, and both pitched better than Whitey Ford in the postseason.
And if it makes you feel better, Sandy Koufax beat Whitey Ford and the Yankees twice in the world series when the Dodgers swept you 4 games to 0. Sandy was 2-0. Whitey was 0-2.
Koufax had a 1.50 era, and Whitey Ford had a 4.50 era.
As stevek would say, "case closed" and it's not even debatable.
I didn’t discredit any pitcher in this thread.
And I already mentioned the Ford Koufax matchup. A while ago. What I mentioned that you didn’t is it was an in his prime 27 year old Sandy against past his prime 34 year old Ford.
Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax both pitched three games in a seven game series that their teams won. Twice. Including deciding game sevens.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Whitey pitched 140ish postseason innings; through his whole career across age and ability. That’s a pretty basic premise governing baseball - the more IP, the closer your numbers get to career averages.
And Lefty Grove had just three postseasons: all in a row ages 29-31during his best three seasons.
We can't discredit Left Grove or Sandy Koufax because their teams were not as good as the Yankees. They could only perform in the postseason games that they played in. They both pitched 50 plus innings each, and both pitched better than Whitey Ford in the postseason.
And if it makes you feel better, Sandy Koufax beat Whitey Ford and the Yankees twice in the world series when the Dodgers swept you 4 games to 0. Sandy was 2-0. Whitey was 0-2.
Koufax had a 1.50 era, and Whitey Ford had a 4.50 era.
As stevek would say, "case closed" and it's not even debatable.
I didn’t discredit any pitcher in this thread.
And I already mentioned the Ford Koufax matchup. A while ago. What I mentioned that you didn’t is it was an in his prime 27 year old Sandy against past his prime 34 year old Ford.
Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax both pitched three games in a seven game series that their teams won. Twice. Including deciding game sevens.
I would say you have a very compelling argument on Ford being a better pitcher than Koufax.
Not as "dominating" which actually means nothing.
Ford pitched many more innings, had a lower ERA and a higher winning %.
Case closed.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot "World Series, blah, blah, blah.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@daltex said:
I maintain that Jeter's incredible selfishness in insisting on remaining at short when the Yankees acquired a vastly superior defensive shortstop really hurt the team.
I maintain that you have zero evidence that Jeter insisted on remaining at short, and zero evidence that it hurt the team that he did stay at short. Prove me wrong.
Fair enough: I have no idea why the Yankees starting in 2004 still allowed Jeter to play short. They had two players who would both eventually go into the Hall of Fame who had primarily played short on their roster. One was a slightly below average defender, not Mark Belanger or even Omar Vizquel, but not that bad, either. The other was the worst defensive shortstop of all time (3000 innings played) by a huge margin. Since I can't think of any other reason why the team would have the worse shortstop play there instead of somewhere else. I can only conclude that the captain (was Jeter even the captain in 2004?) insisted on remaining at short. If anyone has a reasonable hypothesis as to why the Yankees might have made that choice, I'm open to suggestion.
With a minimally competent shortstop between 2004 and 2014 would the Yankees have won more than one World Series? I can't say that, but considering that they could have had one by looking, what, thirty feet to the right, it would have been worth a try. Jeter may have been a disaster at third, too, but third is not as key a defensive position as short. That's only if you want to make the Yankee offense exactly as strong. I'm not sure where Jeter would have fit in, but historically bad defenders at key defensive positions. The Red Sox were able to hide David Ortiz at first for 1162 innings, but were the Yankees able to hide Jeter at short (successfully) for 23,225.2?
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Whitey pitched 140ish postseason innings; through his whole career across age and ability. That’s a pretty basic premise governing baseball - the more IP, the closer your numbers get to career averages.
And Lefty Grove had just three postseasons: all in a row ages 29-31during his best three seasons.
We can't discredit Left Grove or Sandy Koufax because their teams were not as good as the Yankees. They could only perform in the postseason games that they played in. They both pitched 50 plus innings each, and both pitched better than Whitey Ford in the postseason.
And if it makes you feel better, Sandy Koufax beat Whitey Ford and the Yankees twice in the world series when the Dodgers swept you 4 games to 0. Sandy was 2-0. Whitey was 0-2.
Koufax had a 1.50 era, and Whitey Ford had a 4.50 era.
As stevek would say, "case closed" and it's not even debatable.
I didn’t discredit any pitcher in this thread.
And I already mentioned the Ford Koufax matchup. A while ago. What I mentioned that you didn’t is it was an in his prime 27 year old Sandy against past his prime 34 year old Ford.
Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax both pitched three games in a seven game series that their teams won. Twice. Including deciding game sevens.
I would say you have a very compelling argument on Ford being a better pitcher than Koufax.
Not as "dominating" which actually means nothing.
Ford pitched many more innings, had a lower ERA and a higher winning %.
Case closed.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot "World Series, blah, blah, blah.
Coming from a Twins fan, "world series, blah, blah" makes perfect sense.
And yes, you can make an argument that Whitey Ford had a better career than Sandy Koufax. But you can't make an argument that Whitey Ford had a better run than Sandy Koufax did.
Yes, Koufax was more in his prime during the "pitcher's era" than Whitey, so I get that.
As everyone knows, I always give a little extra push to the guy who comes up big in the postseason. Sandy outperformed Whitey in that. Case closed. A Yankee and Red Sox fan would understand that way of thinking. But Twins fans, that's a different story.
Sandy outperformed Whitey?
Whitey Ford had the same number of complete games (7) as Sandy Koufax had starts.
Also, Whitey Ford had 4 consecutive games (34 IP) in back to back World Series (‘60 and ‘61) combined where he allowed no runs, won 4 games in 4 starts, including 3 complete game shutouts.
THAT is postseason dominance unlike anything we’d see until Madison Bumgarner a few years back.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
One of the reasons I ranked Koufax so high in the beginning (even though I put in "for only a short time") was because Sandy pitched the same amount of innings in the postseason as Lefty Grove did, with an unreal ERA of 0.95.
That's why Koufax was #2 on my all time list.
Whitey pitched 140ish postseason innings; through his whole career across age and ability. That’s a pretty basic premise governing baseball - the more IP, the closer your numbers get to career averages.
And Lefty Grove had just three postseasons: all in a row ages 29-31during his best three seasons.
We can't discredit Left Grove or Sandy Koufax because their teams were not as good as the Yankees. They could only perform in the postseason games that they played in. They both pitched 50 plus innings each, and both pitched better than Whitey Ford in the postseason.
And if it makes you feel better, Sandy Koufax beat Whitey Ford and the Yankees twice in the world series when the Dodgers swept you 4 games to 0. Sandy was 2-0. Whitey was 0-2.
Koufax had a 1.50 era, and Whitey Ford had a 4.50 era.
As stevek would say, "case closed" and it's not even debatable.
I didn’t discredit any pitcher in this thread.
And I already mentioned the Ford Koufax matchup. A while ago. What I mentioned that you didn’t is it was an in his prime 27 year old Sandy against past his prime 34 year old Ford.
Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax both pitched three games in a seven game series that their teams won. Twice. Including deciding game sevens.
I would say you have a very compelling argument on Ford being a better pitcher than Koufax.
Not as "dominating" which actually means nothing.
Ford pitched many more innings, had a lower ERA and a higher winning %.
Case closed.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot "World Series, blah, blah, blah.
Coming from a Twins fan, "world series, blah, blah" makes perfect sense.
And yes, you can make an argument that Whitey Ford had a better career than Sandy Koufax. But you can't make an argument that Whitey Ford had a better run than Sandy Koufax did.
Yes, Koufax was more in his prime during the "pitcher's era" than Whitey, so I get that.
As everyone knows, I always give a little extra push to the guy who comes up big in the postseason. Sandy outperformed Whitey in that. Case closed. A Yankee and Red Sox fan would understand that way of thinking. But Twins fans, that's a different story.
Sandy outperformed Whitey?
Show me any 5 year stretch where Whitey outperformed Koufax's ERA from 1962 through 1966.
ERA and ERA+ are pretty widely accepted measures of a great pitcher.
ERA+ is better because it makes adjustments for other factors, which is why Lefty Grove's higher ERA+ shows why he is the better pitcher than Whitey Ford.
Whitey Ford pitched in a time where the league ERA was around 3.40
Lefty Grove pitched in a time where the league ERA was around 5.10
Left Grove was a lifetime 3 something in ERA, sitting at 2.10 below league average.
Whitey Ford was a lifetime 2.8 something, sitting at 0.60 below league average.
You keep changing your argument.
You said:
“As everyone knows, I always give a little extra push to the guy who comes up big in the postseason. Sandy outperformed Whitey in that. Case closed.”
I answered with reasons why I believe that’s not the case.
Now, it’s been changed to:
“Show me any 5 year stretch where Whitey outperformed Koufax's ERA from 1962 through 1966.”
So?
1954-1958
If everything you are telling me in this thread is truthful and correct, Sandy Koufax pitched into a larger strike zone for the amazing and historic five year run he posted from 1962-66. You made the point that it was ‘easier’ for guys like Koufax, Gibson and the other pitchers who’s prime fell into that span.
Well, in a smaller strike zone from 1954-1958, here’s the ERAs that I will submit for public consumption with the years he lead the league bolded (and I’ll mention here that 1955 was a second place finish for the ERA crown) from the Chairman of the Board:
Now, you’re telling me - accounting for the difference in strike zone that you brought up - that these are not incredibly similar runs of dominance, if not identical, in terms of ERA?
Your honor, I implore you!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
You'll NEVER win with 1970s. It was the same thing in the 3rd base debate. He picks a guy that is not the best, but was very good, has ONE SMALL advantage, and overstates it.
I will concede that he is fine with Grove being #1, Spahn can be no lower than #2. Koufax has to be around #6 and below Ford. While impressive, Sandy's 5 year run and low WS ERA don't push him past other guys who pitched MANY more innings.
Of all the stubborn posters here (and I am one of them) he is certainly #1 in refusing to quit bailing water even when his boat is on the bottom of the lake.
Good luck with your efforts! He will never listen!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You'll NEVER win with 1970s. It was the same thing in the 3rd base debate. He picks a guy that is not the best, but was very good, has ONE SMALL advantage, and overstates it.
I will concede that he is fine with Grove being #1, Spahn can be no lower than #2. Koufax has to be around #6 and below Ford. While impressive, Sandy's 5 year run and low WS ERA don't push him past other guys who pitched MANY more innings.
Of all the stubborn posters here (and I am one of them) he is certainly #1 in refusing to quit bailing water even when his boat is on the bottom of the lake.
Good luck with your efforts! He will never listen!
Now it's time to critique you.
Where in my original post did I say I was ranking the Top left handed pitchers of all time ?
Where ?
My original post was "Greatest left handed pitcher of all time". Period.
I did not rank everyone from #2 on down. I just merely mentioned some other good ones.
The greatest left handed pitcher of all time was Lefty Grove. That was my only original point.
I made no others.
I have just entertained other people's opinions about other good lefties.
No one has argued my original post that Lefty was the best. Because Lefty was.
Everything else discussed in this thread about who falls between 2 and 10 has nothing
to do with me.
That was not the point of this thread. That OP was about Lefty Grove.
If you want to debate that, then I'm all ears.
Actually, I am saying why couldn’t you consider Whitey Ford as THE greatest lefty of all time?
I have compared Ford to both Koufax and Grove and feel the case for Ford is a compelling one.
You may not agree but that is the case I am making:
Whitey Ford as GOAT.
Pleasure debating the topic with all...
PS - You did say you have Sandy as #2 at one point, for sake of accuracy.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
You'll NEVER win with 1970s. It was the same thing in the 3rd base debate. He picks a guy that is not the best, but was very good, has ONE SMALL advantage, and overstates it.
I will concede that he is fine with Grove being #1, Spahn can be no lower than #2. Koufax has to be around #6 and below Ford. While impressive, Sandy's 5 year run and low WS ERA don't push him past other guys who pitched MANY more innings.
Of all the stubborn posters here (and I am one of them) he is certainly #1 in refusing to quit bailing water even when his boat is on the bottom of the lake.
Good luck with your efforts! He will never listen!
Now it's time to critique you.
Where in my original post did I say I was ranking the Top left handed pitchers of all time ?
Where ?
My original post was "Greatest left handed pitcher of all time". Period.
I did not rank everyone from #2 on down. I just merely mentioned some other good ones.
The greatest left handed pitcher of all time was Lefty Grove. That was my only original point.
I made no others.
I have just entertained other people's opinions about other good lefties.
No one has argued my original post that Lefty was the best. Because Lefty was.
Everything else discussed in this thread about who falls between 2 and 10 has nothing
to do with me.
That was not the point of this thread. That OP was about Lefty Grove.
If you want to debate that, then I'm all ears.
Actually, I am saying why couldn’t you consider Whitey Ford as THE greatest lefty of all time?
I have compared Ford to both Koufax and Grove and feel the case for Ford is a compelling one.
You may not agree but that is the case I am making:
Whitey Ford as GOAT.
Pleasure debating the topic with all...
PS - You did say you have Sandy as #2 at one point, for sake of accuracy.
OK. Now I'm interested. Please state why you feel Whitey is better than Lefty Grove.
Take the time to read what I wrote and you’ll find it. It’s there. Promise.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1970s said:
Lefty Grove is the #1 all time left handed pitcher on the all time WAR list for pitchers.
Cy Young is the #1 right handed pitcher on the all time WAR list for pitchers.
@daltex said:
Fair enough: I have no idea why the Yankees starting in 2004 still allowed Jeter to play short.
Because Jeter at short and ARod at third was better than ARod at short and Jeter at third. No doubt ARod could play either position better than Jeter, but he was "more better" than Jeter at third than he was at short.
They had two players who would both eventually go into the Hall of Fame who had primarily played short on their roster. One was a slightly below average defender, not Mark Belanger or even Omar Vizquel, but not that bad, either. The other was the worst defensive shortstop of all time (3000 innings played) by a huge margin.
I would call Arod "slightly above average" at SS, but that's a quibble; he was about average. But Jeter was not "the worst defensive shortstop of all time (over 3000 innings played) by a huge margin"; whatever source you're using that tells you this is the case, well, you should stop using it. I'm not arguing that he was great, or even good, but he was also no worse (let alone by a huge margin) than Ivan DeJesus, Julio Franco, Mark Grudzielanek, Harvey Kuenn, and I think I'll stop now. Jose Offerman played well over 3,000 innings at short and set a standard for putridity that Jeter never approached, although Kurt Stillwell did. Jeter had some up years and some down years at SS, and overall he was, let's say "serviceable" there. Given the relative weakness of his arm, playing him at third was never an option, and there was nobody else on the roster with any meaningful experience at short.
Since I can't think of any other reason why the team would have the worse shortstop play there instead of somewhere else. I can only conclude that the captain (was Jeter even the captain in 2004?) insisted on remaining at short. If anyone has a reasonable hypothesis as to why the Yankees might have made that choice, I'm open to suggestion.
There you go.
With a minimally competent shortstop between 2004 and 2014 would the Yankees have won more than one World Series? I can't say that, but considering that they could have had one by looking, what, thirty feet to the right, it would have been worth a try. Jeter may have been a disaster at third, too, but third is not as key a defensive position as short. That's only if you want to make the Yankee offense exactly as strong. I'm not sure where Jeter would have fit in, but historically bad defenders at key defensive positions. The Red Sox were able to hide David Ortiz at first for 1162 innings, but were the Yankees able to hide Jeter at short (successfully) for 23,225.2?
Fairly risible speculation, but to turn it into an actual argument you have to declare who the Yankees should have benched and where you played have played Jeter in the field (give up on the idea that he was going to play 3B; never even on the table). "I'm not sure where Jeter would have fit in" won't cut it, because presumably Torre felt the same way. That HOF manager looked at all the available pieces and kept Jeter at SS, and I see absolutely no reason to believe that this was the wrong choice. Other than hyperbolic, and incorrect, statements about how bad Jeter was at short, you haven't really provided any reason for me to reconsider that opinion.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
This isn’t really a debate if you aren’t reading my points.
Welcome to trying to debate 1970s. But in this case, I agree with him. In fairness to everyone, "greatest" means something different to everyone, and if someone wants to make the case that Mark Fidrych, or Allie Reynolds, or Silver King, etc. was the "greatest" pitcher of all-time, they can do it. It won't convince me, but they aren't necessarily "wrong".
I group Whitey Ford in there, too. You can make a case that he's the GOAT lefty, but to make it you have to pick and choose stats and weight them in such a way that makes no sense to me. Weight postseason stats absurdly high, as 1970s does, and you get results that seem absurd to me, and Allie Reynolds enters the GOAT conversation, and David Freese is a better 3B than Brett or Schmidt. Weight peak seasons too high, or use a "just one game" kind of standard, and you'll find yourself talking about Mark Fidrych.
You can sift through the mountain of stats and find ways to get Ford on top of Grove, and then weight just those stats while ignoring that Grove pitched much longer and dominated his peers much more, and conclude Ford was better. But there is absolutely no way to do that without starting from the conclusion that Ford was better, and then working backward to find those specific stats. That, I think, is what you've done.
Try to summarize the standards you're using to determine that Ford was better than Grove, and post them here. How confidant are you that applying those standards to other pitchers wouldn't produce results that would seem absurd even to you?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1970s said:
I put Sandy as #2 ONLY because he has the best ERA for starting pitchers out of the Top 10 lefties.
In roughly the same # of innings (2219 vs 2324), while playing in a significantly higher-scoring era, Clayton Kershaw has a career ERA 0.34 runs lower than Koufax. In fact, he's #1 among all starters since 1920. He's also the only pitcher to lead the majors in ERA in four consecutive seasons.
While I fully expect to be told that I have done this wrong, I like to keep it simple.
I looked at their 162 game averages and Ford, on average, produced a better win percentage, a better K/9, a lower ERA and a lower WHIP.
Now, they’re certainly from different eras and I’m sure once we convert them Whitey Ford will look like Carl Pavano and Lefty Grove will look like Cy Young.
But those are pretty fundamental stats that have not been put thru any statistical wringer.
And if we’re going to be measured by how well we outperformed outlet peers, it should be noted that Lefty Grove pitched the entirety of his career before the game of baseball was integrated.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
While I fully expect to be told that I have done this wrong, I like to keep it simple.
I looked at their 162 game averages and Ford, on average, produced a better win percentage, a better K/9, a lower ERA and a lower WHIP.
Now, they’re certainly from different eras and I’m sure once we convert them Whitey Ford will look like Carl Pavano and Lefty Grove will look like Cy Young.
But those are pretty fundamental stats that have not been put thru any statistical wringer.
In descending order of importance:
If you look only at 162 game averages, you are assigning literally zero weight to pitching more innings. Under your system two pitchers on the same team in the same year are equally good if their W/L %, K/9, ERA and WHIP are the same, even if one pitcher pitched 100 innings and the other pitched 300 innings. I don't think you actually believe that, but it is a necessary condition to get Whitey Ford past Lefty Grove, so you are stuck with it. But it's why your argument isn't convincing anyone.
In the years Grove pitched, an average team scored 5.1 runs per game. In the years Ford pitched, an average team scored 4.3 runs per game. Grove pitched for teams with home parks that strongly favored hitters; Ford in a home park that strongly favored pitchers. The park advantage for Ford is about as large as the era advantage. I won't tell you how to adjust for any of it, but I will tell you that if you don't adjust somehow then any conclusion you reach will be wrong. In context, Grove's WHIP was better than Ford's and so was his ERA (and over many more innings).
Whitey Ford did not produce a win percentage, the Yankees did. The statistic is still of dubious merit, but if you'd like you can claim than Ford produced a W/L 114 points better than the other pitchers on his teams did (.690 vs. .576). But Grove produced a W/L 123 points better than his teams other pitchers (.680 vs. .557).
Grove's K/9 fell off a cliff when he got old, as Ford's likely would have. And Ford got to pitch several years with the expanded strike zone. Compare their K/9 only in years with a common strike zone, and only up to the age at which Ford retired, and Grove's K/9 was a hair better than Ford's.
Whitey Ford was not Carl Pavano, he was a great pitcher. But he was not as great as Lefty Grove (who I think was better than Cy Young, but that's a different debate).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I already admitted that this comparison would be crude but I’m sticking with it.
In their 162 game averages, Grove pitches 250 innings to Fords 230. That’s more innings but not way more innings. In addition, there were literally no ‘bad years’ for Whitey Ford anywhere in those averages as he was the model of consistency with his highest single season ERA being 3.24. In sharp contrast, whether live ball, dead ball, steroid or any other era, 6.50 is an unacceptable ERA and in the middle of a career it’s downright awful. In addition, the last two years were also very substandard - and that word is being kind. Fittingly, It bookends with his mediocre rookie season ERA quite nicely.
I’m not answering questions about adjusting for era until you tell me how to account for Lefty Grove not facing the best black pitchers and hitters in the country at the time. Maybe Lefty’s numbers take a hit if he’s pitching to Josh Gibson or against Satchell Paige.
Whitey Ford most certainly did have a win percentage. With 156 complete games and 45 shutouts, those are legitimate wins. Earned wins. These are not the 5 IP and pray wins that got Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson to 300 wins. Whitey, like Lefty Grove, earned his wins. Maybe not all but most. And as mentioned, Ford was often held out and held down by Stengel. When Houk got the job in 1961, Ford was left to do his thing and threw 283 innings.
My last point is this:
I presented a group of stats as did you. Near as I can tell, you have told me that your stats are all better than mine and that I have to take your word for it. I’m happy to take that on its face. Now, let’s say I do just take this all at face value, and look at it your way, you tell me that despite the actual unaltered numbers being the opposite, it’s actually Grove who comes out with a slightly better ERA, a slightly better WHIP, a slightly better K/9 than Whitey Ford.
Fine. I’ll accept all that for arguments sake.
I still don’t see how a slightly better ERA, WHIP and K/9 that comes with 20 extra innings a year produces a pitcher that is hands down and runaway the best of all time over the other. It actually sounds close.
Maybe even debatable?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
This isn’t really a debate if you aren’t reading my points.
Welcome to trying to debate 1970s. But in this case, I agree with him. In fairness to everyone, "greatest" means something different to everyone, and if someone wants to make the case that Mark Fidrych, or Allie Reynolds, or Silver King, etc. was the "greatest" pitcher of all-time, they can do it. It won't convince me, but they aren't necessarily "wrong".
I group Whitey Ford in there, too. You can make a case that he's the GOAT lefty, but to make it you have to pick and choose stats and weight them in such a way that makes no sense to me. Weight postseason stats absurdly high, as 1970s does, and you get results that seem absurd to me, and Allie Reynolds enters the GOAT conversation, and David Freese is a better 3B than Brett or Schmidt. Weight peak seasons too high, or use a "just one game" kind of standard, and you'll find yourself talking about Mark Fidrych.
You can sift through the mountain of stats and find ways to get Ford on top of Grove, and then weight just those stats while ignoring that Grove pitched much longer and dominated his peers much more, and conclude Ford was better. But there is absolutely no way to do that without starting from the conclusion that Ford was better, and then working backward to find those specific stats. That, I think, is what you've done.
Try to summarize the standards you're using to determine that Ford was better than Grove, and post them here. How confidant are you that applying those standards to other pitchers wouldn't produce results that would seem absurd even to you?
Pay attention to what Dallas said in this post because its exactly what he does to convince people 'his' player is
better than any other player. He picks and chooses his stats. Sometimes WAR favors his player, so he'll use that
stat. Other times, Slug. %, other times OPS.
Of course sometimes none of the stats favor his player, like when he tried to say Joe Morgan was a better
hitter in the seventies than Willie Stargell, or Willie Mays at age 35 had a better year than Ted Williams 1941
season. These are the times when you wish Dallas would just get the 12 hours sleep he needs instead of
pulling an all nighter on the computer and then sleeping under his desk at work the next day.
I still don’t see how a slightly better ERA, WHIP and K/9 that comes with 20 extra innings a year produces a pitcher that is hands down and runaway the best of all time over the other. It actually sounds close.
Maybe even debatable?
Comparing their innings on a per 162 basis gives Grove only an 8% advantage (250/230) but ignores that he pitched more games. Groves longevity advantage is that he pitched 25% more innings than Ford. That is a huge hole that Ford has to dig out of with advantages elsewhere.
In context, Grove's ERA and WHIP were not "slightly" better than Ford's, they were significantly better. Over the course of their careers, Grove allowed 712 runs fewer than an average pitcher (RAA on bb-ref) and Ford allowed 253 fewer. You mention context (park and era differences) on occasion, but in the end you are dismissing them entirely. That's always wrong, but it is really, really wrong in a comparison between the 1930's and 1960's.
What you're left with is the argument that because the game wasn't integrated when Grove played and was in the process of becoming integrated when Ford was at his peak, that means Ford was better. No way to prove you wrong on that belief, but I'll note that if you are making an adjustment for integration that gets Ford past Grove, then that same adjustment will get Carl Yastrzemski past Ruth, and literally nobody from the pre-integration years will be close to a GOAT candidate at any position. Maybe you believe that, maybe you don't, but I am certain that you have no evidence to support that belief.
Whitey Ford was a great pitcher, probably one of the top 30 of all time and top 10 lefties. Lefty Grove was possibly the greatest pitcher, lefty or righty, of all time. I'm just not seeing them as close.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Pay attention to what Dallas said in this post because its exactly what he does to convince people 'his' player is
better than any other player. He picks and chooses his stats. Sometimes WAR favors his player, so he'll use that
stat. Other times, Slug. %, other times OPS.
Of course sometimes none of the stats favor his player, like when he tried to say Joe Morgan was a better
hitter in the seventies than Willie Stargell, or Willie Mays at age 35 had a better year than Ted Williams 1941
season. These are the times when you wish Dallas would just get the 12 hours sleep he needs instead of
pulling an all nighter on the computer and then sleeping under his desk at work the next day.
This made me laugh. What I don't get is how you can not understand a single thing I say, and yet everything I say makes you cry like a little girl. By the way, it's spelled "it's".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I already admitted that this comparison would be crude but I’m sticking with it.
Good for you.
In their 162 game averages, Grove pitches 250 innings to Fords 230. That’s more innings but not way more innings. In addition, there were literally no ‘bad years’ for Whitey Ford anywhere in those averages as he was the model of consistency with his highest single season ERA being 3.24. In sharp contrast, whether live ball, dead ball, steroid or any other era, 6.50 is an unacceptable ERA and in the middle of a career it’s downright awful. In addition, the last two years were also very substandard - and that word is being kind. Fittingly, It bookends with his mediocre rookie season ERA quite nicely.
Using the 162 game average here is clever. It shows that Grove only pitched 20 more innings a year and Whitey beats him in ERA by a significant margin.
Strange, that when you look at it, Grove surpassed his 250 IP 11 times while Whitey surpassed his 230 IP only 6 times. Grove had 17 years where he pitched over 100 innings and Whitey had 14.
Grove completed 65% of his starts, Ford 36%
Looks like Grove pitched in relief a LOT more times too; 167 times to 60. Finished 123 games to Ford's 35.
I’m not answering questions about adjusting for era until you tell me how to account for Lefty Grove not facing the best black pitchers and hitters in the country at the time. Maybe Lefty’s numbers take a hit if he’s pitching to Josh Gibson or against Satchell Paige.
I agree here, I don't like comparing across eras for many reasons. I will say that Grove was a far superior pitcher in his time with 9 first place ERA titles to Whitey's 2. Getting into the segregation issue, Whitey didn't have to face too many black hitters in the AL, so I don't see much of an advantage for Grove there.
Whitey Ford most certainly did have a win percentage. With 156 complete games and 45 shutouts, those are legitimate wins. Earned wins. These are not the 5 IP and pray wins that got Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson to 300 wins. Whitey, like Lefty Grove, earned his wins. Maybe not all but most. And as mentioned, Ford was often held out and held down by Stengel. When Houk got the job in 1961, Ford was left to do his thing and threw 283 innings.
The biggest unknown here is the fact that Stengel hurt Whitey's numbers in an effort to win championships. No doubt what so ever. The argument against Ford's high winning % is he played on a team that made it to the World Series 11 times while Grove made it 3 times, so any good/great pitcher should have an impressive winning % playing for the Yankees in those years!
My last point is this:
I presented a group of stats as did you. Near as I can tell, you have told me that your stats are all better than mine and that I have to take your word for it. I’m happy to take that on its face. Now, let’s say I do just take this all at face value, and look at it your way, you tell me that despite the actual unaltered numbers being the opposite, it’s actually Grove who comes out with a slightly better ERA, a slightly better WHIP, a slightly better K/9 than Whitey Ford.
Again, I tend to agree with you. I am not a fan of the "+". When comparing player "A" to player "B" I don't think bringing in every other player's numberss and ballparks etc, gives us anything better to look at.
Fine. I’ll accept all that for arguments sake.
I still don’t see how a slightly better ERA, WHIP and K/9 that comes with 20 extra innings a year produces a pitcher that is hands down and runaway the best of all time over the other. It actually sounds close.
Maybe even debatable?
Certainly debatable to me, but I used "real" stats; Grove played longer, pitched more innings, started, finished, pitched more complete games and won more games, for an arguably worse team.
When comparing any two all-time greats, it becomes difficult to declare a "slam dunk" winner. I would rate Grove clearly above Ford here, but not by a huge margin.
At least your guy gets some discussion!
Warren Spahn pitched 1200 more innings than Grove, 2000 more than Ford.
Spahn won 363 games, Grove 300, Ford 236
Spahn won 20 or more games 13 times, Grove 8X, Ford 2X
Spahn completed 20 or more games 12 times, Grove 9X, Ford 0
Spahn completed 382 games, Grove 298, Ford 156
Spahn led league in Shut-outs 4X, Grove 3X, Ford 2X
Spahn started 33 or more games for 17 consecutive years, Ford did it 6 times (5 consecutive),Grove did it 2X (not consecutive).
Spahn had 1.195 WHIP, Ford 1.215, Grove 1.278.
Ford had best ERA at 2.75, Grove and Spahn were virtually tied with Grove "winning" 3.06 to 3.09
Grove wins in 1st place ERA finishes with 9, Spahn had 3 Ford 2.
Grove wins in 1st place WHIP finishes with 5, Spahn 4 and Ford 1
Better hitters in NL during that time? Mays, Robinson(s), Clemente, Campenella plus Musial, Snyder, HODGES!
I think Spahn has a better claim at GOAT than BOTH of them.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I already admitted that this comparison would be crude but I’m sticking with it.
Good for you.
In their 162 game averages, Grove pitches 250 innings to Fords 230. That’s more innings but not way more innings. In addition, there were literally no ‘bad years’ for Whitey Ford anywhere in those averages as he was the model of consistency with his highest single season ERA being 3.24. In sharp contrast, whether live ball, dead ball, steroid or any other era, 6.50 is an unacceptable ERA and in the middle of a career it’s downright awful. In addition, the last two years were also very substandard - and that word is being kind. Fittingly, It bookends with his mediocre rookie season ERA quite nicely.
Using the 162 game average here is clever. It shows that Grove only pitched 20 more innings a year and Whitey beats him in ERA by a significant margin.
Strange, that when you look at it, Grove surpassed his 250 IP 11 times while Whitey surpassed his 230 IP only 6 times. Grove had 17 years where he pitched over 100 innings and Whitey had 14.
Grove completed 65% of his starts, Ford 36%
Looks like Grove pitched in relief a LOT more times too; 167 times to 60. Finished 123 games to Ford's 35.
I’m not answering questions about adjusting for era until you tell me how to account for Lefty Grove not facing the best black pitchers and hitters in the country at the time. Maybe Lefty’s numbers take a hit if he’s pitching to Josh Gibson or against Satchell Paige.
I agree here, I don't like comparing across eras for many reasons. I will say that Grove was a far superior pitcher in his time with 9 first place ERA titles to Whitey's 2. Getting into the segregation issue, Whitey didn't have to face too many black hitters in the AL, so I don't see much of an advantage for Grove there.
Whitey Ford most certainly did have a win percentage. With 156 complete games and 45 shutouts, those are legitimate wins. Earned wins. These are not the 5 IP and pray wins that got Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson to 300 wins. Whitey, like Lefty Grove, earned his wins. Maybe not all but most. And as mentioned, Ford was often held out and held down by Stengel. When Houk got the job in 1961, Ford was left to do his thing and threw 283 innings.
The biggest unknown here is the fact that Stengel hurt Whitey's numbers in an effort to win championships. No doubt what so ever. The argument against Ford's high winning % is he played on a team that made it to the World Series 11 times while Grove made it 3 times, so any good/great pitcher should have an impressive winning % playing for the Yankees in those years!
My last point is this:
I presented a group of stats as did you. Near as I can tell, you have told me that your stats are all better than mine and that I have to take your word for it. I’m happy to take that on its face. Now, let’s say I do just take this all at face value, and look at it your way, you tell me that despite the actual unaltered numbers being the opposite, it’s actually Grove who comes out with a slightly better ERA, a slightly better WHIP, a slightly better K/9 than Whitey Ford.
Again, I tend to agree with you. I am not a fan of the "+". When comparing player "A" to player "B" I don't think bringing in every other player's numberss and ballparks etc, gives us anything better to look at.
Fine. I’ll accept all that for arguments sake.
I still don’t see how a slightly better ERA, WHIP and K/9 that comes with 20 extra innings a year produces a pitcher that is hands down and runaway the best of all time over the other. It actually sounds close.
Maybe even debatable?
Certainly debatable to me, but I used "real" stats; Grove played longer, pitched more innings, started, finished, pitched more complete games and won more games, for an arguably worse team.
When comparing any two all-time greats, it becomes difficult to declare a "slam dunk" winner. I would rate Grove clearly above Ford here, but not by a huge margin.
At least your guy gets some discussion!
Warren Spahn pitched 1200 more innings than Grove, 2000 more than Ford.
Spahn won 363 games, Grove 300, Ford 236
Spahn won 20 or more games 13 times, Grove 8X, Ford 2X
Spahn completed 20 or more games 12 times, Grove 9X, Ford 0
Spahn completed 382 games, Grove 298, Ford 156
Spahn led league in Shut-outs 4X, Grove 3X, Ford 2X
Spahn started 33 or more games for 17 consecutive years, Ford did it 6 times (5 consecutive),Grove did it 2X (not consecutive).
Spahn had 1.195 WHIP, Ford 1.215, Grove 1.278.
Ford had best ERA at 2.75, Grove and Spahn were virtually tied with Grove "winning" 3.06 to 3.09
Grove wins in 1st place ERA finishes with 9, Spahn had 3 Ford 2.
Grove wins in 1st place WHIP finishes with 5, Spahn 4 and Ford 1
Better hitters in NL during that time? Mays, Robinson(s), Clemente, Campenella plus Musial, Snyder, HODGES!
I think Spahn has a better claim at GOAT than BOTH of them.
Nice post and nice choice.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I already admitted that this comparison would be crude but I’m sticking with it.
Good for you.
In their 162 game averages, Grove pitches 250 innings to Fords 230. That’s more innings but not way more innings. In addition, there were literally no ‘bad years’ for Whitey Ford anywhere in those averages as he was the model of consistency with his highest single season ERA being 3.24. In sharp contrast, whether live ball, dead ball, steroid or any other era, 6.50 is an unacceptable ERA and in the middle of a career it’s downright awful. In addition, the last two years were also very substandard - and that word is being kind. Fittingly, It bookends with his mediocre rookie season ERA quite nicely.
Using the 162 game average here is clever. It shows that Grove only pitched 20 more innings a year and Whitey beats him in ERA by a significant margin.
Strange, that when you look at it, Grove surpassed his 250 IP 11 times while Whitey surpassed his 230 IP only 6 times. Grove had 17 years where he pitched over 100 innings and Whitey had 14.
Grove completed 65% of his starts, Ford 36%
Looks like Grove pitched in relief a LOT more times too; 167 times to 60. Finished 123 games to Ford's 35.
I’m not answering questions about adjusting for era until you tell me how to account for Lefty Grove not facing the best black pitchers and hitters in the country at the time. Maybe Lefty’s numbers take a hit if he’s pitching to Josh Gibson or against Satchell Paige.
I agree here, I don't like comparing across eras for many reasons. I will say that Grove was a far superior pitcher in his time with 9 first place ERA titles to Whitey's 2. Getting into the segregation issue, Whitey didn't have to face too many black hitters in the AL, so I don't see much of an advantage for Grove there.
Whitey Ford most certainly did have a win percentage. With 156 complete games and 45 shutouts, those are legitimate wins. Earned wins. These are not the 5 IP and pray wins that got Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson to 300 wins. Whitey, like Lefty Grove, earned his wins. Maybe not all but most. And as mentioned, Ford was often held out and held down by Stengel. When Houk got the job in 1961, Ford was left to do his thing and threw 283 innings.
The biggest unknown here is the fact that Stengel hurt Whitey's numbers in an effort to win championships. No doubt what so ever. The argument against Ford's high winning % is he played on a team that made it to the World Series 11 times while Grove made it 3 times, so any good/great pitcher should have an impressive winning % playing for the Yankees in those years!
My last point is this:
I presented a group of stats as did you. Near as I can tell, you have told me that your stats are all better than mine and that I have to take your word for it. I’m happy to take that on its face. Now, let’s say I do just take this all at face value, and look at it your way, you tell me that despite the actual unaltered numbers being the opposite, it’s actually Grove who comes out with a slightly better ERA, a slightly better WHIP, a slightly better K/9 than Whitey Ford.
Again, I tend to agree with you. I am not a fan of the "+". When comparing player "A" to player "B" I don't think bringing in every other player's numberss and ballparks etc, gives us anything better to look at.
Fine. I’ll accept all that for arguments sake.
I still don’t see how a slightly better ERA, WHIP and K/9 that comes with 20 extra innings a year produces a pitcher that is hands down and runaway the best of all time over the other. It actually sounds close.
Maybe even debatable?
Certainly debatable to me, but I used "real" stats; Grove played longer, pitched more innings, started, finished, pitched more complete games and won more games, for an arguably worse team.
When comparing any two all-time greats, it becomes difficult to declare a "slam dunk" winner. I would rate Grove clearly above Ford here, but not by a huge margin.
At least your guy gets some discussion!
Warren Spahn pitched 1200 more innings than Grove, 2000 more than Ford.
Spahn won 363 games, Grove 300, Ford 236
Spahn won 20 or more games 13 times, Grove 8X, Ford 2X
Spahn completed 20 or more games 12 times, Grove 9X, Ford 0
Spahn completed 382 games, Grove 298, Ford 156
Spahn led league in Shut-outs 4X, Grove 3X, Ford 2X
Spahn started 33 or more games for 17 consecutive years, Ford did it 6 times (5 consecutive),Grove did it 2X (not consecutive).
Spahn had 1.195 WHIP, Ford 1.215, Grove 1.278.
Ford had best ERA at 2.75, Grove and Spahn were virtually tied with Grove "winning" 3.06 to 3.09
Grove wins in 1st place ERA finishes with 9, Spahn had 3 Ford 2.
Grove wins in 1st place WHIP finishes with 5, Spahn 4 and Ford 1
Better hitters in NL during that time? Mays, Robinson(s), Clemente, Campenella plus Musial, Snyder, HODGES!
I think Spahn has a better claim at GOAT than BOTH of them.
Nice post and nice choice.
Thanks!
All these guys are great!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
In the end, the argument that Spahn was the GOAT lefty isn't convincing to me, but I acknowledge that there is an argument to be made because Spahn was great for so long.
Bill James - through 2001, and I'm sure Randy Johnson would be much higher if James updated his list - top 10 lefties are as follows (with their overall rank, including righties):
Grove (2)
Spahn (5)
Koufax (10)
Carlton (15)
Ford (22)
Plank (34)
Newhouser (36)
Johnson (49)
Waddell (53)
Cooper (55)
James uses a combination of career and peak performance with the weights that he prefers. He weights peak quite a bit more than I prefer, and he has Koufax and Newcombe quite a bit higher than I do as a result. While I do think peak should count for a substantial share of the overall ranking, the all-time leader in Win Shares (James infinitely better version of WAR) is Spahn, so in a "career value only" ranking, Spahn would be on top. But, not by much, and Win Shares includes hitting, and Spahn was a much better hitter than Grove; consider pitching only, and Grove is ahead of Spahn by a nose, even in the "career only" list.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Not sure how they come up with their stuff. But this is from baseball-reference had this which I thought ironic... Lefty Grove and Similar Players by Age
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@dallasactuary said:
In the end, the argument that Spahn was the GOAT lefty isn't convincing to me, but I acknowledge that there is an argument to be made because Spahn was great for so long.
Bill James - through 2001, and I'm sure Randy Johnson would be much higher if James updated his list - top 10 lefties are as follows (with their overall rank, including righties):
Grove (2)
Spahn (5)
Koufax (10)
Carlton (15)
Ford (22)
Plank (34)
Newhouser (36)
Mays (38)
Newcombe (46)
Johnson (49)
James uses a combination of career and peak performance with the weights that he prefers. He weights peak quite a bit more than I prefer, and he has Koufax and Newcombe quite a bit higher than I do as a result. While I do think peak should count for a substantial share of the overall ranking, the all-time leader in Win Shares (James infinitely better version of WAR) is Spahn, so in a "career value only" ranking, Spahn would be on top. But, not by much, and Win Shares includes hitting, and Spahn was a much better hitter than Grove; consider pitching only, and Grove is ahead of Spahn by a nose, even in the "career only" list.
He was a better hitter too? That seals it! ;-)
Banzai+ is better than ERA+ once again. GOAT was a great pitcher for the longest time "career value".
I can't remember who it was, but I was told that every year longer a player plays well means a lot more than the guy being retired and playing golf. Four extra years and 63 more wins.
I'll NEVER say Spahn was as "dominating" as most of the guys mentioned, Grove included. To me, that was not the question.
He managed a great ERA (virtually the same as Grove) while making 33 or more starts for 17 consecutive years.
OPS+ and ERA+ rewards guys who miss time have short(er) careers or just play less than other players.
It's a BAD STAT to compare players if they don't play a similar amount of time.
When this started, I was totally on board with Grove, but he just didn't start nearly as many games, more than 33 starts TWICE in his entire career.
ERA+ just doesn't recognize things like that. Banzai+ does.
Sorry Lefty, Second place is not too shabby.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
OPS+ and ERA+ rewards guys who miss time have short(er) careers or just play less than other players.
It's a BAD STAT to compare players if they don't play a similar amount of time.
They don't "reward" players who don't play as long, they simply don't measure how long they played. The best stats for comparing players are, in some form or another, the product of the "+" stats and the length of the player's career.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Does not look all that out of place so I added Whitey and his ERA+.
Randy Johnson is two above Ford and in the discussion for GOAT but not so for Whitey? Whitey had more complete games and more shutouts than Randy, too, but obviously fewer Ks and Cy Young’s. And around 50 of Randy Johnson’s wins came after age 40 and he was a very average pitcher hanging on at that point and pitching for wins and trading on reputation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Koufax won, I don't know how many awards. That is an outstanding career, and in totality in my view is the GOAT regardless of the brevity of his great years.
I think you keep misconstruing my comments, and I'm not going to try and figure it out - LOL
Suffice to say that I respect everyone's opinion on some of the other names mentioned here as GOAT.
Did Lefty ever kill a bird? ... I didn't think so. Case closed, and it's not even debatable.
It takes more than 9 Yanks to beat R. Johnson
Pasted:
Godwin's Law is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1";[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.
Godwin's Law has been amended to include that if an internet discussion about MLB pitching goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will post the video of Randy Johnson killing the bird.
While I don’t expect this to be a popular take...
...I blame the bird. After all, I’ve known plenty of people who had a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And it will usually be @LarkinCollector
Your scathing remark doesn't seem to grasp the point as to why I posted those WS stats on Koufax...................And my guess is that you selectively missed the posted fact.......................If you wish to be a Koufax basher........................
I haven't really misconstrued anything.
Huh?
Whitey Ford didn’t pitch in 1968, barely pitched in 1967, and pitched a half season in 1966. His stats were outstanding in ‘63-65 but honestly look like just another year for Whitey Ford.
Whitey Ford’s two era crowns were 1956 and 1958. And his worst ERA prior to ‘63 was 3.21.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Whitey Ford’s Seasons Above 3.00 ERA 1950-1967
1965 (3.24)
1961 (3.21)
1960 (3.08)
1959 (3.04)
1953 (3.00)
Every single other season was 2.something.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
>
Not really, no. And again, Whitey barely pitched in 66 and 67. I see a pitcher less effective in his 30s. He was too great before then, anyway, to say that 3.5 seasons in your window made his career. It did not.
(I added the full ERA run)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Okay, whatever.
In any event you did state "but Koufax, on balance, ends up being just another of many very good pitchers."
And you stated, "I'm not a Koufax basher"
Anyone who calls the GREAT Sandy Koufax, a "very good pitcher" which is a nasty backhanded compliment, is a Koufax basher whether you care to admit it or not.
Yes, the span that in my opinion made Koufax the GOAT, was shorter than other Hall of Fame pitchers. However certainly any "very good pitcher" who every played in the major leagues, as well as probably any Hall of Fame pitcher, would dream of having a spectacular span such as that, and you know it.
At least you didn't say that Koufax shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. But perhaps you just didn't get around to mentioning that yet?
dude, he sucked for half his career and achieved greatness for the other half.
think about it, if the two had been switched, meaning he was great for six years and then sucked for six years, nobody would talk much about him. nobody would call him the GOAT. that's my whole point, if you look at his career overall there are better pitchers. if you look at those six years, there might be none better.
I really think it's a fair statement to say a player should be judged on the entire body of his work. viewed like that he is, to me, a very, very good pitcher. if you can't handle that then maybe hero worship isn't something you should engage in.
this case is closed!!
Look at the full run of ERA’s from 1950-1965 (1967 he pitched in 7 games! 1.47 means nothing whether the strike zone was ‘anywhere near home plate’ or normal since the sample size is too small.)
I am aware of larger strike zone; for Whitey Ford does it really do much? No, it does not. He was an ERA league leader BOTH before and after the change so, again, I don’t see much of a difference.
I can see this used in the argument against Koufax (without much merit, but the overlap is much more considerable, in his prime and therefore impactful).
All it did for Whitey Ford was soften his statistical decline; he was already incredible for 10 seasons prior within the confines of the original strike zone.
That’s my point.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Put succinctly, what difference does it make that the entire league’s ERA was lower when yours is the lowest the entire time?
Not to mention that Koufax’s first two great seasons came before 1963; neither 1961 nor 1962 could be described as pedestrian in my opinion.
So, that’s what I meant by without much merit.
And certainly not John J. Rambo worthy, my friend.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@1970s
Am I gaining any ground with Whitey? Just curious - you post a lot of good stuff in sports talk even if I don’t always agree...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Well, the Hall of Fame voters obviously strongly disagreed with you, and they were absolutely right to do so.
Hero worship with sports stars? Not me. I simply enjoy sports, always have and always will for the fun and entertainment involved with watching and discussing it, rooting for my teams, and the competitiveness when playing it.
And I LOVE baseball and football cards. Something about those beautiful little printed works of art, does something for me. I'm not yet sure what it is, but whatever it is, it's been quite enjoyable.
I've hired legal counsel to help me with this issue.
And now I believe its safe to say,
"Case closed"
I'm just trying to figure out how Perry Mason whose final TV case was in 1966, is defending a diagram of MLB pitchers which has at the top of it, a player born in 1963?
Well, I think the only conclusion you can draw from the data offered is that Lefty Grove was considerably better than his peers.
Statistics that attempt to ‘level the playing field’ are good but certainly imperfect. I’m not one who believes that ‘athletes today are so much better’ - that is utter nonsense. Humans have not evolved that much in 80-100 years.
The days of Whitey Ford having devastating high heat were long gone by 1963. He was a much different pitcher then Gibson and Koufax by then and was throwing a lot of ‘stuff’ - as mentioned Ed earlier - rather than blowing people away.
Lefty Grove was spectacular; took a deep dive yesterday.
So thanks - knew who he was, had never looked that close.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Whitey pitched 140ish postseason innings; through his whole career across age and ability. That’s a pretty basic premise governing baseball - the more IP, the closer your numbers get to career averages.
And Lefty Grove had just three postseasons: all in a row ages 29-31during his best three seasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Good thing he played on a good team when he was pitching well.
57 innings should not put him at #2 in my opinion.
Yes they were important innings. BY the way he couldn't have been pitching much better than the opponents guy as his record was 4-3.
I am quite familiar with the 1965 WS, Koufax pitched fantastic!
Sure he deserves SOME extra credit!
How about a pitcher who pitches almost 3,000 more regular season innings and has the the EXACT SAME W-L record in the WS? Spahn was very good in the WS too (not as good as Sandy) with a 1.071 WHIP.
BTW the 57-58 Yankees might have been a bit better than the 1965 Twins. Ya think? Better even than the 1963 Yankees in my opinion as well.
Spahn won 20 or more games THIRTEEN TIMES! Koufax's entire career was only twelve years, and 2 of those were 2 win seasons.
Spahn has 382 complete (no relievers here either) games. Koufax had 314 starts!
Give me Spahn's 13 seasons of 119 or better ERA+ over Koufax's 6 (I am not counting 1955).
Extra credit is one thing, but that's simply too much credit for me.
If you want to talk about "domination" that's another story. Koufax was MUCH more of a dominant pitcher, probably why his arm fell off after 1966.
I didn’t discredit any pitcher in this thread.
And I already mentioned the Ford Koufax matchup. A while ago. What I mentioned that you didn’t is it was an in his prime 27 year old Sandy against past his prime 34 year old Ford.
Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax both pitched three games in a seven game series that their teams won. Twice. Including deciding game sevens.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Blue chip players, for sure. Hopefully their rookies are blue chip too...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I would say you have a very compelling argument on Ford being a better pitcher than Koufax.
Not as "dominating" which actually means nothing.
Ford pitched many more innings, had a lower ERA and a higher winning %.
Case closed.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot "World Series, blah, blah, blah.
Fair enough: I have no idea why the Yankees starting in 2004 still allowed Jeter to play short. They had two players who would both eventually go into the Hall of Fame who had primarily played short on their roster. One was a slightly below average defender, not Mark Belanger or even Omar Vizquel, but not that bad, either. The other was the worst defensive shortstop of all time (3000 innings played) by a huge margin. Since I can't think of any other reason why the team would have the worse shortstop play there instead of somewhere else. I can only conclude that the captain (was Jeter even the captain in 2004?) insisted on remaining at short. If anyone has a reasonable hypothesis as to why the Yankees might have made that choice, I'm open to suggestion.
With a minimally competent shortstop between 2004 and 2014 would the Yankees have won more than one World Series? I can't say that, but considering that they could have had one by looking, what, thirty feet to the right, it would have been worth a try. Jeter may have been a disaster at third, too, but third is not as key a defensive position as short. That's only if you want to make the Yankee offense exactly as strong. I'm not sure where Jeter would have fit in, but historically bad defenders at key defensive positions. The Red Sox were able to hide David Ortiz at first for 1162 innings, but were the Yankees able to hide Jeter at short (successfully) for 23,225.2?
Sandy outperformed Whitey?
Whitey Ford had the same number of complete games (7) as Sandy Koufax had starts.
Also, Whitey Ford had 4 consecutive games (34 IP) in back to back World Series (‘60 and ‘61) combined where he allowed no runs, won 4 games in 4 starts, including 3 complete game shutouts.
THAT is postseason dominance unlike anything we’d see until Madison Bumgarner a few years back.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You keep changing your argument.
You said:
“As everyone knows, I always give a little extra push to the guy who comes up big in the postseason. Sandy outperformed Whitey in that. Case closed.”
I answered with reasons why I believe that’s not the case.
Now, it’s been changed to:
“Show me any 5 year stretch where Whitey outperformed Koufax's ERA from 1962 through 1966.”
So?
1954-1958
If everything you are telling me in this thread is truthful and correct, Sandy Koufax pitched into a larger strike zone for the amazing and historic five year run he posted from 1962-66. You made the point that it was ‘easier’ for guys like Koufax, Gibson and the other pitchers who’s prime fell into that span.
Well, in a smaller strike zone from 1954-1958, here’s the ERAs that I will submit for public consumption with the years he lead the league bolded (and I’ll mention here that 1955 was a second place finish for the ERA crown) from the Chairman of the Board:
1954 - 2.82
1955 - 2.63
1956 - 2.47
1957 - 2.57
1958 - 2.01
Now forgive the crude attempt at articulation, but...
...imagine if Whitey Ford had the chance to pitch those five seasons with the strike zone of 63-68?
What would those ERAs look like?
These are the Sandy Koufax years for comparison and I’m not bolding them since every year he lead his league.
1963 - 2.54
1964 - 1.78
1965 - 1.74
1966 - 2.04
1967 - 1.73
Now, you’re telling me - accounting for the difference in strike zone that you brought up - that these are not incredibly similar runs of dominance, if not identical, in terms of ERA?
Your honor, I implore you!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You'll NEVER win with 1970s. It was the same thing in the 3rd base debate. He picks a guy that is not the best, but was very good, has ONE SMALL advantage, and overstates it.
I will concede that he is fine with Grove being #1, Spahn can be no lower than #2. Koufax has to be around #6 and below Ford. While impressive, Sandy's 5 year run and low WS ERA don't push him past other guys who pitched MANY more innings.
Of all the stubborn posters here (and I am one of them) he is certainly #1 in refusing to quit bailing water even when his boat is on the bottom of the lake.
Good luck with your efforts! He will never listen!
Actually, I am saying why couldn’t you consider Whitey Ford as THE greatest lefty of all time?
I have compared Ford to both Koufax and Grove and feel the case for Ford is a compelling one.
You may not agree but that is the case I am making:
Whitey Ford as GOAT.
Pleasure debating the topic with all...
PS - You did say you have Sandy as #2 at one point, for sake of accuracy.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Take the time to read what I wrote and you’ll find it. It’s there. Promise.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This isn’t really a debate if you aren’t reading my points.
It’s been a pleasure chatting.
Thanks
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Because Jeter at short and ARod at third was better than ARod at short and Jeter at third. No doubt ARod could play either position better than Jeter, but he was "more better" than Jeter at third than he was at short.
I would call Arod "slightly above average" at SS, but that's a quibble; he was about average. But Jeter was not "the worst defensive shortstop of all time (over 3000 innings played) by a huge margin"; whatever source you're using that tells you this is the case, well, you should stop using it. I'm not arguing that he was great, or even good, but he was also no worse (let alone by a huge margin) than Ivan DeJesus, Julio Franco, Mark Grudzielanek, Harvey Kuenn, and I think I'll stop now. Jose Offerman played well over 3,000 innings at short and set a standard for putridity that Jeter never approached, although Kurt Stillwell did. Jeter had some up years and some down years at SS, and overall he was, let's say "serviceable" there. Given the relative weakness of his arm, playing him at third was never an option, and there was nobody else on the roster with any meaningful experience at short.
There you go.
Fairly risible speculation, but to turn it into an actual argument you have to declare who the Yankees should have benched and where you played have played Jeter in the field (give up on the idea that he was going to play 3B; never even on the table). "I'm not sure where Jeter would have fit in" won't cut it, because presumably Torre felt the same way. That HOF manager looked at all the available pieces and kept Jeter at SS, and I see absolutely no reason to believe that this was the wrong choice. Other than hyperbolic, and incorrect, statements about how bad Jeter was at short, you haven't really provided any reason for me to reconsider that opinion.
Welcome to trying to debate 1970s. But in this case, I agree with him. In fairness to everyone, "greatest" means something different to everyone, and if someone wants to make the case that Mark Fidrych, or Allie Reynolds, or Silver King, etc. was the "greatest" pitcher of all-time, they can do it. It won't convince me, but they aren't necessarily "wrong".
I group Whitey Ford in there, too. You can make a case that he's the GOAT lefty, but to make it you have to pick and choose stats and weight them in such a way that makes no sense to me. Weight postseason stats absurdly high, as 1970s does, and you get results that seem absurd to me, and Allie Reynolds enters the GOAT conversation, and David Freese is a better 3B than Brett or Schmidt. Weight peak seasons too high, or use a "just one game" kind of standard, and you'll find yourself talking about Mark Fidrych.
You can sift through the mountain of stats and find ways to get Ford on top of Grove, and then weight just those stats while ignoring that Grove pitched much longer and dominated his peers much more, and conclude Ford was better. But there is absolutely no way to do that without starting from the conclusion that Ford was better, and then working backward to find those specific stats. That, I think, is what you've done.
Try to summarize the standards you're using to determine that Ford was better than Grove, and post them here. How confidant are you that applying those standards to other pitchers wouldn't produce results that would seem absurd even to you?
In roughly the same # of innings (2219 vs 2324), while playing in a significantly higher-scoring era, Clayton Kershaw has a career ERA 0.34 runs lower than Koufax. In fact, he's #1 among all starters since 1920. He's also the only pitcher to lead the majors in ERA in four consecutive seasons.
@1970s
@dallasactuary
While I fully expect to be told that I have done this wrong, I like to keep it simple.
I looked at their 162 game averages and Ford, on average, produced a better win percentage, a better K/9, a lower ERA and a lower WHIP.
Now, they’re certainly from different eras and I’m sure once we convert them Whitey Ford will look like Carl Pavano and Lefty Grove will look like Cy Young.
But those are pretty fundamental stats that have not been put thru any statistical wringer.
And if we’re going to be measured by how well we outperformed outlet peers, it should be noted that Lefty Grove pitched the entirety of his career before the game of baseball was integrated.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In descending order of importance:
If you look only at 162 game averages, you are assigning literally zero weight to pitching more innings. Under your system two pitchers on the same team in the same year are equally good if their W/L %, K/9, ERA and WHIP are the same, even if one pitcher pitched 100 innings and the other pitched 300 innings. I don't think you actually believe that, but it is a necessary condition to get Whitey Ford past Lefty Grove, so you are stuck with it. But it's why your argument isn't convincing anyone.
In the years Grove pitched, an average team scored 5.1 runs per game. In the years Ford pitched, an average team scored 4.3 runs per game. Grove pitched for teams with home parks that strongly favored hitters; Ford in a home park that strongly favored pitchers. The park advantage for Ford is about as large as the era advantage. I won't tell you how to adjust for any of it, but I will tell you that if you don't adjust somehow then any conclusion you reach will be wrong. In context, Grove's WHIP was better than Ford's and so was his ERA (and over many more innings).
Whitey Ford did not produce a win percentage, the Yankees did. The statistic is still of dubious merit, but if you'd like you can claim than Ford produced a W/L 114 points better than the other pitchers on his teams did (.690 vs. .576). But Grove produced a W/L 123 points better than his teams other pitchers (.680 vs. .557).
Grove's K/9 fell off a cliff when he got old, as Ford's likely would have. And Ford got to pitch several years with the expanded strike zone. Compare their K/9 only in years with a common strike zone, and only up to the age at which Ford retired, and Grove's K/9 was a hair better than Ford's.
Whitey Ford was not Carl Pavano, he was a great pitcher. But he was not as great as Lefty Grove (who I think was better than Cy Young, but that's a different debate).
I already admitted that this comparison would be crude but I’m sticking with it.
In their 162 game averages, Grove pitches 250 innings to Fords 230. That’s more innings but not way more innings. In addition, there were literally no ‘bad years’ for Whitey Ford anywhere in those averages as he was the model of consistency with his highest single season ERA being 3.24. In sharp contrast, whether live ball, dead ball, steroid or any other era, 6.50 is an unacceptable ERA and in the middle of a career it’s downright awful. In addition, the last two years were also very substandard - and that word is being kind. Fittingly, It bookends with his mediocre rookie season ERA quite nicely.
I’m not answering questions about adjusting for era until you tell me how to account for Lefty Grove not facing the best black pitchers and hitters in the country at the time. Maybe Lefty’s numbers take a hit if he’s pitching to Josh Gibson or against Satchell Paige.
Whitey Ford most certainly did have a win percentage. With 156 complete games and 45 shutouts, those are legitimate wins. Earned wins. These are not the 5 IP and pray wins that got Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson to 300 wins. Whitey, like Lefty Grove, earned his wins. Maybe not all but most. And as mentioned, Ford was often held out and held down by Stengel. When Houk got the job in 1961, Ford was left to do his thing and threw 283 innings.
My last point is this:
I presented a group of stats as did you. Near as I can tell, you have told me that your stats are all better than mine and that I have to take your word for it. I’m happy to take that on its face. Now, let’s say I do just take this all at face value, and look at it your way, you tell me that despite the actual unaltered numbers being the opposite, it’s actually Grove who comes out with a slightly better ERA, a slightly better WHIP, a slightly better K/9 than Whitey Ford.
Fine. I’ll accept all that for arguments sake.
I still don’t see how a slightly better ERA, WHIP and K/9 that comes with 20 extra innings a year produces a pitcher that is hands down and runaway the best of all time over the other. It actually sounds close.
Maybe even debatable?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Pay attention to what Dallas said in this post because its exactly what he does to convince people 'his' player is
better than any other player. He picks and chooses his stats. Sometimes WAR favors his player, so he'll use that
stat. Other times, Slug. %, other times OPS.
Of course sometimes none of the stats favor his player, like when he tried to say Joe Morgan was a better
hitter in the seventies than Willie Stargell, or Willie Mays at age 35 had a better year than Ted Williams 1941
season. These are the times when you wish Dallas would just get the 12 hours sleep he needs instead of
pulling an all nighter on the computer and then sleeping under his desk at work the next day.
Comparing their innings on a per 162 basis gives Grove only an 8% advantage (250/230) but ignores that he pitched more games. Groves longevity advantage is that he pitched 25% more innings than Ford. That is a huge hole that Ford has to dig out of with advantages elsewhere.
In context, Grove's ERA and WHIP were not "slightly" better than Ford's, they were significantly better. Over the course of their careers, Grove allowed 712 runs fewer than an average pitcher (RAA on bb-ref) and Ford allowed 253 fewer. You mention context (park and era differences) on occasion, but in the end you are dismissing them entirely. That's always wrong, but it is really, really wrong in a comparison between the 1930's and 1960's.
What you're left with is the argument that because the game wasn't integrated when Grove played and was in the process of becoming integrated when Ford was at his peak, that means Ford was better. No way to prove you wrong on that belief, but I'll note that if you are making an adjustment for integration that gets Ford past Grove, then that same adjustment will get Carl Yastrzemski past Ruth, and literally nobody from the pre-integration years will be close to a GOAT candidate at any position. Maybe you believe that, maybe you don't, but I am certain that you have no evidence to support that belief.
Whitey Ford was a great pitcher, probably one of the top 30 of all time and top 10 lefties. Lefty Grove was possibly the greatest pitcher, lefty or righty, of all time. I'm just not seeing them as close.
This made me laugh. What I don't get is how you can not understand a single thing I say, and yet everything I say makes you cry like a little girl. By the way, it's spelled "it's".
@1970s
@dallasactuary
Fun chatting - good stuff.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Good for you.
Using the 162 game average here is clever. It shows that Grove only pitched 20 more innings a year and Whitey beats him in ERA by a significant margin.
Strange, that when you look at it, Grove surpassed his 250 IP 11 times while Whitey surpassed his 230 IP only 6 times. Grove had 17 years where he pitched over 100 innings and Whitey had 14.
Grove completed 65% of his starts, Ford 36%
Looks like Grove pitched in relief a LOT more times too; 167 times to 60. Finished 123 games to Ford's 35.
I agree here, I don't like comparing across eras for many reasons. I will say that Grove was a far superior pitcher in his time with 9 first place ERA titles to Whitey's 2. Getting into the segregation issue, Whitey didn't have to face too many black hitters in the AL, so I don't see much of an advantage for Grove there.
The biggest unknown here is the fact that Stengel hurt Whitey's numbers in an effort to win championships. No doubt what so ever. The argument against Ford's high winning % is he played on a team that made it to the World Series 11 times while Grove made it 3 times, so any good/great pitcher should have an impressive winning % playing for the Yankees in those years!
Again, I tend to agree with you. I am not a fan of the "+". When comparing player "A" to player "B" I don't think bringing in every other player's numberss and ballparks etc, gives us anything better to look at.
Certainly debatable to me, but I used "real" stats; Grove played longer, pitched more innings, started, finished, pitched more complete games and won more games, for an arguably worse team.
When comparing any two all-time greats, it becomes difficult to declare a "slam dunk" winner. I would rate Grove clearly above Ford here, but not by a huge margin.
At least your guy gets some discussion!
Warren Spahn pitched 1200 more innings than Grove, 2000 more than Ford.
Spahn won 363 games, Grove 300, Ford 236
Spahn won 20 or more games 13 times, Grove 8X, Ford 2X
Spahn completed 20 or more games 12 times, Grove 9X, Ford 0
Spahn completed 382 games, Grove 298, Ford 156
Spahn led league in Shut-outs 4X, Grove 3X, Ford 2X
Spahn started 33 or more games for 17 consecutive years, Ford did it 6 times (5 consecutive),Grove did it 2X (not consecutive).
Spahn had 1.195 WHIP, Ford 1.215, Grove 1.278.
Ford had best ERA at 2.75, Grove and Spahn were virtually tied with Grove "winning" 3.06 to 3.09
Grove wins in 1st place ERA finishes with 9, Spahn had 3 Ford 2.
Grove wins in 1st place WHIP finishes with 5, Spahn 4 and Ford 1
Better hitters in NL during that time? Mays, Robinson(s), Clemente, Campenella plus Musial, Snyder, HODGES!
I think Spahn has a better claim at GOAT than BOTH of them.
Nice post and nice choice.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Thanks!
All these guys are great!
In the end, the argument that Spahn was the GOAT lefty isn't convincing to me, but I acknowledge that there is an argument to be made because Spahn was great for so long.
Bill James - through 2001, and I'm sure Randy Johnson would be much higher if James updated his list - top 10 lefties are as follows (with their overall rank, including righties):
Grove (2)
Spahn (5)
Koufax (10)
Carlton (15)
Ford (22)
Plank (34)
Newhouser (36)
Johnson (49)
Waddell (53)
Cooper (55)
James uses a combination of career and peak performance with the weights that he prefers. He weights peak quite a bit more than I prefer, and he has Koufax and Newcombe quite a bit higher than I do as a result. While I do think peak should count for a substantial share of the overall ranking, the all-time leader in Win Shares (James infinitely better version of WAR) is Spahn, so in a "career value only" ranking, Spahn would be on top. But, not by much, and Win Shares includes hitting, and Spahn was a much better hitter than Grove; consider pitching only, and Grove is ahead of Spahn by a nose, even in the "career only" list.
Not sure how they come up with their stuff. But this is from baseball-reference had this which I thought ironic...
Lefty Grove and Similar Players by Age
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
He was a better hitter too? That seals it! ;-)
Banzai+ is better than ERA+ once again. GOAT was a great pitcher for the longest time "career value".
I can't remember who it was, but I was told that every year longer a player plays well means a lot more than the guy being retired and playing golf. Four extra years and 63 more wins.
I'll NEVER say Spahn was as "dominating" as most of the guys mentioned, Grove included. To me, that was not the question.
He managed a great ERA (virtually the same as Grove) while making 33 or more starts for 17 consecutive years.
OPS+ and ERA+ rewards guys who miss time have short(er) careers or just play less than other players.
It's a BAD STAT to compare players if they don't play a similar amount of time.
When this started, I was totally on board with Grove, but he just didn't start nearly as many games, more than 33 starts TWICE in his entire career.
ERA+ just doesn't recognize things like that. Banzai+ does.
Sorry Lefty, Second place is not too shabby.
They don't "reward" players who don't play as long, they simply don't measure how long they played. The best stats for comparing players are, in some form or another, the product of the "+" stats and the length of the player's career.