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?
Comments
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