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.
@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.
Completely agree.
Yet OPS+ (and ERA+) gets used here constantly when comparing players. Career length and % of teams games played are ignored in the equation.
I am assuming ERA+ is figured along the same lines as OPS+?
It's just the way the numbers work. Player A has a great 1/2 a year and his OPS+ number is going to be higher than player B who plays every day and is just a bit less of a hitter. That's why I like to look at Total Bases as well.
The OPS+ number gets less and less accurate the larger the difference in games played.
We are constantly comparing the "best of the best" here. There's going to be a much higher drop off in production when an All-Star player misses a game than if it's a "ham and egger".
If you want to use OPS+ as a tool to compare HOF (or any) players, you should reduce the players year end number by the % of games missed. Call it Adjusted OPS+.
The "+" is similar to looking at 162 game averages;
Case in point; Willie Stargell hit 33 home runs per 162 games. NICE!
But wait, he only averaged 112 games played per year, so a more accurate number would be that he hit 22 1/2 home runs per year, because he was, for one reason or another, NEVER on the field for 150 games even once in his entire career, much less 162.
I am not "bashing" Willie here!
Look at his 1977, his OPS+ says he had a great year with a 145. He missed 100 games!
OPS+ simply is NOT a good number to use if the two players didn't have close to the same percentage of games played. and a similar length of career. I am going to assume ERA+ is as well.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
Who are Newcombe and Mays in that list? Only ones I know of were right-handed.
I wasn't sure if they were lefties or righties, so I looked them up and saw "Left" so I listed them. Turns out, they batted lefty, and I wasn't paying close enough attention. List is now edited. Welcome Rube Waddell and Wilbur Cooper!
@JoeBanzai said:
OPS+ simply is NOT a good number to use if the two players didn't have close to the same percentage of games played. and a similar length of career. I am going to assume ERA+ is as well.
True, but neither, of course, are ERA, OPS, batting average, WHIP, or any other rate stat. I'm not sure why you have picked the very best rate stat to pick on; I think everyone understands that rate stats only tell a part of the story.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
True, but neither, of course, are ERA, OPS, batting average, WHIP, or any other rate stat. I'm not sure why you have picked the very best rate stat to pick on; I think everyone understands that rate stats only tell a part of the story.
Seems to me a lot of people don't understand the "+" and use it incorrectly.
OPS+ is a nice way to look at a hitter. MUCH better than any single number that's usually used to judge a hitter.
I like Total Bases by itself or combined with walks. I would say that anyone who has 300 TB or 400 TB+BB has had a very good year. No one is going to do that in 62 games. I don't care how good a guy is for 1/3 of a season.
Pitching is harder for me to judge. In the "Best left hander" debate, I ended up feeling that longevity coupled with a very long (if not extraordinarily high) peak was better.
In a lot of these comparisons it's what each of us likes personally, many times it comes down to a Mantle/Mays argument, BOTH great, but one guy plays longer than the other guy who had a higher peak. Oliva/Carew is another good debate both ended up with a 131 OPS+ but Carew played in about 800 more games.
It's been fun!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
Who are Newcombe and Mays in that list? Only ones I know of were right-handed.
I wasn't sure if they were lefties or righties, so I looked them up and saw "Left" so I listed them. Turns out, they batted lefty, and I wasn't paying close enough attention. List is now edited. Welcome Rube Waddell and Wilbur Cooper!
Congrats. You replaced two guys I've heard of with one with a restaurant named after him 30 seconds from my house (Waddell) and another that I've somehow never heard of (Cooper).
I think I liked the list better when it was all guys I knew
Yet OPS+ (and ERA+) gets used here constantly when comparing players. Career length and % of teams games played are ignored in the equation.
You bang the drum for this point constantly but it basically never happens. Everyone knows that OPS+ is a rate statistic with all the drawbacks that such a statistic has. Same as BA, WHIP, SLG, OPS, and many, many other stats.
Yet OPS+ (and ERA+) gets used here constantly when comparing players. Career length and % of teams games played are ignored in the equation.
You bang the drum for this point constantly but it basically never happens. Everyone knows that OPS+ is a rate statistic with all the drawbacks that such a statistic has. Same as BA, WHIP, SLG, OPS, and many, many other stats.
Yes I do bang away! I'll try to calm down about it.
What do you think of Total Bases or Total Bases plus Walks as a (better) way of showing how well a batter has performed?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
"Greatest" isn't defined, but by putting Koufax in essentially second place, it must be the case that peak performance is being valued much more than career performance.
When it comes to peak performance nothing can surpass Carlton's 1972 performance.
"Greatest" isn't defined, but by putting Koufax in essentially second place, it must be the case that peak performance is being valued much more than career performance.
When it comes to peak performance nothing can surpass Carlton's 1972 performance.
First, I was a huge Steve Carlton fan. Loved watching that guy pitch. Especially when George Brett would tattoo him in the postseason.
Carlton must have been pissed when St. Louis traded him, because the very next year in
Philadelphia, he posted an amazing 1.97 era while going 27-10 for a team that went 59-97.
Let me challenge anyone here to show me a more dominant, impressive, pitching season for a pitcher that played on a lousy team.
I'm sure there may be one out there, but what Steve did that year was totally awesome.
2018 - Jacob deGrom
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"Greatest" isn't defined, but by putting Koufax in essentially second place, it must be the case that peak performance is being valued much more than career performance.
When it comes to peak performance nothing can surpass Carlton's 1972 performance.
First, I was a huge Steve Carlton fan. Loved watching that guy pitch. Especially when George Brett would tattoo him in the postseason.
Carlton must have been pissed when St. Louis traded him, because the very next year in
Philadelphia, he posted an amazing 1.97 era while going 27-10 for a team that went 59-97.
Let me challenge anyone here to show me a more dominant, impressive, pitching season for a pitcher that played on a lousy team.
I'm sure there may be one out there, but what Steve did that year was totally awesome.
2018 - Jacob deGrom
deGrom was 10-9 with a 1.70 era, for a team that was 77-85. He was dominant, but he had 1/7th of the Mets wins, while Carlton had 1/2 of the Phillies wins. His era was better than Carlton's, so we have to respect that. Not sure if we can put dominant and impressive to deGrom. Dominant yes. But impressive goes to Carlton because he pitched in half his teams wins that season. deGrom didn't even come close to that.
Didn’t mean ‘deGrom’s better’ just tossing up a name for debate.
On a semi related note, can Jacob deGrom sue the Mets if he doesn’t make the HOF because they cost him 50-100 wins in his career?
It’s criminal - he should hold them to account.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"Greatest" isn't defined, but by putting Koufax in essentially second place, it must be the case that peak performance is being valued much more than career performance.
When it comes to peak performance nothing can surpass Carlton's 1972 performance.
First, I was a huge Steve Carlton fan. Loved watching that guy pitch. Especially when George Brett would tattoo him in the postseason.
Carlton must have been pissed when St. Louis traded him, because the very next year in
Philadelphia, he posted an amazing 1.97 era while going 27-10 for a team that went 59-97.
Let me challenge anyone here to show me a more dominant, impressive, pitching season for a pitcher that played on a lousy team.
I'm sure there may be one out there, but what Steve did that year was totally awesome.
2018 - Jacob deGrom
deGrom was 10-9 with a 1.70 era, for a team that was 77-85. He was dominant, but he had 1/7th of the Mets wins, while Carlton had 1/2 of the Phillies wins. His era was better than Carlton's, so we have to respect that. Not sure if we can put dominant and impressive to deGrom. Dominant yes. But impressive goes to Carlton because he pitched in half his teams wins that season. deGrom didn't even come close to that.
Didn’t mean ‘deGrom’s better’ just tossing up a name for debate.
On a semi related note, can Jacob deGrom sue the Mets if he doesn’t make the HOF because they cost him 50-100 wins in his career?
It’s criminal - he should hold them to account.
All Jacob has to do is ask to be traded to a good team like the Yankees.
Oh wait ? That will never happen. LOL
Not really my point.
There’s plenty of teams with competent bullpens.
The Mets have been really, exceptionally bad behind deGrom.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@JoeBanzai said:
Carlton must have been pissed when St. Louis traded him, because the very next year in
Philadelphia, he posted an amazing 1.97 era while going 27-10 for a team that went 59-97.
I remember that dark day when the Cards let Carlton go. We had the cheapest front office in the league, led by GM Bing Devine, and Carlton was asking for $60,000 or something like that, and so they sent him packing.
@Mickey71 said:
Any truth to Grove skipping out on starts against the Yankees??
No.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
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.
Who are Newcombe and Mays in that list? Only ones I know of were right-handed.
Completely agree.
Yet OPS+ (and ERA+) gets used here constantly when comparing players. Career length and % of teams games played are ignored in the equation.
I am assuming ERA+ is figured along the same lines as OPS+?
It's just the way the numbers work. Player A has a great 1/2 a year and his OPS+ number is going to be higher than player B who plays every day and is just a bit less of a hitter. That's why I like to look at Total Bases as well.
The OPS+ number gets less and less accurate the larger the difference in games played.
We are constantly comparing the "best of the best" here. There's going to be a much higher drop off in production when an All-Star player misses a game than if it's a "ham and egger".
If you want to use OPS+ as a tool to compare HOF (or any) players, you should reduce the players year end number by the % of games missed. Call it Adjusted OPS+.
The "+" is similar to looking at 162 game averages;
Case in point; Willie Stargell hit 33 home runs per 162 games. NICE!
But wait, he only averaged 112 games played per year, so a more accurate number would be that he hit 22 1/2 home runs per year, because he was, for one reason or another, NEVER on the field for 150 games even once in his entire career, much less 162.
I am not "bashing" Willie here!
Look at his 1977, his OPS+ says he had a great year with a 145. He missed 100 games!
OPS+ simply is NOT a good number to use if the two players didn't have close to the same percentage of games played. and a similar length of career. I am going to assume ERA+ is as well.
I wasn't sure if they were lefties or righties, so I looked them up and saw "Left" so I listed them. Turns out, they batted lefty, and I wasn't paying close enough attention. List is now edited. Welcome Rube Waddell and Wilbur Cooper!
True, but neither, of course, are ERA, OPS, batting average, WHIP, or any other rate stat. I'm not sure why you have picked the very best rate stat to pick on; I think everyone understands that rate stats only tell a part of the story.
Seems to me a lot of people don't understand the "+" and use it incorrectly.
OPS+ is a nice way to look at a hitter. MUCH better than any single number that's usually used to judge a hitter.
I like Total Bases by itself or combined with walks. I would say that anyone who has 300 TB or 400 TB+BB has had a very good year. No one is going to do that in 62 games. I don't care how good a guy is for 1/3 of a season.
Pitching is harder for me to judge. In the "Best left hander" debate, I ended up feeling that longevity coupled with a very long (if not extraordinarily high) peak was better.
In a lot of these comparisons it's what each of us likes personally, many times it comes down to a Mantle/Mays argument, BOTH great, but one guy plays longer than the other guy who had a higher peak. Oliva/Carew is another good debate both ended up with a 131 OPS+ but Carew played in about 800 more games.
It's been fun!
Congrats. You replaced two guys I've heard of with one with a restaurant named after him 30 seconds from my house (Waddell) and another that I've somehow never heard of (Cooper).
I think I liked the list better when it was all guys I knew
You bang the drum for this point constantly but it basically never happens. Everyone knows that OPS+ is a rate statistic with all the drawbacks that such a statistic has. Same as BA, WHIP, SLG, OPS, and many, many other stats.
Yes I do bang away! I'll try to calm down about it.
What do you think of Total Bases or Total Bases plus Walks as a (better) way of showing how well a batter has performed?
When it comes to peak performance nothing can surpass Carlton's 1972 performance.
2018 - Jacob deGrom
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Didn’t mean ‘deGrom’s better’ just tossing up a name for debate.
On a semi related note, can Jacob deGrom sue the Mets if he doesn’t make the HOF because they cost him 50-100 wins in his career?
It’s criminal - he should hold them to account.
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 my point.
There’s plenty of teams with competent bullpens.
The Mets have been really, exceptionally bad behind deGrom.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Any truth to Grove skipping out on starts against the Yankees??
I remember that dark day when the Cards let Carlton go. We had the cheapest front office in the league, led by GM Bing Devine, and Carlton was asking for $60,000 or something like that, and so they sent him packing.
No.