Just How Good Was Sandy Koufax
daltex
Posts: 3,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
So for the first six years of his career, Koufax was pretty much a league average pitcher. A little worse, actually. No shame in being average, and a team whose number five starter is "average" is likely good enough to make a long postseason run. The question is how good was Koufax over the last half of his career.
Let me state once again unequivocally that there is NO one stat that can conclusively determine rank of players. There are many flawed stats in which a great discrepancy will point to a better player (example, in 2019 Mike Trout had an OPS of 1.083 while Eddie Rosario had one of .800) and far too many that don't even do that (fielding percentage is not nearly as maligned as it should be). Nevertheless, with good stats we can at least create clusters.
Here are Koufax's RAA for his six good to great years.
1961 28
1962 24
1963 58
1964 40
1965 40
1966 59
It's pretty clear that we can break this period down into three parts. 1964-65 Koufax was clearly better than 1961-62 Koufax but not as good as 1963 and 1966. I don't believe that RAA is precise enough to say definitively which year within those groups was better than the other, though of course there is a suggestion that 1966 was better than 1963 and a strong likelihood that 1961 was better than 1962.
I decided to do a comparison to see what these numbers look like on other players, and to compare them in a meaningful way so we can see just how good he was. I chose to compare him to the 2019 pitchers who received votes for AL Cy Young. There are several reasons for this. First, it is difficult to compare to his direct competitors because there was only one Cy Young award and people only got one vote. In Koufax's two best years literally no one received a single vote in any place. It is, of course, possible to use pitchers who got MVP votes as a proxy, but this brings up a secondary problem. For example, in 1963 Koufax won NL MVP (I'd probably have voted for Mays or Aaron, but Koufax was far and away the best player on a team within ten games of first) and Dick Ellsworth finished 19th. Ellsworth's RAA was 56. Problem is few people here really have any idea what it means to say that 1963 Koufax was ever so slightly better than 1963 Ellsworth. I'd wager few here have any opinion of 1963 Ellsworth at all. I think most people here are familiar enough with the 2019 season to make the exercise worthwhile. The reason I'm not using 2020 is an exercise left to the reader.
Two caveats: there is no particular reason to use the AL over the NL. Second, no pitcher today or in 2019 is used anywhere near the way Koufax was used in the 1960s. If Koufax were in the majors today, his numbers would have been different. It's difficult to compare pitchers working with gigantic bullpens to those expected to pitch a complete game. Three of the last four years Koufax averaged over 320 innings and made at least 40 starts. The comparison group maxed out at 223 innings, seven of the eight made between 32 and 34 starts, and it combined for eight complete games. Koufax was between 11 and 27 each of these six years. Also, the list of Cy Young vote-getters is indicative of who the writers thought were the best pitchers. It's unlikely that a 1963 Dick Ellsworth is somehow omitted.
Anyway, here is the list in vote order:
2019 AL Cy Young
Verlander 51
Cole 45
Morton 28
Bieber 28
Lynn 53
Giolito 40
Rodriguez 41
Minor 55
So, what does this tell us? First, by a very rough gauge, similar to Baseball Reference saying that 8+ WAR is MVP quality, I think it's safe to say 50+ RAA is Cy Young quality. Second, 2019 Mike Minor and Lance Lynn are within 10% of peak Koufax. This astounds me. It also shows that neither Charlie Morton nor Shane Bieber should have received votes.
Bottom line: Koufax is revered as one of the most dominant pitchers of all time. His peak is too low and his era of goodness too short to merit such a description.
Comments
Good write up. The average fan puts those God-like descriptors on Koufax due to his raw numbers.
You bringing up Ellsworth should help most people understand that Koufax's raw numbers are greatly influenced by the era in which he pitched....and his home park too.
I like to use Joe Horlen to highlight the era factor. From 1964-1968 Joe Horlen had a 2.32 ERA. I don't think many fans walk around citing that amazing peak in which very few pitchers after 1970 can match a five year stretch with a 2.32 ERA.
Randy Johnson was better than Koufax. Johnson had a better peak, a longer peak, and of course a much better lengthy career. Johnson also dwarfed Koufax in the physical tools as well. If one only looks at the raw numbers to say otherwise, then guys like Horlen should also be knocking on the HOF door due to their peaks which are tough to match from more modern players as well.
Sandy Koufax - best there ever was, best there ever will be.
I prefer to think Koufax is the best ever. Just makes me feel good to think that. Childhood memories and all......
Interesting looking at different stats to see what they say. Also interesting to look at Dick Ellsworth who had that one great year!
I'll stay with the 1960's and compare him to guys of his era.
RAA numbers in the 40's seem very good, in the high 60's very special.
1963 and 1966 look to be Sandy's best years to me. Seems like you could make an argument Marichal was better in 64 and certainly better in 1965, and closer than I thought in 1966. Not sure if RAA "penalizes" for missing games, but Koufax wasn't in the top 10 in innings pitched in 1964 and Marichal was at #6.
Over the 4 year period, 1963-66 Sandy is better, but not by much. Over the three years 64-66, they are virtually tied. I added in WAR and Marichal might have had the very slight statistical edge.
In fact, I couldn't find a better four year period of RAA as good as Sandy's.
However, if you extend the period to five years Bob Gibson's 1968-1972 stretch was better than Koufax's 1962-66.
Juan's hitting John Roseboro with the bat in 1965 was going to keep him from winning any awards, and rightfully so.
Koufax, with just 5 years pitching over 200 innings is nowhere near the "All Time Great" category. Half his career he was a below average pitcher unable to establish himself as a solid starter with a 4.0 ERA. He didn't get into the top 10 in ERA until 1961.
No doubt he finished his career magnificently, you can't ignore his pretty bad first half of a very short career.
A lot of guys just love Koufax, I just can't see him as an all time great.
Drysdale had better stuff against the Giants. Koufax was a heck of a pitcher but the Giants feared Drysdale. Except McCovey. Drysdale loved to smoke em inside but when he threw tight to Willie Mac the ball took a 450 ft trip over the right field wall. Drysdale loved to knock down Mays.
Koufax and Drysdale were quite the one two punch.
I think Koufax could be best summed up by Micky Mantle during the 1963 World Series. Without bothering with statistics, Mantle came back to the bench saying, "How are you supposed to hit this $h*t?"
Koufax was great during his time in the early 1960s. In the 1950s, he had major control issues. At the end of his great period, he had to retire because of his health.
During his prime, he was a great pitcher, but I would not rate him among the greatest. The guys who put up 300 or more wins in the modern era rate that. Those guys include Spahn, Seaver and Carlton. They come in at the top my list. To me, you have to be very good to excellent for many years to be among the greats.
It's hard to make comparisons with the "old timers" because it was a different game. Those guys could not have thrown as hard as they do today. They were not gods. Cy Young had 511 wins, many in the late 19th century. Walter Johnson may have been great in the modern era, but he really had one great pitch, a blazing fast ball. Grover Cleveland Alexander and Cristy Mathewson tied with something like 373 wins, but they too were in the dead ball era for all or a good part of their careers.
Look up Rom Guidry's career starts and compare them to Sandy Koufax. They may surprise you
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Ted Williams feared Steve Dalkowski's fastball.
"Fastest ever"
The pitcher's team batting average, (and opposing team and also overall league averages) ,run production, etc. figures into an individual pitchers stats in many ways. Not just the won/ lost record.
I have no idea about "Just How Good Was Sandy Koufax?". I really don't know what that even means. No matter what.....he was good. Fortunately, I had the good luck to watch him pitch many, many times from 1963 -66. At Dodger Stadium. There was something DIFFERENT about him. Maybe it was his pitching motion. The intangibles. Things that you can't explain. There's a reason his name comes up in discussions like this. What that reason is......who knows? It will never stop. Throw the stats out the window. Forget the comparisons with other pitchers. You just had to be there to see it, ........and I know that every baseball fan today wishes that they could have been there to see it....think
Babe Ruth...... everyone. Watching him pitch was actually..... indescribable. The experience. It was special.......nothing and nobody since comes close. That's just the way it is.
Guidry was great for a couple of seasons, but then his arm went bad. He won the MVP the year the Red Sox blew the American League East Championship. He deserved it. If it had not been for him, the Yankees would not have been close enough to overtake the Red Sox when they fell apart.
I remember one of the last games Guidy pitched when he was trying come back against the Red Sox. The Sox pounded him. Even the Red Sox announcers were lamenting Guidy's physical problems.
Some athletes have intangible qualities that are hard to define. George Brett was one, I don't care what the so called
stats experts like Dallas say, it seemed like he was always coming through for his team when they needed him.
One baseball writer wrote that he always cringed when someone said a player was 'clutch' except
if that player was George Brett.
Guidry had 5-6 very good seasons. Koufax had 5-6 very good seasons. I don't think that can be debated. They both had dominate years. Koufax had one more in my opinion. While Koufax was better my point is that Koufax ain't much ahead of Guidry and Guidry ain't in the HOF or near one of the greats of all time
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
>
>
If you look at his pitching numbers at home during that period you will be astounded! He was unhittable!
Almost every other start he made during the rest of his entire career were average, some were pretty bad early some were above average late. He did pitch well in away games in his last season.
1962 he had an ERA of 1.75 at home and 3.53 on the road. He was at least a run per game better at home 62-66.
He was unbelievable for about 25% of his short career.
Looked at Guidry. One season at Koufax's Tier I, one at his Tier II, two at his Tier III. Many better than Koufax's "bad" years. What am I supposed to see? No surprises. His Tier I year he won Cy Young and was second in MVP, his Tier II year he finished third in Cy Young.
Well, yes and no. Certainly innings pitched is a huge component of RAA, but if a pitcher can pitch like Jacob deGrom for the first five innings but the third time through the lineup turns in to Brad Keller, he's far better off from a RAA standpoint to have fewer innings and a reliever.
No one is disputing that Koufax was between very good and great, from 1963-66. The problem is that he was only "good" in 1961-62 and bad before that. Does four years of elite pitching and little else make a great pitcher? I don't think so.
For whatever it's worth, I'm a good deal younger than you, but I can't imagine anything coming close to Pedro Martinez from 1997 to 2000, though Roger Clemens has several shorter stretches that come close. The difference is that Martinez followed that up with five more seasons better than anything Koufax pitched outside of those four. Clemens had more "mortal" years scattered throughout his career, but was even more dominant overall and especially when he was good.
Anyone who says he'd rather have 1966 Koufax than 1997 Clemens or 2000 Martinez simply wasn't paying attention as to how difficult it had become to pitch by the end of the 20th century.
Which is why you have to be very careful using raw data to evaluate players. Otherwise you might think that Joe Horlen was not far, far worse than Wes Ferrell.
Your argument is very solid for Young, not so much for the other three. Johnson was making 30-40 starts per year (one year 42). 100 years later Justin Verlander was making 33-35. The days of the likes of Charlie Radbourn following up a 632 1/3 inning season with one of 678 2/3, winning 108 games (over the two years) in the process were long gone by the time Mathewson showed up in 1900.
Wins is a poor way to evaluate players. If you only relied on wins, you'd likely think Sutton was better than Koufax.
I feel like - sometimes - I am the only one who thinks the total skill level of the average athlete in their respective sport is down. And I’ll stick with baseball:
Pitchers pitch significantly fewer innings.
Baseball players can’t hit for average anymore.
Baseball players can’t really play proper defense anymore.
Bunting, base running, base stealing, hitting to all fields, hit and run - many/most struggle to get these things done
Throwing harder for less innings and swinging harder for less hits don’t impress me, exit velo and spin rates be damned.
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 will add that - more to the original discussion - Sandy Koufax is most definitely not the greatest pitcher of all time but he is certainly one of the greatest.
The unifying thread, regardless of era, seems to be being a little nasty. It’s funny how the willingness to plunk a guy - Koufax, Gibson, Ford, Drysdale, Clemens, Pedro, etc - is part of what having ’it’ really means. It makes a ton of sense, when you think about it, that guys wouldn’t hit as well against someone who might kill them. 😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
So baseball is the one sport where skill level has dropped? No.
Average is down because pitching and defense are so much better. Hit & run and bunting have disappeared because they're a waste of time neutralized by... better pitching and defense.
He was great for 4-5 years. Especially at Dodgers Stadium. Also, he was terrific in the postseason.
No, I feel that way about all four sports. The athletes are bigger and stronger now and also less skilled overall. And I said as much. But since we’re talking baseball I will stick with baseball.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
According to FanGraphs, on a given pitch, a league average bunter has a 49.6% chance of putting the ball in play, and once a bunt vs the shift is in play, the batter has a 58.1% chance of reaching safely. So using basic probability, if you give a hitter 3 strikes, the probability of reaching first via bunt is roughly 0.507.
Many have made the case for batters facing the shift to simply bunt more often. After all, batters have hit at least .357 when bunting against a shift every season since 2010.
The main reason most batters do not?
It’s a skill that was never developed. Swing as hard as you can is easier to teach, to do and to apply and requires no change and it is taught from little league on up now. Just like hitting to contact is not taught either - it’s all about swinging as hard as you can and doing that in every situation regardless of runners, count and outs and inning.
That is as responsible for plummeting averages and reduced scoring as ‘good pitching’ and it’s not that hard to see if you value macro over micro.
The skills have been replaced by steroids and spider tack. Take them away - for real - and then tell me these guys are all better.
And again, it starts when they’re young. Two kids pitch for a high school team - one is a high 80s velocity control pitcher who goes 10-1 with a 2.00 era and the other is inconsistent and wild but can throw 99 at 17 years old.
Take one guess who gets a scholarship?
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, in all likelihood both do because that high 80s kid projects to be low-mid 90s by the time he's fully grown. But it's also pretty obvious that the kid who throws THAT much harder has a significantly higher chance of success at higher levels of play.
Yeah, not a chance. For example, in hockey, there are literally no guys who can't skate. None. 30 years ago, every team had at least a couple. Goalies are all a million times better - you simply don't see guys getting beat clean on unobstructed shots from 50ft anymore. Ever. Or basketball - there are tons of guys who are 6'10, 6'11 who can pass and shoot 3s better than a lot of guards from 30 years ago. It's a little tougher to see in football because of the rule changes - how much is actually improvement in skill level and how much is that quarterbacks and others are simply allowed to show their skills? That said, the sophistication seen in college and high school is a million miles ahead of where it was 30 years ago, reflecting a significantly higher skill level than before. And that translates into the pros as well.
In baseball, the skills are different - home runs and walking being more emphasized - but they certainly aren't lesser.
I am 100% happy to take you at your word in hockey. Never had the money, skills, interest or opportunity having grown up in NYC. I played the free/cheap sports growing up.
So, you got me there.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The three point shot wasn’t a part of basketball until the 1980’s so most big men wouldnt have been allowed to be that far away. The rise in number of the ‘shooting bigs’ really begins in the early 2000s - about 20 years after the rule change.
The league also legislated many, many changes to allow the game to be guard dominated while diminishing the low post player/big man.
This has not improved the quality of the game of basketball in any way whatsoever and in fact has made it the unwatchable mess it is today.
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've read here on the forum about how Koufax was good at Dodger Stadium and so-so on the road. So......I started combing thru stats on the internet. That's total BS. Unless ......you consider a 1.71 era at Dodger Stadium and a 1.91 era on the road as so-so for those 4-5 years. Forget it naysayers....... He was maybe the best. Face it.
If the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn, NEW YORK and Sandy Koufax ended his career with the EXACT same statistics as he did
playing in Brooklyn and L.A.,...there would be NO question about it. HE'S THE BEST EVER. Or if he played for Boston. BEST EVER! Or Philadelphia. BEST EVER! Or......you name the town.......EXCEPT...... if the Dodgers had moved to San Francisco..... Then........well.....get the picture?????
But that's not true. Not even close.
Last four years
1963 home 1.31 road 2.38
1964 home 0.85 road 2.93
1965 home 1.38 road 2.72
1966 home 1.52 road 1.96
FYI he wasn't bad on the road.
Career he was 2.48 at home and 3.04 on the road
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He had a 1.37 ERA at Dodger Stadium.
For his entire career, he had 11 parks with 6+ starts in them other than Dodger Stadium. He had an ERA over 3.50 in 6 of them - more than half. He was at 3.98 or higher in 4 - more than a third.
Next you're going to say an Olympic Medalist from 60 years ago couldn't win a good high school track meet today.
No one is saying that Koufax wasn't really good for four years. Although I'm convinced that none of those seasons in the mid to late '60s that were considered otherworldly were really as good as their reputations. I think 1972 Steve Carlton was better than any legendary '60s season, and likely better than any '60s season but I haven't come close to evaluating all the contenders. Yes, considerably better than 1968 Gibson. Not as good as the above Martinez and Clemens seasons, but I've gotten sidetracked.
Bottom line is that four years of excellence has to be backed up with more than two years of good to be considered an all-time great. I've tried very hard to make an argument that Koufax is Gooden in reverse, but Gooden wasn't good enough for long enough to convince me.
It is my considered opinion that Koufax is in the Hall because the voters felt he was cheated out of his age 31-35 seasons and that he would have continued his greatness. I'm not at all sure why Munson didn't get the same courtesy. 1) his injury was(much) more severe and 2) he had a better career, taking the emotions out of it, than Koufax. There are a lot of non-HoF pitchers who had better careers than Koufax. Now that Simmons is in, the only reasonable cases to be made for better catchers not to be enshrined are Mauer and Tenace. But Mauer played 5000 innings at first, and Tenace 4500 (Munson only played 260 at other positions) and it's likely Munson was better than Tenace anyway. And yet Munson never got 16% of the vote.
None of this is to suggest that I think Munson should be enshrined, understand, as with Reuschel, I think he's borderline and it doesn't bother me either way. I just think he's more deserving than Koufax to inhabit the Sandy Koufax wing.
I'm just so glad that we all unanimously agree that Sandy Koufax is the greatest pitcher of all time.
I believe that unity on this matter is important.
BTW - I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but Pete Rose in interviews stated that Koufax basically owned him. For an egotistical personality like Rose to admit that, as one of the great contact hitters of all time, also adds to Sandy's greatness.
When Pete Rose talks, I just assume he’s lying.
If I were standing outside being drenched by water falling from the sky, and Pete Rose said, “It’s raining…” I would seek the next most likely explanation as to what is happening.
😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Valid point, but Pete has no reason to lie about this one.
Pete's lies are usually to cover up his gambling and womanizing.
Additionally, his lies cover all noises emanating from his mouth, in general. And if you’re willing to pay him, he’ll say anything you want.
But other than that, a very credible human.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Here's how Sandy pitched on the road compared to everyone else's full season ERA's;
1963 road 2.31. Fabulous year! He would have placed third in ERA behind Ellsworth.
1964 road 2.93. He would have placed 20th in ERA. League average was 3.5.
1965 road 2.72. He would have placed 17th in ERA. League average was 3.6.
1966 road 1.96 Tremendous year he was the best on the road as well as at home.
No denying he was the finest pitcher at home all 4 years. However he was only above average on the road in 1964 and 1965, barely the top 20. Pretty dramatic drop off.
He was still able to go 19-8 in those two years on the road, I always wondered about that.
He got great run support in both of those years on the road;
In 1964 The Dodgers were shut out once and scored one run in two of Sandy's losses. In his 12 other starts they averaged 4.75 runs per game.
They scored even more for him in 1965, They were held to one run on two occasions (one a Koufax masterpiece 4 hit shutout). in his other 19 starts they scored 5,2 runs per game.
Helps to play on a great team.
I hear ya about Pete Rose. But I believe his general stories and viewpoints about various aspects of what happened during the games when he was a player, are truthful for the most part.
I don't disagree with ya at all about the rest.
@stevek
You do a disservice to Mr. Koufax but connecting him in any way to the all time hits leader.
And Koufax owned 98% of batters anyway - there’s plenty of better choices.
Forgive me but I’m glad they’re not in the same wing at Cooperstown and I’d just prefer if they don't appear it the same sentence. So I’ll give you this.
Pete Rose played baseball.
Sandy Koufax played baseball.
These two men excelled at the game but in very different ways and one may have a high opinion of the other, based on his own comments though he is not a very credible person.
Best I can do.
Fair?
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 don't doubt that you are correct. I got my info from an internet article. Who knows? I have been trying to find detailed stats on Koufax but I'm really not having much luck.
Home page
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml
Career splits (accessed from page above)
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=koufasa01&year=Career&t=p
Enjoy!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Clay Dalrymple was a catcher for the Phillies in the 60's. He had a career batting average of .233 from 1960-71. I remember listening to a game broadcast around 1965-66 and I DEFINITELY recall Vince Scully saying that Dalrymple hits Koufax as good or better than anyone. Maybe someone here can check it out.
P.S. I don't doubt that Dalrymple was great because he was from Chico, CA. Same hometown as Aaron Rodgers. They just turn out winners up there.😉
I have been trying to look up detailed stats on the 1966 season for a few days now. I'm no good at it and I give up. Maybe someone here can do the work........Here's why: The Dodgers were a lousy hitting team that year. Koufax went 27-9 that year. He left the game many times in the 7th-9in innings with the score being 0-0, 1-1, etc. The Dodgers had a relief pitcher that year named Phil Regan. He went 14-1. It would be interesting to see if the Dodgers had a decent hitting team if Koufax might have won 40 games that year. On any team with good run production he most certainly would have won 30 or more games. I know......coulda, shoulda, woulda. Pure speculation.
But.....something interesting to look in to.
We both know that there is no connection whatsoever to Sandy Koufax, one of the finest gentlemen in all of sports...and Pete Rose, one of the worst liars in all of sports...other than one pitched to the other and the other attempted to hit the pitches. Of course there were many thousands of witnesses every time this happened.
I have similar disdain towards Rose as you do. Despite his great performances, Rose soiled the game in ways we all know, and that cannot be ignored. But Pete couldn't lie about what Koufax did to him on the baseball field.
JB's first post pretty much covered the topic. I have nothing significant to add to it.
In 14 career ABs against Koufax, Dalrymple got 2 singles.
There's still an ongoing investigation as to how Dalrymple got those two singles off Koufax.
1966 Home 2.26 Road 3.01
1965 2.33 Road 3.31> @Hydrant said:
One of the reasons why Koufax was in so many 0-0 or 1-0 games was the same reason why his ERA was so good, its because it was harder to score runs at Dodger stadium those years compared to the rest of the parks in the league. Another reason is that league wide offense was lower compared to other high scoring eras, which is another reason that helped Koufax appear to be more dominant than pitchers in other eras.
Dodgers offense runs scored home/road
1966 Home 286 Road 320. 11.8% increase
1965 home 268 road 340. 26.8% increase
1964 Home 259 Road 355. 37% increase
1963 Home 296 Road 344. 16% increase
In reality, the Dodgers offense was not bad. It was actually good, but the numbers were suppressed by their home park.