@JoeBanzai said:
The question wasn't who was best in the post season, or what pitcher did Leo Durocher like better (ridiculous), it was "Best Dodger Pitcher Ever"
The answer is Kershaw, it's not close.
C’mon. I’m fine with you picking Kershaw but saying it’s ‘not close’ is an unreasonable point.
When we adjust for eras and ballparks, maybe we need to adjust for the fact some guys were forced to their detriment and for a variety of reasons to play hurt while others are coddled like baby birds and protected like a Princess’ virtue.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@reelinintheyears said:
Let's consider the opinion of the immortal Leo Durocher rather than the opinions of us mere mortals for a moment (excerpts from Harold Friend's 2/27/10 bleacherreport.com article):
Chicago Cubs' manager Leo Durocher, who had led the New York Giants to pennants in 1951 and 1954, came right to the point.
"Koufax is the best pitcher I've ever seen."
Durocher had been Babe Ruth's teammate in 1928. He had seen Walter Johnson, Bob Grove, Dizzy Dean, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Bob Feller, and Carl Hubbell.
Leo wasn't just being nice, especially since Leo was hardly ever nice.
Durocher's statement is significant. Sandy Koufax had more talent than any pitcher Leo had ever seen. Other pitchers had much better careers, but none was a great as Koufax.
Warren Spahn is an excellent example.
Spahn won 363 games, which is unmatched by any left-hander. He missed three seasons defending his country during World War II, and didn't get his first win until 1946, when he was 25-years old.
Koufax' lifetime totals in wins, games, games started, complete games, and strikeouts pale in comparison to those of Spahn, but Durocher was not speaking about longevity.
Koufax was more likely to shut out an opponent. Spahn started 665 games. Koufax started 314. Spahn pitched 63 shut outs. Koufax pitched 40.
Spahn struck out 2,583 batters in 5,243 and two-thirds innings, for an average of about 124 strikeouts a season.
Koufax struck out 2,396 batters, for an average of about 229 a season, which is incredible.
Leo Durocher knew what he was talking about when he said that Koufax was the best pitcher he had ever seen.
Love it !! Can't get any better than Durocher. Backs up what I've been saying all along.
I’m also of a mind that the ‘Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever’ wouldn’t and shouldn’t be solely based on regular season statistics. The Dodgers have seven championship: ‘55, ‘59, ‘63, ‘65, ‘81, ‘88, ‘20.
Sandy Koufax was a part of four championships, an integral part of three and the reason they won two. The numbers are too spectacular not to go look them up and remind yourself of the details and I’d suggest anyone who needs refreshing click the link and be sure to go to post season stats.
Clayton Kershaw was an integral part of one, in a COVID shortened season where he pitched a total of 71 innings and had a great World Series after (yet another batch of) clunkers in the DS and CS. The numbers are too pedestrian and prolonged not to go look them up and remind yourself of the details and I’d suggest anyone who needs refreshing click the link and be sure to go to post season stats.
Should the best ‘Dodgers Pitcher Ever’ be a guy whom, especially with the benefit of hindsight, you might have been better off not even rostering in the postseason?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I wonder how many MLB pitchers of talent had wished they had the opportunity to pitch of the Dodgers between 1955 and 1960. And out of those whose wish was granted would have produced the numbers that Koufax did during that time?
Imagine for a moment if Camilo Pascual had pitched for the Dodgers instead of the Nats during the same time frame- 1955-1960 and Koufax was part of the starting rotation for the Nats?
Clearly this imaginary switch I suspect would likely have landed Pascual in the HOF.
I like Koufax and I consider him among the greatest but I have a real problem with his stats from the1955-1960 time frame considering the team he pitched for.
If we look at a career with Dodgers... its Kershaw. If we limit it to 5 back to back seasons, the decision is very close and Don Newcombe should be in the conversation- not saying he is the one- but he should not be excluded.
For a single season- it probably would be Koufax.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
One says it's Kershaw, and not particularly close. Another says it's ridiculous to consider what Leo Durocher has to say about Koufax. I really doubt the integrity and baseball history aptitude of these guys after such reckless remarks.
My opinion is Sandy Koufax was the best Dodger pitcher ever. Personally, I do not count his first six years---through 1960. The man was about to give up baseball; he'd had enough frustration. Dodger management had had about enough of their investment in Sandy. As most of you know, or should know, the catalyst occurred in spring training, 1961. Norm Sherry's conversation with Sandy, convincing him to back off a little on his heater, COMPLETELY CHANGED SANDY KOUFAX. I'm not suggesting 1955-1960 never happened, but the incredibly fast metamorphosis was amazing, NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE.
iT'S AS IF SANDY KOUFAX HAD REINVENTED HIMSELF. The last 6 years of his career were so far removed from the first six, I believe Sandy warrants being a special case in this regard. Especially so when you remember his dominance was in his final six years.
I feel I must also mention what his injuries did to the Dodgers, ruining their chance to avoid the playoff with the Giants in 1962. How Sandy went 19-5 in 1964 with a dismal Dodger team was phenomenal.
Finally, when Sandy believed, and rightly so, that his arm was so vulnerable and continuing would risk permanent damage, he retired. His decision embittered Dodger management towards him. The effect on Dodger attendance was staggering, which in its own way reflects the vital importance, excitement, and love the fans had for their team when Mr. Koufax took the mound.
I fully realize Clayton is NOW, and he has been a strong force of pitching excellence that amazes you hard-to-please fans. Sandy Koufax is 1961-1966, essentially 60 years ago. Many years later, when Ken Burns did his landmark history of baseball series, the segment on Mr. Koufax was more than respectful, starting out with the voice of the Dodgers' legendary annuncer, Vin Scully. I would hope you won't embarrass yourself with asinine pronouncements regarding Vin's assessment of Sandy.
Most of the time, it's foolish to discuss "who's the best?" Goes along with "what should be the most valuable card? Or, who should be the most collected player? You guys could probably name a dozen real juicy arguments that never get solved, and raise the ire of most of the respondents.
Kershaw, Koufax, and even Orel Hershiser at his peak. They were all great, and wore the Dodger Blue with pride, and brought great acclaim to the franchise. Let's all enjoy a 5-topping pizza, or a couple of Dodger Dogs, with your favorite beverage.
Kershaw for sure in my opinion... I'll take career over a handful of years. The Leo argument doesn't carry much weight for me because he never saw Kershaw pitch... he very well could have said Clayton was the best pitcher he'd ever seen 🤷♂️.
Chicago Cubs' manager Leo Durocher, who had led the New York Giants to pennants in 1951 and 1954, came right to the point.
"Koufax is the best pitcher I've ever seen."
Durocher had been Babe Ruth's teammate in 1928. He had seen Walter Johnson, Bob Grove, Dizzy Dean, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Bob Feller, and Carl Hubbell.
Leo wasn't just being nice, especially since Leo was hardly ever nice.
Durocher's statement is significant. Sandy Koufax had more talent than any pitcher Leo had ever seen. Other pitchers had much better careers, but none was a great as Koufax.
Are you guys deaf.....dumb.....or blind or all three?????????????
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I’m also of a mind that the ‘Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever’ wouldn’t and shouldn’t be solely based on regular season statistics. The Dodgers have seven championship: ‘55, ‘59, ‘63, ‘65, ‘81, ‘88, ‘20.
Sandy Koufax was a part of four championships, an integral part of three and the reason they won two. The numbers are too spectacular not to go look them up and remind yourself of the details and I’d suggest anyone who needs refreshing click the link and be sure to go to post season stats.
Clayton Kershaw was an integral part of one, in a COVID shortened season where he pitched a total of 71 innings and had a great World Series after (yet another batch of) clunkers in the DS and CS. The numbers are too pedestrian and prolonged not to go look them up and remind yourself of the details and I’d suggest anyone who needs refreshing click the link and be sure to go to post season stats.
Now…Best? That’s the best guy? And it’s not close?
Really?!?!?
194 IP isn't enough. Koufax World Series IP total certainly isn't enough to make statements being said on here.
However, your point is seen. 194 IP is more credence than Koufax throwing 57 IP in WS and being proclaimed the greatest...which like @dallasactuary pointed out, then that makes other World Series pitchers BETTER than Koufax and many others if we simply. vault those low amount of WS IP over the 2,000-5,000 other IP in the big leagues.
Keep in mind that ERA can be fickle too, especially in any given year. Pitchers have blips up and down on a year to year basis all the time due to hits falling or not, or some untimely hits falling or not.
Kershaw's post season periphery stats. These stats are where Kershaw has a little more control on the outcomes compared to ERA:
Kershaw had a 1.077 WHIP in the post season compared to 1.002 in regular.
Kershaw had a K/B ratio of 4.26 in the post season compared to 4.45 in regular.
Kershaw had HR/9 of 1.3 in post season compared to 0.7 in regular season. That is a difference.
So Kershaw threw well and certainly had his share of bad luck. What he controlled, most notably the K/BB ration he showed up and showed up big time. How big?
To put those post season numbers in perspective:
Kershaw post season WHIP of 1.005 is better than Verlander's WHIP for his entire career.
Kershaw post season K/B of 4.26 is better than Verlander's K/BB ratio for his entire career.
If you look at Kershaw's post season starts, you will notice that his ERA in the starts where he had extraordinary long rests(seven days etc) are the starts where his ERA really balloons.
I will find the numbers, but the starts with more normal rest his ERA is good.
So what we have is Kershaw who actually did show up in the post season. He was elite in the post season in some key measurable categories and his days of long rest are really his undoing for his ERA total being higher(to go with some extra home runs given up, most likely going hand in hand).
@1951WheatiesPremium
Kershaw had three disaster starts in the post season where he pitched horribly on 7 days rest, 8 days, and 8 days.
Without those three unusually long rest days and disaster starts what would his post season ERA be?
His post season ERA without those three starts would be 3.48 over 176 IP
Not as good as his regular season, but darn effective, especially considering his elite 1.007 WHIP in the post season and elite 4.26 K/BB ratio(which includes all of his starts)
Kershaw actually had some dominant series in the post season:
2009 2.70 ERA and 6.1 IP
2013 0.69 ERA and 13 IP
2015 2.63 ERA and 13 IP
2016 3.00 ERA and 12 IP
2017 2.45 ERA and 11 IP
2018 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 2.31 ERA and 11.2 IP
The notion that he didn't show up in the post season is not accurate.
Is it fair to just eliminate three starts? I don't know, but it certainly paints a different picture, especially considering those three starts were done on unusually long rest; and that he had a HOF WHIP and a HOF K/bb ratio in his lifetime post season numbers, and he dominated in 8 different post season series....and it is a small sample to begin with and the ups and downs affect it more than a large sample...hence why small samples are poor judgement barometers. 194 IP is still a small sample in the MLB world.
(He dominated more post season series than Jack Morris who gets HIS bad series ignored and is in the HOF as a result).
Again, Jack Morris is in the HOF because his disaster post season starts are ignored.
@coinkat said:
I wonder how many MLB pitchers of talent had wished they had the opportunity to pitch of the Dodgers between 1955 and 1960. And out of those whose wish was granted would have produced the numbers that Koufax did during that time?
Imagine for a moment if Camilo Pascual had pitched for the Dodgers instead of the Nats during the same time frame- 1955-1960 and Koufax was part of the starting rotation for the Nats?
Clearly this imaginary switch I suspect would likely have landed Pascual in the HOF.
I like Koufax and I consider him among the greatest but I have a real problem with his stats from the1955-1960 time frame considering the team he pitched for.
If we look at a career with Dodgers... its Kershaw. If we limit it to 5 back to back seasons, the decision is very close and Don Newcombe should be in the conversation- not saying he is the one- but he should not be excluded.
For a single season- it probably would be Koufax.
Koufax is close, but I think 1924 or 1928 Dazzy Vance were better than any Koufax seasons.
Koufax is close, but I think 1924 or 1928 Dazzy Vance were better than any Koufax seasons.
Personally, I do not count Koufax's first six seasons. And in his career from 1961 to 1966, personally, I don't count any of the games he lost or any of the at bats in the games he won where Koufax gave up a walk or a hit. And let me tell you, Koufax was DOMINANT!!! Vance had some bad games in 1924 and 1928, but for six years Koufax never lost a game and never even let a man on base. Speaking personally, I mean. And Ralph Houk agrees with me, so you have to agree with me, too.
{I lost 18,479 brain cells typing this. I don't know how you guys can keep it up for an entire thread with losing consciousness.}
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@IndianaJones said:
As most of you know, or should know, the catalyst occurred in spring training, 1961. Norm Sherry's conversation with Sandy, convincing him to back off a little on his heater, COMPLETELY CHANGED SANDY KOUFAX. I'm not suggesting 1955-1960 never happened, but the incredibly fast metamorphosis was amazing, NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE.
I'm sure the increase in the size of the strike zone, the opening of Dodger Stadium, and expansion had nothing to do with the change in results.
Fact of the matter is that Sandy was basically league average outside of Chavez Ravine.
I’m a huge Kershaw fan; a key piece of many rotisserie baseball teams over the year that won championships for me. He’ll likely have the lowest career ERA of any pitcher ever in the modern era. That’s amazing. The Kershaw fans can clip this if they like and run around the room.
But I still have to weigh that with how it was done. His first 8 years were admittedly incredible otherworldly totals but the last eight have been great numbers in seasons that amount to 2/3 of a season pitched, usually throwing 100 pitches per start, coming out after 6 innings. With no exaggeration, I think that the thought of pitching that way is part of why Koufax retired. This was a guy who once threw 200+ pitches in a single game and pitched 300 or more innings in a season a couple seasons. Times have changed and his usage and the conditions under which Sandy Koufax pitched are truly unthinkable for a pitcher of today.
I don’t penalize great players for short careers. It happens for a variety of reasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I’m a huge Kershaw fan; a key piece of many rotisserie baseball teams over the year that won championships for me. He’ll likely have the lowest career ERA of any pitcher ever in the modern era. That’s amazing. The Kershaw fans can clip this if they like and run around the room.
But I still have to weigh that with how it was done. His first 8 years were admittedly incredible otherworldly totals but the last eight have been great numbers in seasons that amount to 2/3 of a season pitched, usually throwing 100 pitches per start, coming out after 6 innings. With no exaggeration, I think that the thought of pitching that way is part of why Koufax retired. This was a guy who once threw 200+ pitches in a single game and pitched 300 or more innings in a season a couple seasons. Times have changed and his usage and the conditions under which Sandy Koufax pitched are truly unthinkable for a pitcher of today.
I don’t penalize great players for short careers. It happens for a variety of reasons.
\
He currently has the best W% of any modern pitcher too. I know the knock against that stat(and those are valid knocks) but still for the average fan it holds more weight.
I agree, his inability to stay healthy the last half of his career really does ding his value up.
Kershaw seems a little rejuvenated as he re-invents himself as a pitcher. Last year and this year he has 238 IP combined with a 2.38 ERA. 24 wins and 7 losses.
Of course, all of us have the knee jerk reaction of seeing 238 IP and thinking that is a good amount for a guy in one season, just entering September, lol.
He will finish his Dodger career with 2,700 IP. Don't know going forward if he will even play again.
I am glad he at least got one WS win and pitched well in that WS to get some of the monkey off his back for that. Seems like a good dude.
^^ I do not believe Koufax's career was better than Kershaw's, but he was magnificent that day against a very good hitting Minnesota Twins team that included HOFers Killebrew and Olivia, as well as AL MVP Versailles and Bob Allison, who was a very good hitter.
I have read that his curveball wasn't "working" that day and he had to rely almost exclusively on his fastball.
Amazing!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium
Kershaw had three disaster starts in the post season where he pitched horribly on 7 days rest, 8 days, and 8 days.
Without those three unusually long rest days and disaster starts what would his post season ERA be?
His post season ERA without those three starts would be 3.48 over 176 IP
Not as good as his regular season, but darn effective, especially considering his elite 1.007 WHIP in the post season and elite 4.26 K/BB ratio(which includes all of his starts)
Kershaw actually had some dominant series in the post season:
2009 2.70 ERA and 6.1 IP
2013 0.69 ERA and 13 IP
2015 2.63 ERA and 13 IP
2016 3.00 ERA and 12 IP
2017 2.45 ERA and 11 IP
2018 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 2.31 ERA and 11.2 IP
The notion that he didn't show up in the post season is not accurate.
Is it fair to just eliminate three starts? I don't know, but it certainly paints a different picture, especially considering those three starts were done on unusually long rest; and that he had a HOF WHIP and a HOF K/bb ratio in his lifetime post season numbers, and he dominated in 8 different post season series....and it is a small sample to begin with and the ups and downs affect it more than a large sample...hence why small samples are poor judgement barometers. 194 IP is still a small sample in the MLB world.
(He dominated more post season series than Jack Morris who gets HIS bad series ignored and is in the HOF as a result).
Again, Jack Morris is in the HOF because his disaster post season starts are ignored.
I wanted to show the full picture as people might think the data you provided is the sum total of his post season work when it is decidedly not.
CLAYTON KERSHAW CAREER POSTSEASON TOTALS
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium
Kershaw had three disaster starts in the post season where he pitched horribly on 7 days rest, 8 days, and 8 days.
Without those three unusually long rest days and disaster starts what would his post season ERA be?
His post season ERA without those three starts would be 3.48 over 176 IP
Not as good as his regular season, but darn effective, especially considering his elite 1.007 WHIP in the post season and elite 4.26 K/BB ratio(which includes all of his starts)
Kershaw actually had some dominant series in the post season:
2009 2.70 ERA and 6.1 IP
2013 0.69 ERA and 13 IP
2015 2.63 ERA and 13 IP
2016 3.00 ERA and 12 IP
2017 2.45 ERA and 11 IP
2018 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 2.31 ERA and 11.2 IP
The notion that he didn't show up in the post season is not accurate.
Is it fair to just eliminate three starts? I don't know, but it certainly paints a different picture, especially considering those three starts were done on unusually long rest; and that he had a HOF WHIP and a HOF K/bb ratio in his lifetime post season numbers, and he dominated in 8 different post season series....and it is a small sample to begin with and the ups and downs affect it more than a large sample...hence why small samples are poor judgement barometers. 194 IP is still a small sample in the MLB world.
(He dominated more post season series than Jack Morris who gets HIS bad series ignored and is in the HOF as a result).
Again, Jack Morris is in the HOF because his disaster post season starts are ignored.
I wanted to show the full picture as people might think the data you provided is the sum total of his post season work when it is decidedly not.
CLAYTON KERSHAW CAREER POSTSEASON TOTALS
By all means.
My post is definitely not disputing that.
I would add though that so many Koufax backers are not taking key major factors into their evaluations, that if I were to do that same method and ignore key factors you get this:
Career Post season wins:
Kershaw 13
Koufax 4
The only way to dispute those win totals is to begin the sabermetric process by putting them into proper context....but at that point, don't stop, keep going and then you get to the clear point as @dallasactuary has laid out supremely.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium
Kershaw had three disaster starts in the post season where he pitched horribly on 7 days rest, 8 days, and 8 days.
Without those three unusually long rest days and disaster starts what would his post season ERA be?
His post season ERA without those three starts would be 3.48 over 176 IP
Not as good as his regular season, but darn effective, especially considering his elite 1.007 WHIP in the post season and elite 4.26 K/BB ratio(which includes all of his starts)
Kershaw actually had some dominant series in the post season:
2009 2.70 ERA and 6.1 IP
2013 0.69 ERA and 13 IP
2015 2.63 ERA and 13 IP
2016 3.00 ERA and 12 IP
2017 2.45 ERA and 11 IP
2018 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 2.31 ERA and 11.2 IP
The notion that he didn't show up in the post season is not accurate.
Is it fair to just eliminate three starts? I don't know, but it certainly paints a different picture, especially considering those three starts were done on unusually long rest; and that he had a HOF WHIP and a HOF K/bb ratio in his lifetime post season numbers, and he dominated in 8 different post season series....and it is a small sample to begin with and the ups and downs affect it more than a large sample...hence why small samples are poor judgement barometers. 194 IP is still a small sample in the MLB world.
(He dominated more post season series than Jack Morris who gets HIS bad series ignored and is in the HOF as a result).
Again, Jack Morris is in the HOF because his disaster post season starts are ignored.
I wanted to show the full picture as people might think the data you provided is the sum total of his post season work when it is decidedly not.
CLAYTON KERSHAW CAREER POSTSEASON TOTALS
By all means.
My post is definitely not disputing that.
I would add though that so many Koufax backers are not taking key major factors into their evaluations, that if I were to do that same method and ignore key factors you get this:
Career Post season wins:
Kershaw 13
Koufax 4
The only way to dispute those win totals is to begin the sabermetric process by putting them into proper context....but at that point, don't stop, keep going and then you get to the clear point as @dallasactuary has laid out supremely.
Huh?
This is worth picking up the day after Kershaw skipped a start against the heavy hitting Braves for a start against the light hitting Marlins.
We’re looking at yet another 23 start season for Kershaw in the books.
In Clayton Kershaw’s career, he has had 25 complete games. Koufax had 22 during the portion of his career when he ‘sucked’ (and another 115 during his peak seasons, 137 total).
Increased attention to statistics can produce better statistics, assuredly. I’m just not sure it produces better baseball players. For the second half of his career, Clayton Kershaw is still a great pitcher but at this point it is for 2/3 of each game in 2/3 of each season. A muscle pull, a tender shoulder or a sore back is 4-6 weeks off. Koufax pitched through all those same injuries.
Then, one pitcher is two runs better in the postseason and one pitcher is two runs worse in the postseason.
When you compare these guys at their peak, please don’t continue to ignore innings pitched. It’s not arbitrary, it’s one of the best indicators there is of a pitcher’s season and it’s impact…
…cue the silly responses of guys who pitched high innings totals who had bad seasons and/or don’t belong in this conversation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Reminder, a pitchers win total is significantly less arbitrary when no other pitchers throw the ball during the game. When you pitch 9 innings, it’s not arbitrary at all.
It didn’t come down to the bullpen in those games, right?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Part of the reason this issue sticks in my craw is because of how in the modern day sports scene, athletes have developed a culture that it’s ok to not play for any old reason and to the point of ridiculousness. The fans seem to embrace it, too, and not only give all these players a pass but actually celebrate and laud these current players as the greatest players of all time.
So a guy who only pitches when he’s in perfect health, sees each guy in the lineup maximum three times (and honestly currently closer to 2, on average) and still leaves nine outs for the bullpen (on average) making 22 starts a year is somehow better than a guy who makes 35 starts a year, pitches significantly deeper into every game but gives up two extra hits and a half a run more?
In what world?
It’s still a game played on a diamond not a simulation on a computer. I don’t want great individual stats, I want to win ballgames. Give me the guy who can get me the first and last out 6 times as often throughout his career, even if a few are losses, any day of the week and twice on Sunday’s, when apparently Kershaw can’t face the best team in the NL to get ready for the postseason - a process that seems to start in May now…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Lastly, stop calling their peak seasons equal. They’re not equal.
There is significantly more value with Sandy Koufax in 1631 IP in his six peak seasons; he is vastly more valuable to a baseball team than a pitcher with similarly good stats that pitches 1330 IP over the same 6 peak seasons.
That’s undeniable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Reminder, a pitchers win total is significantly less arbitrary when no other pitchers throw the ball during the game. When you pitch 9 innings, it’s not arbitrary at all.
It didn’t come down to the bullpen in those games, right?
Yes, and that is one aspect of digging into the sabermetric process, but most of those aspects are ignored. Heck, seven full seasons of Koufax are ignored. If 'winning' is all that mattered in measuring a pitcher then,
Kershaw 3-2 W/L recored in World Series
Koufax 4-3 W/L recored in World Series
So when everyone is ignoring major factors such as 7 season from Koufax, the run scoring environment of the era, the HUGE advantage Koufax got from Dodger stadium, and then concludes based on 57 IP in the World Series that Koufax was better?
Kershaw had a better winning percentage in the World Series, so to answer their own pointless question, "Who would you rather pitch in the World Series, well, if you want to win, then looks like it is Kershaw since he won at a higher rate.
So in order to discount Koufax better W/L record are we now to introduce objective factual things that will show that isn't the best way to evaluate it, when indeed more major factors are ignored in the whole process to begin with?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Reminder, a pitchers win total is significantly less arbitrary when no other pitchers throw the ball during the game. When you pitch 9 innings, it’s not arbitrary at all.
It didn’t come down to the bullpen in those games, right?
Yes, and that is one aspect of digging into the sabermetric process, but most of those aspects are ignored. Heck, seven full seasons of Koufax are ignored. If 'winning' is all that mattered in measuring a pitcher then,
Kershaw 3-2 W/L recored in World Series
Koufax 4-3 W/L recored in World Series
So when everyone is ignoring major factors such as 7 season from Koufax, the run scoring environment of the era, the HUGE advantage Koufax got from Dodger stadium, and then concludes based on 57 IP in the World Series that Koufax was better?
Kershaw had a better winning percentage in the World Series, so to answer their own pointless question, "Who would you rather pitch in the World Series, well, if you want to win, then looks like it is Kershaw since he won at a higher rate.
So in order to discount Koufax better W/L record are we now to introduce objective factual things that will show that isn't the best way to evaluate it, when indeed more major factors are ignored in the whole process to begin with?
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m not one who absolves Koufax’s average seasons with his dominant ones.
And it’s the same ballpark that Clayton Kershaw pitched in, isn’t it? (Not wise guy comment, I can’t recall what teams got new stadiums when other than the Yankees because I root for them and hate the new stadium).
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Lastly, stop calling their peak seasons equal. They’re not equal.
There is significantly more value with Sandy Koufax in 1631 IP in his six peak seasons; he is vastly more valuable to a baseball team than a pitcher with similarly good stats that pitches 1330 IP over the same 6 peak seasons.
That’s undeniable.
There can be a case where Koufax can get a nod in peak vs Kershaw when you factor that in, and that aspect is where I would make my case if arguing in Koufax's corner, though it is still very close. Those things don't usually have as big as an impact at first though. Don't forget to normalize for the era. Everyone threw complete games then, but you are right Koufax did it at a higher rate vs his peers than Kershaw did vs his peers, definitely a nod toward Koufax.
But you can't forget to add his home park that was built to help the pitcher at the time. to help him throw more innings and to help him pitcher better period.
Koufax at Dodger stadium had 57-15 record with a 1.37 ERA. 56 CG in 85 starts
Koufax everywhere else had 108-72 record 3.38 ERA. 81 CG in 229 starts
HUGE difference.
So yeah, I would take Koufax for the five years he pitched in Dodger stadium at home because I know what he did there and I don't know what Kershaw would do if given the same 38 foot high mound and if he would take advantage to the same degree Koufax did.
In every other start Kershaw is the easy choice.
He was still good outside Dodgers stadium, but no old man years and league low ERA's in his era. not nearly a stud.
In the end, I think a legit case can be made to give Koufax the four year peak over Kershaw, but the fact that Koufax gets absolutely blown out of the water the rest of the career makes it a non debate for who is/was better.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Reminder, a pitchers win total is significantly less arbitrary when no other pitchers throw the ball during the game. When you pitch 9 innings, it’s not arbitrary at all.
It didn’t come down to the bullpen in those games, right?
Yes, and that is one aspect of digging into the sabermetric process, but most of those aspects are ignored. Heck, seven full seasons of Koufax are ignored. If 'winning' is all that mattered in measuring a pitcher then,
Kershaw 3-2 W/L recored in World Series
Koufax 4-3 W/L recored in World Series
So when everyone is ignoring major factors such as 7 season from Koufax, the run scoring environment of the era, the HUGE advantage Koufax got from Dodger stadium, and then concludes based on 57 IP in the World Series that Koufax was better?
Kershaw had a better winning percentage in the World Series, so to answer their own pointless question, "Who would you rather pitch in the World Series, well, if you want to win, then looks like it is Kershaw since he won at a higher rate.
So in order to discount Koufax better W/L record are we now to introduce objective factual things that will show that isn't the best way to evaluate it, when indeed more major factors are ignored in the whole process to begin with?
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m not one who absolves Koufax’s average seasons with his dominant ones.
And it’s the same ballpark that Clayton Kershaw pitched in, isn’t it? (Not wise guy comment, I can’t recall what teams got new stadiums when other than the Yankees because I root for them and hate the new stadium).
The mound at Dodger stadium was one aspect that the Dodgers took advantage of back then, even higher than a league that already had high ones.
Koufax at Dodger stadium had 57-15 record with a 1.37 ERA. 56 CG in 85 starts
Koufax everywhere else had 108-72 record 3.38 ERA. 81 CG in 229 starts
I know you aren't ignoring all that stuff outside the postseason...but many people are.
I have tried in the past arguing Koufax's side and you are on the right track in terms of his IP over his peers compared to Kershaw's over his peers in their peaks. I don't know if it is enough to make a clear victory for their peaks. However, if you include his WS number(not as some mythical post season ability)but as more stats to add to his peak totals, that might make a difference too.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the argument.
Which pitcher would you want in an actual game/season of baseball?
And wouldn’t that make that pitcher the ‘Best Dodger Pitcher Ever’ ?
No.
Kershaw's 2013 looks comparable to Koufax's 1966.
The point of the original question was not who threw the best single pitch, inning, game, season, 2,3,4,5 year stretch etc.
Now we're spinning off onto innings pitched. In his first 8 seasons Koufax pitched more than 200 innings ONCE.
In his last 6 years he was hurt twice, and pitched over 200 innings in one of those 2 years. Sandy had 4 seasons where he didn't miss any starts either because he was hurt or just not very good, 3 of those 4 years, he was outstanding.
I see 9 full seasons for Kershaw with 7 of those years outstanding and the other 2 merely great.
Since the object of the game is to show up and win, Kershaw wins hands down. More wins and a higher winning percentage.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the argument.
Which pitcher would you want in an actual game/season of baseball?
And wouldn’t that make that pitcher the ‘Best Dodger Pitcher Ever’ ?
No.
Kershaw's 2013 looks comparable to Koufax's 1966.
The point of the original question was not who threw the best single pitch, inning, game, season, 2,3,4,5 year stretch etc.
Now we're spinning off onto innings pitched. In his first 8 seasons Koufax pitched more than 200 innings ONCE.
In his last 6 years he was hurt twice, and pitched over 200 innings in one of those 2 years. Sandy had 4 seasons where he didn't miss any starts either because he was hurt or just not very good, 3 of those 4 years, he was outstanding.
I see 9 full seasons for Kershaw with 7 of those years outstanding and the other 2 merely great.
Since the object of the game is to show up and win, Kershaw wins hands down. More wins and a higher winning percentage.
I am NOT arguing for win percentage here, guys. Or no hitters. I am talking about the ideal pitcher and steering clear of nonsense.
It’s pretty simple.
When you can hand a pitcher a ball to start a game and he can pitch effectively enough to complete the game, too, there can be no more valuable pitching performance. That pitcher qualifies and earns the decision because no one else on the team pitched. Maybe it was a complete game shutout and maybe it was a 5-2 loss. It still has tremendous ancillary value for the team!!!!
And in addition, it’s not just extra innings but extra actual starts!
Scrap the names, the bullpens and numbers for a second and use common sense!
I can have a pitcher make 40 starts who will get bombed in 10 and pitch well in 30 or a pitcher who will make 30 starts and pitch well in 26 of them and get bombed in four.
I just enjoy a fun debate and making people think. It’s close, as I’ve maintained. That’s all I’m arguing: that Clayton Kershaw ‘hands down’ over Sandy Koufax is an absurd take on the comparison of the two players.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
…it’s fair to say wins are pretty capricious in todays game.
But not all wins are capricious and that’s the point I’m making when discussing wins.
In 1963, Sandy Koufax won 25 games. So maybe fourteen (14) of them we’re capricious wins (they weren’t all but just go with it) but there is absolutely nothing capricious about a complete game shut out and simple math puts that total at 11.
And again, this is a result of both starts made and pitching deeper into the ballgame.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Who do I want for just one game? @daltex already addressed this, but I don't mind repeating it. If I pick Koufax, do I get 1955-1960 Koufax, 1961-1966 Koufax, or 1967-1972 Koufax? Your question assumes I will get 1961-1966 Koufax, but why?
In the end, your argument rests entirely on how well Koufax pitched for 6 years, and for the sake of argument I'll just agree that he was better than Kershaw for that period. But Kershaw was much, much, much better than Koufax for years 7-16. Near as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are giving literally 0% weight to the extra decade that Kershaw pitched. If you are, we're never going to come close to agreeing and the conversation just ends. If you're not, then it would be very helpful if you'd spell out how much weight you're giving to top-6, how much to World Series, and how much to years 7-16 (the majority of Kershaw's career). I think it's obvious that if you disregard a majority of one player's career, they will not appear to be as great. That appears to me, though, to be the only way to make a straight-face comparison of Koufax to Kershaw.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Who do I want for just one game? @daltex already addressed this, but I don't mind repeating it. If I pick Koufax, do I get 1955-1960 Koufax, 1961-1966 Koufax, or 1967-1972 Koufax? Your question assumes I will get 1961-1966 Koufax, but why?
In the end, your argument rests entirely on how well Koufax pitched for 6 years, and for the sake of argument I'll just agree that he was better than Kershaw for that period. But Kershaw was much, much, much better than Koufax for years 7-16. Near as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are giving literally 0% weight to the extra decade that Kershaw pitched. If you are, we're never going to come close to agreeing and the conversation just ends. If you're not, then it would be very helpful if you'd spell out how much weight you're giving to top-6, how much to World Series, and how much to years 7-16 (the majority of Kershaw's career). I think it's obvious that if you disregard a majority of one player's career, they will not appear to be as great. That appears to me, though, to be the only way to make a straight-face comparison of Koufax to Kershaw.
No, it doesn’t. I’ve said from the start that I refuse to ignore those estate in my evaluation. People always say they ‘suck’ but only by comparison to his own best seasons and in reality they would qualify as a little better than average on the whole with some more exact breakdown of better than average and worse than average seasons (feel free to put numerical values in).
Yes, one guy pitched ‘extra’ total seasons but in each one, relative to the normal ‘full season’, he pitches in only 2/3 of his scheduled games.
By comparison, an injured Koufax missed time and yet he still made 28 and 29 starts for the Dodgers, not 22. Both playing 162 game seasons. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw has made an average of 24 starts per year over the last 7 non shortened seasons! And 22 starts or fewer in 4 of them, not including COVID?!?!?
This might be (or in reality will be) the third season in a row where his innings pitched total is under 130. 130!?!?!?
So let’s slow down with the extra seasons stuff and the ‘ten clearly better’ seasons stuff. It’s more like 10 extra half seasons if we’re being honest.
And, realistically, the Dodgers still have to play the games where Clayton should have been in uniform but was instead in a hoodie and sweats.
I’m not much for the what ifs, but if Koufax was told, “Hey, dude, just pitch whenever the heck you feel like it. Really. It’s cool. Just be ready for October and just try not to throw batting practice (again) this time’, maybe Sandy plays until 1976 instead of 1966. That’s the plan Kershaw’s on, like it or not.
What has happened to the world when the pitch line to introduce the Greatest Dodgers pitcher ever, unfortunately lined with the actual truth, looks like this?
“Come see the greatest pitcher in Dodgers history pitch his 6 innings! He gets 18 outs and saves 9 for the bullpen, not because he can’t get guys out three times in the same game, but because he’s a good teammate! This guy gets better with age, too, and so even at 32, 33 and 34, you are going to be entertained, thrilled and amazed by the most wonderfully ratiod innings pitched (in the regular season) that you’ve ever seen! A feast for the eyes and senses and you can leave when he does and listen to the last three innings in the car to beat the traffic! Come see this star today…and…before October where the chump teams are all gone, the remaining teams are all better but we believe it’s a crap shoot and so you’re not held responsible for anything!
Get your tickets today!!!”
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"LOL - Spinning off? My, how far we’ve fallen in our expectations of pitchers!"
Yes, we have, but that's not my point.
Koufax missed 25% of his starts in 1962 and 1964, yet he gets full credit for those being great years. Even if we include 1964 as being a great year, that's still only one third of his career.
How anyone can objectively claim this makes him better than Kershaw is astounding.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I'm following everything you say, but until you actually answer the direct question I asked, I'm not going to understand your argument.
How much weight are you giving to:
The first five seasons,
the next five seasons,
the next five seasons,
the postseason.
Yes, you keep saying that you're not ignoring Koufax's fair to middling first six seasons, but then after you've said it, you ignore his first six seasons. If I'm picking one of them for one big game, and which game I get is determined by throwing at two dartboards that have tiny wedges numbered 1 to 418 (the number of games Kershaw has started), then I'm going to pick Kershaw and throw at his dartboard. If I pick Koufax, I have a 25% chance of forfeiting because I don't have a pitcher at all, and another 33% or so chance that I'll get early Koufax who was much, much worse than Kershaw has ever been. You keep insisting that Koufax's dartboard only include his prime seasons, and if you want to take the "speaking personally, I ignore all the bad stuff and pretend it doesn't exist" route, then sure, I'll take Koufax and throw at his mini-dartboard. But that is not at all the same thing as answering the question "who was the better pitcher"; that question requires that we not ignore anything.
Make fun of how few innings Kershaw has pitched in some of his seasons to your heart's content, but realize that those Kershaw seasons are the ones that get compared to seasons in which Koufax pitched no innings at all. The ones you are definitely ignoring completely.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
"LOL - Spinning off? My, how far we’ve fallen in our expectations of pitchers!"
Yes, we have, but that's not my point.
Koufax missed 25% of his starts in 1962 and 1964, yet he gets full credit for those being great years. Even if we include 1964 as being a great year, that's still only one third of his career.
How anyone can objectively claim this makes him better than Kershaw is astounding.
Because In Kershaw’s 15 full seasons (throwing out COVID, where a post season and regular season innings combo nets 70 IP) and where 33 starts is considers a full season, he has pitched an actual full season only 5 times.
That’s why.
And it actually and correctly includes a 32 start season where he pitched the day after the last game to start the playoffs (and it, too, didn’t end well, either).
And his innings pitched eclipsed 200 in only 5 of 15 seasons, and was nowhere close to 200 in 9 of the ten he missed the mark.
That’s why.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Reminder, a pitchers win total is significantly less arbitrary when no other pitchers throw the ball during the game. When you pitch 9 innings, it’s not arbitrary at all.
It didn’t come down to the bullpen in those games, right?
Yes, and that is one aspect of digging into the sabermetric process, but most of those aspects are ignored. Heck, seven full seasons of Koufax are ignored. If 'winning' is all that mattered in measuring a pitcher then,
Kershaw 3-2 W/L recored in World Series
Koufax 4-3 W/L recored in World Series
So when everyone is ignoring major factors such as 7 season from Koufax, the run scoring environment of the era, the HUGE advantage Koufax got from Dodger stadium, and then concludes based on 57 IP in the World Series that Koufax was better?
Kershaw had a better winning percentage in the World Series, so to answer their own pointless question, "Who would you rather pitch in the World Series, well, if you want to win, then looks like it is Kershaw since he won at a higher rate.
So in order to discount Koufax better W/L record are we now to introduce objective factual things that will show that isn't the best way to evaluate it, when indeed more major factors are ignored in the whole process to begin with?
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m not one who absolves Koufax’s average seasons with his dominant ones.
And it’s the same ballpark that Clayton Kershaw> @dallasactuary said:
I'm following everything you say, but until you actually answer the direct question I asked, I'm not going to understand your argument.
Here’s direct answers. And many allude to points I already made which you aren’t taking the time to read. Or respond to. At least not specifically. Which I get because no one who digs in there heels when they’ve made a mistake enjoys giving ground. Unless, of course, they have experience and are intelligent.
How much weight are you giving to:
The first five seasons, 1/4
the next five seasons, 1/4
the next five seasons, 1/4
the postseason. 1/4
Yes, you keep saying that you're not ignoring Koufax's fair to middling first six seasons, but then after you've said it, you ignore his first six seasons.
I didn’t and instead addressed it directly. I put forth that he was an above average to average pitcher during those seasons.
If I'm picking one of them for one big game, and which game I get is determined by throwing at two dartboards that have tiny wedges numbered 1 to 418 (the number of games Kershaw has started), then I'm going to pick Kershaw and throw at his dartboard.
If I pick Koufax, I have a 25% chance of forfeiting because I don't have a pitcher at all,
Stop. Right. There.
The same is EXACTLY TRUE of Clayton Kershaw’s career. That’s what I’m screaming about!
Kershaw has made 418 starts over parts of 16 seasons. He completed 5 and missed time in 10. Not one or two games. An average of 9 games PER SEASON over the last SEVEN seasons! So fill in the blank spaces on his board too!!!! He missed an incredible amount of starts in seasons in which he actually pitched. At least be fair if you’re going to penalize Koufax for games he didn’t start because he retired! And why did he retire? Because he threw more pitches, innings, and starts per season!!!!
and another 33% or so chance that I'll get early Koufax who was much, much worse than Kershaw has ever been.
By this math, you are basically saying that Sandy Koufax was good in about one out of every three starts in his career. I think a deep dive would prove that statement incorrect.
You keep insisting that Koufax's dartboard only include his prime seasons,
Didn’t and still don’t.
and if you want to take the "speaking personally, I ignore all the bad stuff and pretend it doesn't exist" route, then sure, I'll take Koufax and throw at his mini-dartboard.
I’ve not taken that route once.
But that is not at all the same thing as answering the question "who was the better pitcher"; that question requires that we not ignore anything.
Every point has now been addressed already or here. Maybe read them? So you separate what I am saying from ‘the crowd’.
I’m not the crowd, I’m me.
And I being pretty specific so use my words and not some generalized version of what other people say and refute it please.
Don’t draw up a point I didn’t make and refute it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:ear
The first five seasons, 1/4
the next five seasons, 1/4
the next five seasons, 1/4
the postseason. 1/4
Thank you for the response. And I should have said "first 6", etc. since using 5 season buckets causes Kershaw to run out of seasons before his career is over. Assuming your answer would have been the same had I asked about 6-year buckets, here are the runs allowed by each pitcher less than an average pitcher:
Best 6 seasons: Koufax 251, Kershaw 261
Next best 6: Koufax -5, Kershaw 160
Next best 4: Koufax -55, Kershaw 48
World Series: Koufax 10, Kershaw -7
Again, and I honestly don't think you are seeing this, in Kershaw's best six seasons he allowed fewer runs relative to average than did Koufax. Yes, Koufax pitched a lot more innings than Kershaw, but Kershaw was enough better than Koufax when he did pitch that he was still better. You want to call it a tie, I won't object. But if you want to say that Koufax pitching more innings at a lower level is better, then I object. If he is better, then he is microscopically better. In any event, their peaks are not going to affect the outcome of "who was better" enough to matter.
Next best 6 is a, well, "blowout" doesn't seem nearly a strong enough word. Kershaw bitch-slaps Koufax seven ways to Sunday and leaves him bleeding at the side of the road begging for Kershaw to just shoot him.
The remaining seasons are just cruel since Koufax had already been humiliated enough, but the bitch-slappin' just kept a comin'. To get the runs allowed less than average for Koufax's imaginary seasons where he wasn't even pitching anymore, I found the starting pitcher who the Dodgers were forced to use given that Koufax wasn't available and used their figure. Alan Foster pitched a lot of games for the Dodgers that the Dodgers could have avoided had Koufax been available. But he wasn't, Foster was thrown into the rotation, and he stunk.
I put forth that he was an above average to average pitcher during those seasons.
And you were wrong; he was a slightly below average pitcher (-5 runs) for those six seasons. I don't think you quite appreciate the chasm between Koufax and Kershaw for their "next 6" seasons. It's enormous, and it's the primary reason why Kershaw was better than Koufax. The numbers are above and you can continue to ignore them if you like, but by ignoring the single most important factor in determining which of them was better, you're going to reach the wrong conclusion.
Kershaw has made 418 starts over parts of 16 seasons. He completed 5 and missed time in 10. Not one or two games. An average of 9 games PER SEASON over the last SEVEN seasons! So fill in the blank spaces on his board too!!!! He missed an incredible amount of starts in seasons in which he actually pitched. At least be fair if you’re going to penalize Koufax for games he didn’t start because he retired! And why did he retire? Because he threw more pitches, innings, and starts per season!!!!
There is no way of looking at it where the conclusion is that Kershaw missed more starts than Koufax. Over Koufax's last SEVEN seasons he missed a whole lot more games than Kershaw. He missed four seasons entirely. WHY did he miss them? Unless he was fighting Nazis or Communists, I don't care. The question is who was the better pitcher, and the fact that Kershaw pitched many more innings than Koufax is, despite your protests, very relevant. Ed Walsh was not a better pitcher than Christy Mathewson or Walter Johnson. WHY didn't Walsh pitch as long? I don't care, and neither should you.
and another 33% or so chance that I'll get early Koufax who was much, much worse than Kershaw has ever been.
By this math, you are basically saying that Sandy Koufax was good in about one out of every three starts in his career. I think a deep dive would prove that statement incorrect.
The 1/3 applies to a career the same length as Kershaw's. In his much shorter career, Koufax was good in much more than 1/3 of his starts. But the starts he didn't take matter, and they matter a LOT, in the comparison to Kershaw.
You keep insisting that Koufax's dartboard only include his prime seasons,
Didn’t and still don’t.
OK, then if you weight his peak seasons equally with the others, as you said you did, then you agree that Kershaw was better than Koufax. I know you'll still disagree, and what I'm telling you is that there is no conceivable way to weight Koufax's peak equally with the other segments of his career and conclude that Koufax was better than Kershaw. It's logically impossible. There are ways to reach that conclusion with very different weights than the ones you provided, and if you still think Koufax was better then I'm telling you that the weights you provided are not the weights you are actually using. They're just not.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Set up four mini dart boards for my four weighted areas five seasons at a clip like you asked?
It’s Kershaw, Koufax, Koufax and Koufax.
One dart board? All things considered? I go slight Koufax. Not Koufax by a mile. Not Koufax hands down.
Slight.
You draw a conclusion of slight edge Kershaw? No issue. At all.
Again, still banging the same drum I started banging.
Your logic here says that "winning" in one period by 1 run and winning by 150 runs are the same thing. (And I am really, really confused how you managed to avoid giving Kershaw at least two buckets. The answer would make me cry, so forget I mentioned it.)
You want to claim Koufax wins the peak bucket, OK, go ahead. But if he wins, he wins by a tiny, tiny amount.
Kershaw wins sector 2 by an enormous amount.
Kershaw wins sector 3 by an enormous amount.
Koufax wins the WS sector by a very small amount, but since you are weighting WS innings as 40 times as valuable as regular season innings we can call it enormous.
Kershaw wins, and he is going to win any comparison, framed however you want to frame it, unless something logically impossible, or statistically incorrect, is thrown in to muck it up.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'm following everything you say, but until you actually answer the direct question I asked, I'm not going to understand your argument.
How much weight are you giving to:
The first five seasons,
the next five seasons,
the next five seasons,
the postseason.
**
Then you saw you were completely wrong (and probably how wrong)
so you changed the argument and went on and on about it as usual - even though I asked you nicely not to - because you were wrong.
How wrong?
First five seasons
Kershaw. I said that. And 1955-1959, Koufax was an average pitcher to slightly above average pitcher at during that span that span. However, on a dartboard there’s enough meat on the bone - 11 CGs, 3 Shutouts - that a dart is not altogether wasted on Sandy’s board. But Kershaw is better. More starts, more innings and by a good margin.
Next five seasons
I will take 1960-64 Koufax over 2013-2017 Kershaw.
The next five years
Then you have 1964-1966 Koufax against 2018-2023 Kershaw. Sandy’s final 3 seasons versus Clayton’s final six seasons.
In that span? Clayton Kershaw pitched 758 innings and made 128 starts over six seasons.
From 1964-1966, Koufax 107 starts and pitched 881 innings.
So three years of Koufax plus his two zero seasons held against him still results in more innings pitched by Sandy Koufax! Sure, he makes 21 fewer starts. Go look at who he was from 1964-66 for a second.
Can you throw a bad dart? 😂🤣😂
Next the postseason.
Then we get to the postseason.
No more typing is needed is it?
Thanks for playing.
And unless you want to respond to and or refute any of those points directly, have a lovely rest of your Labor Day…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Comments
The question wasn't who was best in the post season, or what pitcher did Leo Durocher like better (ridiculous), it was "Best Dodger Pitcher Ever"
The answer is Kershaw, it's not close.
C’mon. I’m fine with you picking Kershaw but saying it’s ‘not close’ is an unreasonable point.
When we adjust for eras and ballparks, maybe we need to adjust for the fact some guys were forced to their detriment and for a variety of reasons to play hurt while others are coddled like baby birds and protected like a Princess’ virtue.
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Love it !! Can't get any better than Durocher. Backs up what I've been saying all along.
chaz
I’m also of a mind that the ‘Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever’ wouldn’t and shouldn’t be solely based on regular season statistics. The Dodgers have seven championship: ‘55, ‘59, ‘63, ‘65, ‘81, ‘88, ‘20.
Sandy Koufax was a part of four championships, an integral part of three and the reason they won two. The numbers are too spectacular not to go look them up and remind yourself of the details and I’d suggest anyone who needs refreshing click the link and be sure to go to post season stats.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml
Clayton Kershaw was an integral part of one, in a COVID shortened season where he pitched a total of 71 innings and had a great World Series after (yet another batch of) clunkers in the DS and CS. The numbers are too pedestrian and prolonged not to go look them up and remind yourself of the details and I’d suggest anyone who needs refreshing click the link and be sure to go to post season stats.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml
Now…Best? That’s the best guy? And it’s not close?
Really?!?!?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Should the best ‘Dodgers Pitcher Ever’ be a guy whom, especially with the benefit of hindsight, you might have been better off not even rostering in the postseason?
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 wonder how many MLB pitchers of talent had wished they had the opportunity to pitch of the Dodgers between 1955 and 1960. And out of those whose wish was granted would have produced the numbers that Koufax did during that time?
Imagine for a moment if Camilo Pascual had pitched for the Dodgers instead of the Nats during the same time frame- 1955-1960 and Koufax was part of the starting rotation for the Nats?
Clearly this imaginary switch I suspect would likely have landed Pascual in the HOF.
I like Koufax and I consider him among the greatest but I have a real problem with his stats from the1955-1960 time frame considering the team he pitched for.
If we look at a career with Dodgers... its Kershaw. If we limit it to 5 back to back seasons, the decision is very close and Don Newcombe should be in the conversation- not saying he is the one- but he should not be excluded.
For a single season- it probably would be Koufax.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
One says it's Kershaw, and not particularly close. Another says it's ridiculous to consider what Leo Durocher has to say about Koufax. I really doubt the integrity and baseball history aptitude of these guys after such reckless remarks.
My opinion is Sandy Koufax was the best Dodger pitcher ever. Personally, I do not count his first six years---through 1960. The man was about to give up baseball; he'd had enough frustration. Dodger management had had about enough of their investment in Sandy. As most of you know, or should know, the catalyst occurred in spring training, 1961. Norm Sherry's conversation with Sandy, convincing him to back off a little on his heater, COMPLETELY CHANGED SANDY KOUFAX. I'm not suggesting 1955-1960 never happened, but the incredibly fast metamorphosis was amazing, NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE.
iT'S AS IF SANDY KOUFAX HAD REINVENTED HIMSELF. The last 6 years of his career were so far removed from the first six, I believe Sandy warrants being a special case in this regard. Especially so when you remember his dominance was in his final six years.
I feel I must also mention what his injuries did to the Dodgers, ruining their chance to avoid the playoff with the Giants in 1962. How Sandy went 19-5 in 1964 with a dismal Dodger team was phenomenal.
Finally, when Sandy believed, and rightly so, that his arm was so vulnerable and continuing would risk permanent damage, he retired. His decision embittered Dodger management towards him. The effect on Dodger attendance was staggering, which in its own way reflects the vital importance, excitement, and love the fans had for their team when Mr. Koufax took the mound.
I fully realize Clayton is NOW, and he has been a strong force of pitching excellence that amazes you hard-to-please fans. Sandy Koufax is 1961-1966, essentially 60 years ago. Many years later, when Ken Burns did his landmark history of baseball series, the segment on Mr. Koufax was more than respectful, starting out with the voice of the Dodgers' legendary annuncer, Vin Scully. I would hope you won't embarrass yourself with asinine pronouncements regarding Vin's assessment of Sandy.
Most of the time, it's foolish to discuss "who's the best?" Goes along with "what should be the most valuable card? Or, who should be the most collected player? You guys could probably name a dozen real juicy arguments that never get solved, and raise the ire of most of the respondents.
Kershaw, Koufax, and even Orel Hershiser at his peak. They were all great, and wore the Dodger Blue with pride, and brought great acclaim to the franchise. Let's all enjoy a 5-topping pizza, or a couple of Dodger Dogs, with your favorite beverage.
--- Indiana Jones (Brian Powell)
Kershaw for sure in my opinion... I'll take career over a handful of years. The Leo argument doesn't carry much weight for me because he never saw Kershaw pitch... he very well could have said Clayton was the best pitcher he'd ever seen 🤷♂️.
"I do not count his first six years---through 1960"
None of the Koufax fans do, because he was horrible.
Let's ignore half of his career, then he's the greatest......uh, well, for 5, no wait 3, years.
OMFG
KOUFAX. !!!!!!!! KOUFAX. !!!!!!!! KOUFAX. !!!!!!!! KOUFAX. !!!!!!! KOUFAX. !!!!!!!!
Chicago Cubs' manager Leo Durocher, who had led the New York Giants to pennants in 1951 and 1954, came right to the point.
"Koufax is the best pitcher I've ever seen."
Durocher had been Babe Ruth's teammate in 1928. He had seen Walter Johnson, Bob Grove, Dizzy Dean, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Bob Feller, and Carl Hubbell.
Leo wasn't just being nice, especially since Leo was hardly ever nice.
Durocher's statement is significant. Sandy Koufax had more talent than any pitcher Leo had ever seen. Other pitchers had much better careers, but none was a great as Koufax.
Are you guys deaf.....dumb.....or blind or all three?????????????
chaz
This made me laugh.
Ditto, but for different reasons.
194 IP isn't enough. Koufax World Series IP total certainly isn't enough to make statements being said on here.
However, your point is seen. 194 IP is more credence than Koufax throwing 57 IP in WS and being proclaimed the greatest...which like @dallasactuary pointed out, then that makes other World Series pitchers BETTER than Koufax and many others if we simply. vault those low amount of WS IP over the 2,000-5,000 other IP in the big leagues.
Keep in mind that ERA can be fickle too, especially in any given year. Pitchers have blips up and down on a year to year basis all the time due to hits falling or not, or some untimely hits falling or not.
Kershaw's post season periphery stats. These stats are where Kershaw has a little more control on the outcomes compared to ERA:
Kershaw had a 1.077 WHIP in the post season compared to 1.002 in regular.
Kershaw had a K/B ratio of 4.26 in the post season compared to 4.45 in regular.
Kershaw had HR/9 of 1.3 in post season compared to 0.7 in regular season. That is a difference.
So Kershaw threw well and certainly had his share of bad luck. What he controlled, most notably the K/BB ration he showed up and showed up big time. How big?
To put those post season numbers in perspective:
Kershaw post season WHIP of 1.005 is better than Verlander's WHIP for his entire career.
Kershaw post season K/B of 4.26 is better than Verlander's K/BB ratio for his entire career.
If you look at Kershaw's post season starts, you will notice that his ERA in the starts where he had extraordinary long rests(seven days etc) are the starts where his ERA really balloons.
I will find the numbers, but the starts with more normal rest his ERA is good.
So what we have is Kershaw who actually did show up in the post season. He was elite in the post season in some key measurable categories and his days of long rest are really his undoing for his ERA total being higher(to go with some extra home runs given up, most likely going hand in hand).
We’re comparing two very specific players here - I’m not interested in what other players did and how that relates.
By the way, 194 IP - over a wide stretch of career - is not a small sample size; and it’s actually 7th most all time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@1951WheatiesPremium
Kershaw had three disaster starts in the post season where he pitched horribly on 7 days rest, 8 days, and 8 days.
Without those three unusually long rest days and disaster starts what would his post season ERA be?
His post season ERA without those three starts would be 3.48 over 176 IP
Not as good as his regular season, but darn effective, especially considering his elite 1.007 WHIP in the post season and elite 4.26 K/BB ratio(which includes all of his starts)
Kershaw actually had some dominant series in the post season:
2009 2.70 ERA and 6.1 IP
2013 0.69 ERA and 13 IP
2015 2.63 ERA and 13 IP
2016 3.00 ERA and 12 IP
2017 2.45 ERA and 11 IP
2018 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 0.00 ERA and 8 IP
2020 2.31 ERA and 11.2 IP
The notion that he didn't show up in the post season is not accurate.
Is it fair to just eliminate three starts? I don't know, but it certainly paints a different picture, especially considering those three starts were done on unusually long rest; and that he had a HOF WHIP and a HOF K/bb ratio in his lifetime post season numbers, and he dominated in 8 different post season series....and it is a small sample to begin with and the ups and downs affect it more than a large sample...hence why small samples are poor judgement barometers. 194 IP is still a small sample in the MLB world.
(He dominated more post season series than Jack Morris who gets HIS bad series ignored and is in the HOF as a result).
Again, Jack Morris is in the HOF because his disaster post season starts are ignored.
Koufax is close, but I think 1924 or 1928 Dazzy Vance were better than any Koufax seasons.
Personally, I do not count Koufax's first six seasons. And in his career from 1961 to 1966, personally, I don't count any of the games he lost or any of the at bats in the games he won where Koufax gave up a walk or a hit. And let me tell you, Koufax was DOMINANT!!! Vance had some bad games in 1924 and 1928, but for six years Koufax never lost a game and never even let a man on base. Speaking personally, I mean. And Ralph Houk agrees with me, so you have to agree with me, too.
{I lost 18,479 brain cells typing this. I don't know how you guys can keep it up for an entire thread with losing consciousness.}
I'm sure the increase in the size of the strike zone, the opening of Dodger Stadium, and expansion had nothing to do with the change in results.
Fact of the matter is that Sandy was basically league average outside of Chavez Ravine.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
I’m a huge Kershaw fan; a key piece of many rotisserie baseball teams over the year that won championships for me. He’ll likely have the lowest career ERA of any pitcher ever in the modern era. That’s amazing. The Kershaw fans can clip this if they like and run around the room.
But I still have to weigh that with how it was done. His first 8 years were admittedly incredible otherworldly totals but the last eight have been great numbers in seasons that amount to 2/3 of a season pitched, usually throwing 100 pitches per start, coming out after 6 innings. With no exaggeration, I think that the thought of pitching that way is part of why Koufax retired. This was a guy who once threw 200+ pitches in a single game and pitched 300 or more innings in a season a couple seasons. Times have changed and his usage and the conditions under which Sandy Koufax pitched are truly unthinkable for a pitcher of today.
I don’t penalize great players for short careers. It happens for a variety of reasons.
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 currently has the best W% of any modern pitcher too. I know the knock against that stat(and those are valid knocks) but still for the average fan it holds more weight.
I agree, his inability to stay healthy the last half of his career really does ding his value up.
Kershaw seems a little rejuvenated as he re-invents himself as a pitcher. Last year and this year he has 238 IP combined with a 2.38 ERA. 24 wins and 7 losses.
Of course, all of us have the knee jerk reaction of seeing 238 IP and thinking that is a good amount for a guy in one season, just entering September, lol.
He will finish his Dodger career with 2,700 IP. Don't know going forward if he will even play again.
I am glad he at least got one WS win and pitched well in that WS to get some of the monkey off his back for that. Seems like a good dude.
Moved to Sports Talk
@dallasactuary
Ralph Houk... Ralph Bellamy... close enough
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Pretty much the same in that I value their opinions and Leo Durocher's opinions all equally.
Hi, hello, how are ya? Welcome.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
1965 world series game 7 Koufax pitching:
^^ I do not believe Koufax's career was better than Kershaw's, but he was magnificent that day against a very good hitting Minnesota Twins team that included HOFers Killebrew and Olivia, as well as AL MVP Versailles and Bob Allison, who was a very good hitter.
I have read that his curveball wasn't "working" that day and he had to rely almost exclusively on his fastball.
Amazing!
I wanted to show the full picture as people might think the data you provided is the sum total of his post season work when it is decidedly not.
CLAYTON KERSHAW CAREER POSTSEASON TOTALS
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
By all means.
My post is definitely not disputing that.
I would add though that so many Koufax backers are not taking key major factors into their evaluations, that if I were to do that same method and ignore key factors you get this:
Career Post season wins:
Kershaw 13
Koufax 4
The only way to dispute those win totals is to begin the sabermetric process by putting them into proper context....but at that point, don't stop, keep going and then you get to the clear point as @dallasactuary has laid out supremely.
Huh?
This is worth picking up the day after Kershaw skipped a start against the heavy hitting Braves for a start against the light hitting Marlins.
We’re looking at yet another 23 start season for Kershaw in the books.
In Clayton Kershaw’s career, he has had 25 complete games. Koufax had 22 during the portion of his career when he ‘sucked’ (and another 115 during his peak seasons, 137 total).
Increased attention to statistics can produce better statistics, assuredly. I’m just not sure it produces better baseball players. For the second half of his career, Clayton Kershaw is still a great pitcher but at this point it is for 2/3 of each game in 2/3 of each season. A muscle pull, a tender shoulder or a sore back is 4-6 weeks off. Koufax pitched through all those same injuries.
Then, one pitcher is two runs better in the postseason and one pitcher is two runs worse in the postseason.
When you compare these guys at their peak, please don’t continue to ignore innings pitched. It’s not arbitrary, it’s one of the best indicators there is of a pitcher’s season and it’s impact…
…cue the silly responses of guys who pitched high innings totals who had bad seasons and/or don’t belong in this conversation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Reminder, a pitchers win total is significantly less arbitrary when no other pitchers throw the ball during the game. When you pitch 9 innings, it’s not arbitrary at all.
It didn’t come down to the bullpen in those games, right?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Part of the reason this issue sticks in my craw is because of how in the modern day sports scene, athletes have developed a culture that it’s ok to not play for any old reason and to the point of ridiculousness. The fans seem to embrace it, too, and not only give all these players a pass but actually celebrate and laud these current players as the greatest players of all time.
So a guy who only pitches when he’s in perfect health, sees each guy in the lineup maximum three times (and honestly currently closer to 2, on average) and still leaves nine outs for the bullpen (on average) making 22 starts a year is somehow better than a guy who makes 35 starts a year, pitches significantly deeper into every game but gives up two extra hits and a half a run more?
In what world?
It’s still a game played on a diamond not a simulation on a computer. I don’t want great individual stats, I want to win ballgames. Give me the guy who can get me the first and last out 6 times as often throughout his career, even if a few are losses, any day of the week and twice on Sunday’s, when apparently Kershaw can’t face the best team in the NL to get ready for the postseason - a process that seems to start in May now…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallasactuary
@1948_Swell_Robinson
@JoeBanzai
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this aspect of the argument.
Which pitcher would you want in an actual game/season of baseball?
And wouldn’t that make that pitcher the ‘Best Dodger Pitcher Ever’ ?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Lastly, stop calling their peak seasons equal. They’re not equal.
There is significantly more value with Sandy Koufax in 1631 IP in his six peak seasons; he is vastly more valuable to a baseball team than a pitcher with similarly good stats that pitches 1330 IP over the same 6 peak seasons.
That’s undeniable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yes, and that is one aspect of digging into the sabermetric process, but most of those aspects are ignored. Heck, seven full seasons of Koufax are ignored. If 'winning' is all that mattered in measuring a pitcher then,
Kershaw 3-2 W/L recored in World Series
Koufax 4-3 W/L recored in World Series
So when everyone is ignoring major factors such as 7 season from Koufax, the run scoring environment of the era, the HUGE advantage Koufax got from Dodger stadium, and then concludes based on 57 IP in the World Series that Koufax was better?
Kershaw had a better winning percentage in the World Series, so to answer their own pointless question, "Who would you rather pitch in the World Series, well, if you want to win, then looks like it is Kershaw since he won at a higher rate.
So in order to discount Koufax better W/L record are we now to introduce objective factual things that will show that isn't the best way to evaluate it, when indeed more major factors are ignored in the whole process to begin with?
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m not one who absolves Koufax’s average seasons with his dominant ones.
And it’s the same ballpark that Clayton Kershaw pitched in, isn’t it? (Not wise guy comment, I can’t recall what teams got new stadiums when other than the Yankees because I root for them and hate the new stadium).
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
There can be a case where Koufax can get a nod in peak vs Kershaw when you factor that in, and that aspect is where I would make my case if arguing in Koufax's corner, though it is still very close. Those things don't usually have as big as an impact at first though. Don't forget to normalize for the era. Everyone threw complete games then, but you are right Koufax did it at a higher rate vs his peers than Kershaw did vs his peers, definitely a nod toward Koufax.
But you can't forget to add his home park that was built to help the pitcher at the time. to help him throw more innings and to help him pitcher better period.
Koufax at Dodger stadium had 57-15 record with a 1.37 ERA. 56 CG in 85 starts
Koufax everywhere else had 108-72 record 3.38 ERA. 81 CG in 229 starts
HUGE difference.
So yeah, I would take Koufax for the five years he pitched in Dodger stadium at home because I know what he did there and I don't know what Kershaw would do if given the same 38 foot high mound and if he would take advantage to the same degree Koufax did.
In every other start Kershaw is the easy choice.
He was still good outside Dodgers stadium, but no old man years and league low ERA's in his era. not nearly a stud.
In the end, I think a legit case can be made to give Koufax the four year peak over Kershaw, but the fact that Koufax gets absolutely blown out of the water the rest of the career makes it a non debate for who is/was better.
The mound at Dodger stadium was one aspect that the Dodgers took advantage of back then, even higher than a league that already had high ones.
Koufax at Dodger stadium had 57-15 record with a 1.37 ERA. 56 CG in 85 starts
Koufax everywhere else had 108-72 record 3.38 ERA. 81 CG in 229 starts
I know you aren't ignoring all that stuff outside the postseason...but many people are.
I have tried in the past arguing Koufax's side and you are on the right track in terms of his IP over his peers compared to Kershaw's over his peers in their peaks. I don't know if it is enough to make a clear victory for their peaks. However, if you include his WS number(not as some mythical post season ability)but as more stats to add to his peak totals, that might make a difference too.
@1951WheatiesPremium
Four year peaks includes ballpark adjustment:
Koufax 1,192 IP and 172 ERA+
Kershaw 895 IP and 172 ERA+
Five year peak:
Koufax 1,377 IP and 167 ERA+
Kershaw 1,128 IP and 172 ERA+
Six year peak:
Koufax 1,632 IP and 156 ERA+
Kershaw 1,277 IP and 179 ERA+
Four year peak for Koufax, no problem disagreeing there. Five year peak too Koufax by virtue of IP. Six year peak is a little tougher.
Can't go any further as that when Kershaw will be ahead in every comparison.
No.
Kershaw's 2013 looks comparable to Koufax's 1966.
The point of the original question was not who threw the best single pitch, inning, game, season, 2,3,4,5 year stretch etc.
Now we're spinning off onto innings pitched. In his first 8 seasons Koufax pitched more than 200 innings ONCE.
In his last 6 years he was hurt twice, and pitched over 200 innings in one of those 2 years. Sandy had 4 seasons where he didn't miss any starts either because he was hurt or just not very good, 3 of those 4 years, he was outstanding.
I see 9 full seasons for Kershaw with 7 of those years outstanding and the other 2 merely great.
Since the object of the game is to show up and win, Kershaw wins hands down. More wins and a higher winning percentage.
@JoeBanzai
LOL - Spinning off? My, how far we’ve fallen in our expectations of pitchers!
@1948_Swell_Robinson
I am NOT arguing for win percentage here, guys. Or no hitters. I am talking about the ideal pitcher and steering clear of nonsense.
It’s pretty simple.
When you can hand a pitcher a ball to start a game and he can pitch effectively enough to complete the game, too, there can be no more valuable pitching performance. That pitcher qualifies and earns the decision because no one else on the team pitched. Maybe it was a complete game shutout and maybe it was a 5-2 loss. It still has tremendous ancillary value for the team!!!!
And in addition, it’s not just extra innings but extra actual starts!
Scrap the names, the bullpens and numbers for a second and use common sense!
I can have a pitcher make 40 starts who will get bombed in 10 and pitch well in 30 or a pitcher who will make 30 starts and pitch well in 26 of them and get bombed in four.
You’d take the second pitcher?
@everyone
I just enjoy a fun debate and making people think. It’s close, as I’ve maintained. That’s all I’m arguing: that Clayton Kershaw ‘hands down’ over Sandy Koufax is an absurd take on the comparison of the two players.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And not to put too fine a point on it but…
…it’s fair to say wins are pretty capricious in todays game.
But not all wins are capricious and that’s the point I’m making when discussing wins.
In 1963, Sandy Koufax won 25 games. So maybe fourteen (14) of them we’re capricious wins (they weren’t all but just go with it) but there is absolutely nothing capricious about a complete game shut out and simple math puts that total at 11.
And again, this is a result of both starts made and pitching deeper into the ballgame.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@1951WheatiesPremium
Who do I want for just one game? @daltex already addressed this, but I don't mind repeating it. If I pick Koufax, do I get 1955-1960 Koufax, 1961-1966 Koufax, or 1967-1972 Koufax? Your question assumes I will get 1961-1966 Koufax, but why?
In the end, your argument rests entirely on how well Koufax pitched for 6 years, and for the sake of argument I'll just agree that he was better than Kershaw for that period. But Kershaw was much, much, much better than Koufax for years 7-16. Near as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are giving literally 0% weight to the extra decade that Kershaw pitched. If you are, we're never going to come close to agreeing and the conversation just ends. If you're not, then it would be very helpful if you'd spell out how much weight you're giving to top-6, how much to World Series, and how much to years 7-16 (the majority of Kershaw's career). I think it's obvious that if you disregard a majority of one player's career, they will not appear to be as great. That appears to me, though, to be the only way to make a straight-face comparison of Koufax to Kershaw.
No, it doesn’t. I’ve said from the start that I refuse to ignore those estate in my evaluation. People always say they ‘suck’ but only by comparison to his own best seasons and in reality they would qualify as a little better than average on the whole with some more exact breakdown of better than average and worse than average seasons (feel free to put numerical values in).
Yes, one guy pitched ‘extra’ total seasons but in each one, relative to the normal ‘full season’, he pitches in only 2/3 of his scheduled games.
By comparison, an injured Koufax missed time and yet he still made 28 and 29 starts for the Dodgers, not 22. Both playing 162 game seasons. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw has made an average of 24 starts per year over the last 7 non shortened seasons! And 22 starts or fewer in 4 of them, not including COVID?!?!?
This might be (or in reality will be) the third season in a row where his innings pitched total is under 130. 130!?!?!?
So let’s slow down with the extra seasons stuff and the ‘ten clearly better’ seasons stuff. It’s more like 10 extra half seasons if we’re being honest.
And, realistically, the Dodgers still have to play the games where Clayton should have been in uniform but was instead in a hoodie and sweats.
I’m not much for the what ifs, but if Koufax was told, “Hey, dude, just pitch whenever the heck you feel like it. Really. It’s cool. Just be ready for October and just try not to throw batting practice (again) this time’, maybe Sandy plays until 1976 instead of 1966. That’s the plan Kershaw’s on, like it or not.
What has happened to the world when the pitch line to introduce the Greatest Dodgers pitcher ever, unfortunately lined with the actual truth, looks like this?
“Come see the greatest pitcher in Dodgers history pitch his 6 innings! He gets 18 outs and saves 9 for the bullpen, not because he can’t get guys out three times in the same game, but because he’s a good teammate! This guy gets better with age, too, and so even at 32, 33 and 34, you are going to be entertained, thrilled and amazed by the most wonderfully ratiod innings pitched (in the regular season) that you’ve ever seen! A feast for the eyes and senses and you can leave when he does and listen to the last three innings in the car to beat the traffic! Come see this star today…and…before October where the chump teams are all gone, the remaining teams are all better but we believe it’s a crap shoot and so you’re not held responsible for anything!
Get your tickets 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
"LOL - Spinning off? My, how far we’ve fallen in our expectations of pitchers!"
Yes, we have, but that's not my point.
Koufax missed 25% of his starts in 1962 and 1964, yet he gets full credit for those being great years. Even if we include 1964 as being a great year, that's still only one third of his career.
How anyone can objectively claim this makes him better than Kershaw is astounding.
I'm following everything you say, but until you actually answer the direct question I asked, I'm not going to understand your argument.
How much weight are you giving to:
The first five seasons,
the next five seasons,
the next five seasons,
the postseason.
Yes, you keep saying that you're not ignoring Koufax's fair to middling first six seasons, but then after you've said it, you ignore his first six seasons. If I'm picking one of them for one big game, and which game I get is determined by throwing at two dartboards that have tiny wedges numbered 1 to 418 (the number of games Kershaw has started), then I'm going to pick Kershaw and throw at his dartboard. If I pick Koufax, I have a 25% chance of forfeiting because I don't have a pitcher at all, and another 33% or so chance that I'll get early Koufax who was much, much worse than Kershaw has ever been. You keep insisting that Koufax's dartboard only include his prime seasons, and if you want to take the "speaking personally, I ignore all the bad stuff and pretend it doesn't exist" route, then sure, I'll take Koufax and throw at his mini-dartboard. But that is not at all the same thing as answering the question "who was the better pitcher"; that question requires that we not ignore anything.
Make fun of how few innings Kershaw has pitched in some of his seasons to your heart's content, but realize that those Kershaw seasons are the ones that get compared to seasons in which Koufax pitched no innings at all. The ones you are definitely ignoring completely.
Because In Kershaw’s 15 full seasons (throwing out COVID, where a post season and regular season innings combo nets 70 IP) and where 33 starts is considers a full season, he has pitched an actual full season only 5 times.
That’s why.
And it actually and correctly includes a 32 start season where he pitched the day after the last game to start the playoffs (and it, too, didn’t end well, either).
And his innings pitched eclipsed 200 in only 5 of 15 seasons, and was nowhere close to 200 in 9 of the ten he missed the mark.
That’s why.
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’m not ignoring anything. I’m not one who absolves Koufax’s average seasons with his dominant ones.
And it’s the same ballpark that Clayton Kershaw> @dallasactuary said:
Here’s direct answers. And many allude to points I already made which you aren’t taking the time to read. Or respond to. At least not specifically. Which I get because no one who digs in there heels when they’ve made a mistake enjoys giving ground. Unless, of course, they have experience and are intelligent.
I didn’t and instead addressed it directly. I put forth that he was an above average to average pitcher during those seasons.
If I'm picking one of them for one big game, and which game I get is determined by throwing at two dartboards that have tiny wedges numbered 1 to 418 (the number of games Kershaw has started), then I'm going to pick Kershaw and throw at his dartboard.
If I pick Koufax, I have a 25% chance of forfeiting because I don't have a pitcher at all,
Stop. Right. There.
The same is EXACTLY TRUE of Clayton Kershaw’s career. That’s what I’m screaming about!
Kershaw has made 418 starts over parts of 16 seasons. He completed 5 and missed time in 10. Not one or two games. An average of 9 games PER SEASON over the last SEVEN seasons! So fill in the blank spaces on his board too!!!! He missed an incredible amount of starts in seasons in which he actually pitched. At least be fair if you’re going to penalize Koufax for games he didn’t start because he retired! And why did he retire? Because he threw more pitches, innings, and starts per season!!!!
and another 33% or so chance that I'll get early Koufax who was much, much worse than Kershaw has ever been.
By this math, you are basically saying that Sandy Koufax was good in about one out of every three starts in his career. I think a deep dive would prove that statement incorrect.
You keep insisting that Koufax's dartboard only include his prime seasons,
Didn’t and still don’t.
and if you want to take the "speaking personally, I ignore all the bad stuff and pretend it doesn't exist" route, then sure, I'll take Koufax and throw at his mini-dartboard.
I’ve not taken that route once.
But that is not at all the same thing as answering the question "who was the better pitcher"; that question requires that we not ignore anything.
Every point has now been addressed already or here. Maybe read them? So you separate what I am saying from ‘the crowd’.
I’m not the crowd, I’m me.
And I being pretty specific so use my words and not some generalized version of what other people say and refute it please.
Don’t draw up a point I didn’t make and refute it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallasactuary
Set up four mini dart boards for my four weighted areas five seasons at a clip like you asked?
It’s Kershaw, Koufax, Koufax and Koufax.
One dart board? All things considered? I go slight Koufax. Not Koufax by a mile. Not Koufax hands down.
Slight.
You draw a conclusion of slight edge Kershaw? No issue. At all.
Again, still banging the same drum I started banging.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Thank you for the response. And I should have said "first 6", etc. since using 5 season buckets causes Kershaw to run out of seasons before his career is over. Assuming your answer would have been the same had I asked about 6-year buckets, here are the runs allowed by each pitcher less than an average pitcher:
Best 6 seasons: Koufax 251, Kershaw 261
Next best 6: Koufax -5, Kershaw 160
Next best 4: Koufax -55, Kershaw 48
World Series: Koufax 10, Kershaw -7
Again, and I honestly don't think you are seeing this, in Kershaw's best six seasons he allowed fewer runs relative to average than did Koufax. Yes, Koufax pitched a lot more innings than Kershaw, but Kershaw was enough better than Koufax when he did pitch that he was still better. You want to call it a tie, I won't object. But if you want to say that Koufax pitching more innings at a lower level is better, then I object. If he is better, then he is microscopically better. In any event, their peaks are not going to affect the outcome of "who was better" enough to matter.
Next best 6 is a, well, "blowout" doesn't seem nearly a strong enough word. Kershaw bitch-slaps Koufax seven ways to Sunday and leaves him bleeding at the side of the road begging for Kershaw to just shoot him.
The remaining seasons are just cruel since Koufax had already been humiliated enough, but the bitch-slappin' just kept a comin'. To get the runs allowed less than average for Koufax's imaginary seasons where he wasn't even pitching anymore, I found the starting pitcher who the Dodgers were forced to use given that Koufax wasn't available and used their figure. Alan Foster pitched a lot of games for the Dodgers that the Dodgers could have avoided had Koufax been available. But he wasn't, Foster was thrown into the rotation, and he stunk.
And you were wrong; he was a slightly below average pitcher (-5 runs) for those six seasons. I don't think you quite appreciate the chasm between Koufax and Kershaw for their "next 6" seasons. It's enormous, and it's the primary reason why Kershaw was better than Koufax. The numbers are above and you can continue to ignore them if you like, but by ignoring the single most important factor in determining which of them was better, you're going to reach the wrong conclusion.
There is no way of looking at it where the conclusion is that Kershaw missed more starts than Koufax. Over Koufax's last SEVEN seasons he missed a whole lot more games than Kershaw. He missed four seasons entirely. WHY did he miss them? Unless he was fighting Nazis or Communists, I don't care. The question is who was the better pitcher, and the fact that Kershaw pitched many more innings than Koufax is, despite your protests, very relevant. Ed Walsh was not a better pitcher than Christy Mathewson or Walter Johnson. WHY didn't Walsh pitch as long? I don't care, and neither should you.
The 1/3 applies to a career the same length as Kershaw's. In his much shorter career, Koufax was good in much more than 1/3 of his starts. But the starts he didn't take matter, and they matter a LOT, in the comparison to Kershaw.
OK, then if you weight his peak seasons equally with the others, as you said you did, then you agree that Kershaw was better than Koufax. I know you'll still disagree, and what I'm telling you is that there is no conceivable way to weight Koufax's peak equally with the other segments of his career and conclude that Koufax was better than Kershaw. It's logically impossible. There are ways to reach that conclusion with very different weights than the ones you provided, and if you still think Koufax was better then I'm telling you that the weights you provided are not the weights you are actually using. They're just not.
Your logic here says that "winning" in one period by 1 run and winning by 150 runs are the same thing. (And I am really, really confused how you managed to avoid giving Kershaw at least two buckets. The answer would make me cry, so forget I mentioned it.)
You want to claim Koufax wins the peak bucket, OK, go ahead. But if he wins, he wins by a tiny, tiny amount.
Kershaw wins sector 2 by an enormous amount.
Kershaw wins sector 3 by an enormous amount.
Koufax wins the WS sector by a very small amount, but since you are weighting WS innings as 40 times as valuable as regular season innings we can call it enormous.
Kershaw wins, and he is going to win any comparison, framed however you want to frame it, unless something logically impossible, or statistically incorrect, is thrown in to muck it up.
@dallasactuary
See, you did it again. You changed the argument to suit your needs.
Wildly.
Now, let’s go back to what you actually said which I actually responded to.
**> @dallasactuary said:
Then you saw you were completely wrong (and probably how wrong)
so you changed the argument and went on and on about it as usual - even though I asked you nicely not to - because you were wrong.
How wrong?
First five seasons
Kershaw. I said that. And 1955-1959, Koufax was an average pitcher to slightly above average pitcher at during that span that span. However, on a dartboard there’s enough meat on the bone - 11 CGs, 3 Shutouts - that a dart is not altogether wasted on Sandy’s board. But Kershaw is better. More starts, more innings and by a good margin.
Next five seasons
I will take 1960-64 Koufax over 2013-2017 Kershaw.
The next five years
Then you have 1964-1966 Koufax against 2018-2023 Kershaw. Sandy’s final 3 seasons versus Clayton’s final six seasons.
In that span? Clayton Kershaw pitched 758 innings and made 128 starts over six seasons.
From 1964-1966, Koufax 107 starts and pitched 881 innings.
So three years of Koufax plus his two zero seasons held against him still results in more innings pitched by Sandy Koufax! Sure, he makes 21 fewer starts. Go look at who he was from 1964-66 for a second.
Can you throw a bad dart? 😂🤣😂
Next the postseason.
Then we get to the postseason.
No more typing is needed is it?
Thanks for playing.
And unless you want to respond to and or refute any of those points directly, have a lovely rest of your Labor Day…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest