Wow. I missed the panty-twisting potential of changing a 5 to a 6, which I did only because I too late realized that stopping at 15 would miss one of Kershaw's seasons. And I also now understand what you're doing; you're using "first 5" and I was using "best 5". That was just a misunderstanding. "Best 5" yields more meaningful results so I always use it, but we can switch to "First 5".
Then we get:
First 5: Koufax 0 (exactly average), Kershaw 154
To say "Kershaw wins" is to avoid the issue. Kershaw wins by a landslide and builds an enormous lead. If you think it is proper to credit Kershaw with the same lead here as you would if he was 1 run better, please just say so and I can laugh and walk away.
Second 5: Koufax 149, Kershaw 213
It's not a royal beatdown like the First 5, but it's a clear and convincing win. I lack the creativity to visualize how to credit Koufax with the win here.
Next 5:
Here you got way too cute. First you tried to include 1964, which had already been included in his Second 5, then you tried to pretend that 3 (actually 2) seasons could be compared straight up with 6 seasons without an adjustment of any kind.
Anyway, only correcting for your 1964 error, we have:
Koufax (2 seasons) 99, Kershaw (6 seasons) 105
I'm not sure how this untwists your panties, but using your method Kershaw still wins all three buckets. And even here, the lead for Kershaw is actually much larger since I'm continuing the error of not downgrading Koufax for pitching such a short career. Throw in the negative runs for Alan Foster and Mike Kekich and the other replacement pitchers the Dodgers were forced to use, and Koufax's total gets cut in half.
I don't weight WS innings at anything close to your weights (57 innings = over 1,000 innings), but I already conceded that if you want to call that a blowout on equal footing with one of Kershaw's blowouts, you're free to do so. It's the only bucket Koufax wins, even using calendar year 5 instead of best 5, so I understand why you would want to inflate it's importance.
I think we're making progress now, but I still do not understand why you think Koufax was better than Kershaw, even if only by a little bit.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Since I have exposed the weakness in the methodologies and called your ‘change the basis of arguments’ approach about five posts BEFORE you pulled them, I guess the debate is over.
Since you can’t admit you are incorrect and can only argue against things no one said, I think we’re done here.
SUMMARY: You asked me direct questions, I responded to said questions, I proved nearly every word you said wrong on your own terms, with your analogies and criteria as specified by you and you were entirely wrong so rather than acknowledge that you just picked something else to talk about.
If I blow up your peak seasons argument now, you’ll go to ballpark factors ERA+, xFIP and other useless shlt that isn’t relevant or being discussed.
You also haven’t defended any of the things you were so obviously wrong about - repeatedly.
So I think we’re done here.
So, feel free to now ‘win the argument’ that you created, lost on and then changed the criteria (again) for yourself and then debate yourself on that point.
Hopefully, you can further wow people with your obscure stats that “really tell the tale” with some witty one liners at the expense of your opponents intelligence.
PS - I am not ‘making fun’ of Kershaw’s stats and innings pitched totals, merely pointing out what they actually are and more specifically that they are not now (nor have they ever been historically considered) a total that indicates a full season by a starting pitcher by either starts or innings pitched. Though it begs the question, if you thought that was the case, then maybe you think those totals are laughable?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Since I have exposed the weakness in the methodologies and called your ‘change the basis of arguments’ approach about five posts BEFORE you pulled them, I guess the debate is over.
Since you can’t admit you are incorrect and can only argue against things no one said, I think we’re done here.
Hand to God, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
I apologize for making you repeat yourself, but going back over your posts I still can't figure out what you're referring to.
What weaknesses in my methodologies did you "expose"?
What part of my approach did I "pull"?
In what way did I "change the basis of my argument"?
What is it that I have said that is "incorrect"?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Since I have exposed the weakness in the methodologies and called your ‘change the basis of arguments’ approach about five posts BEFORE you pulled them, I guess the debate is over.
Since you can’t admit you are incorrect and can only argue against things no one said, I think we’re done here.
Hand to God, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
I apologize for making you repeat yourself…
I’ll stop you there. Read MY posts. It will probably be the first time so go slowly and then read them a second time so you fully grasp how I responded to YOU.
Point by point.
If you’re still confused at that point, feel free to call me back into the thread.
If you’re not confused and want to refute literally anything that I said in our direct discourse on the specific points already mentioned by my me in direct response to you, call me back to the thread.
If you want to continue to not read my posts and also continue to argue for Kershaw therefore arguing with yourself on points you raise and refute yourself, I don’t need to be called back to thread any more.
And yes, I see how you reduced five seasons of baseball to a singular number. Do you also have a ratio, too?
That’s a much better indicator than how guys actually pitched in their games and how good they were.
And I appreciate your correcting my double use of 1964. Thought he pitched 13 seasons, not twelve. Don’t miss the point, though, that he still comes very close to Kershaw’s innings pitched and start totals in two seasons versus six seasons.
My math error doesn’t undue the enormity of that issue - the actual biggest issue I have.
So here’s my direct question for you if you want to picque my interests and respark a debate.
How much credit and how should we weight the seasons Kershaw pitches from 2016 onward?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
How much credit and how should we weight the seasons Kershaw pitches from 2016 onward?
As with all things related to pitcher effectiveness, by a combination of innings pitched and runs allowed (for hitters, it's plate appearances and runs created). Runs allowed greater than average (RAA) is a stat that combines the two very effectively. It favors pitchers who pitch more innings, and it favors pitchers who allow fewer runs. If a pitcher is better at both than another pitcher, that pitcher will "win" by a large margin. If one pitcher is better at one of them, but the other pitcher is better at the other, then the product of the two will be a very good indicator of which one was better, and how much better.
So, I "weight" Kershaw's 8 seasons from 2016 onward at 177 RAA, slightly lower than I "weight" his 4 seasons from 2012-2015 (181 RAA). I'm taking full account of the number of innings Kershaw pitched, I assure you.
Now, I had already read all of your posts, carefully, and now I've done so again. And I still have no idea what you're talking about. So if you could answer my four questions, I'd appreciate it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
What weaknesses in my methodologies did you "expose"?
When you are wrong, you immediately change the topic.
You spelled out five start stretches, I responded, you were wrong, so then said ‘I meant six seasons and when you look at 6 seasons and peak values…’
Stop. Just stop. It’s tired it’s old and I said you’d do it before you did it. Then you feigned confusion.
Since you are unaware that you do this - a lot - it’s now being pointed out clearly.
Speak to this.
What part of my approach did I "pull"?
The above. Speak to it.
In what way did I "change the basis of my argument"?
From 5 inning chronological buckets that I actually responded too to 6 inning buckets with ear value seasons selected from whenever by criteria you then looked up to back up the new evaluation system you wanted to present that worked better.
What is it that I have said that is "incorrect"?
Not much. Why? Because when you are incorrect, you don’t say ‘I was wrong’, you invent new things to talk about that are related to, but decidedly are not, the topic at hand.
I’ve now responded to you directly several times. In this post and others.
Now, here’s this :
So, I "weight" Kershaw's 8 seasons from 2016 onward at 177 RAA, slightly lower than I "weight" his 4 seasons from 2012-2015 (181 RAA). I'm taking full account of the number of innings Kershaw pitched, I assure you.
You’re really not. You’re hiding them with nonsense, calling your obscure and meaningless stats ‘important and better’ - because they reduce five individual seasons to one number, I guess?) which is somehow infinitely better than looking at a game log and then using them to hide from the fact that a pitcher who throws more than 5 and less than 6 innings a start when a full game is nine innings and then also makes an average of 24 starts when a full season is 33 starts is still a great pitcher having great seasons. I have news for you, if you don’t pitch 200 innings or make 33 starts, it’s not a full season. It’s just not. It has some value of course but it also has 9 times he didn’t start, on average. They still play those games anyway.
I get that it may be hard for you to see all of this but those seasons really aren’t that good despite looking good through ratios and advanced stats. Even when you add in a good ERA, a good WHIP, a good K/9, or any other good ratios, theories, advanced stats, etc. you still have to reconcile what a full season of innings looks like. At the end of the day it’s still just 24 started games and 5-6 innings in each start over the last 7 years. Those aren’t great seasons or full seasons. They’re less than that in both cases.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Let’s play a game where you don’t know how many runs of support you’ll get in a game or who your bullpen is.
Pitcher A throws 5 2/3 scoreless, no hit innings 33 times a year.
Pitcher B throws 8 1/3 innings of 2 run ball 33 times a year.
Which outing, on average, do you think produces more games won?
The above is not intended to invoke Kershaw and Koufax - that’s not their numbers. And I’m not talking about W-L record for a pitcher when I say games won.
I just want you to think about what is ultimately important for a pitcher to do - pitch well enough to give the team a chance to win the game.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
After Koufax's first 6 seasons his record was 36-40 with an era over 4.00 and 405 bases on balls in 691 innings.
Just because he "figured it out" and had 6 very good/great years after that simply does not erase those first 6 pretty bad/awful seasons.
Despite pitching very well in the post season, his record was only 4-3.
In 6 WS, he wasn't used twice, failed to win a game twice and was really good twice.
It's similar to his regular seasons;
First 4 years of his career, below average.
Second 4 of his career, slightly better than average, but certainly no one was thinking HOF.
Final 4 he was a tremendous pitcher.
Four great seasons and four World Series wins and he's being discussed as the greatest Dodger Pitcher?
REALLY? 🤔
Good thing he played on a great team, I guess.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I obviously predicted (exactly) how @dallasactuary would respond so no surprise there.
I was hoping you of open mind and sound thinking might provide some further thoughts also? So innings pitched and games started have no role in evaluation? Are 125-175 IP in a season enough to merit such praise when they amount to missing 9 starts a year ? Or do they diminish those seasons on some level?
Inquiring minds want to know
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
1)Koufax wax better at his peak
2)Kershaw was better for career
Just want to point out that you might be treating 2020 as a partial season for Kershaw, but> @1951WheatiesPremium said:
Let’s play a game where you don’t know how many runs of support you’ll get in a game or who your bullpen is.
Pitcher A throws 5 2/3 scoreless, no hit innings 33 times a year.
Pitcher B throws 8 1/3 innings of 2 run ball 33 times a year.
Which outing, on average, do you think produces more games won?
The above is not intended to invoke Kershaw and Koufax - that’s not their numbers. And I’m not talking about W-L record for a pitcher when I say games won.
I just want you to think about what is ultimately important for a pitcher to do - pitch well enough to give the team a chance to win the game.
Pitcher A would have their teams win more games:
Pitcher A would need the bullpen to come in and give up 2 runs in 2 and 2/3 innings to equal what pitcher B did.
That means that team A would have a bullpen ERA of 6.74 which I don't think a bullpen has ever had that bad of an ERA, so team A would win more games with the combination of Pitcher A and almost any bullpen in the history of the league.
What weaknesses in my methodologies did you "expose"?
When you are wrong, you immediately change the topic.
You spelled out five start stretches, I responded, you were wrong, so then said ‘I meant six seasons and when you look at 6 seasons and peak values…’
Stop. Just stop. It’s tired it’s old and I said you’d do it before you did it. Then you feigned confusion.
Since you are unaware that you do this - a lot - it’s now being pointed out clearly.
Speak to this.
I really did think you were saying that it was something other than the 5 vs. 6, which is of course a meaningless distinction that makes no difference. Which is why when you shrieked about it I switched back to 5. What you posted in between certainly didn't demonstrate that I was "wrong" about anything, and my switch from 5 to 6 had nothing at all to do with anything you had posted. In any event, switching to 5 didn't change the outcome, so I'm confused what you think was "wrong" that I was trying to avoid.
What part of my approach did I "pull"?
The above. Speak to it.
This is painful. Pick 3, pick 4, pick 5, pick 6, pick 7 - I DON'T CARE. The outcome will be the same no matter what periods we use, and I've always known that. I switched from 5 to 6 so I didn't leave one of Kershaw's seasons "hanging" in a bucket that I had not asked you to assign a weight to, and just adding it to the "last 5" bucket would also have violated the rules I laid out. I made a mistake breaking out Kershaw's career into 3 5-year periods when he had 16 seasons. I picked a logical, harmless way to reconcile it in the full knowledge that no matter what I did the outcome would be the same. As I demonstrated. Why you are still shrieking about it is a total mystery to. me (and I imagine to anyone else following this bizarre discussion).
In what way did I "change the basis of my argument"?
From 5 inning chronological buckets that I actually responded too to 6 inning buckets with ear value seasons selected from whenever by criteria you then looked up to back up the new evaluation system you wanted to present that worked better.
You laid out four separate charges of debate malfeasance, but now I'm learning that all of them relate back to the completely meaningless 5/6 issue.
What is it that I have said that is "incorrect"?
Not much. Why? Because when you are incorrect, you don’t say ‘I was wrong’, you invent new things to talk about that are related to, but decidedly are not, the topic at hand.
Cute. Whether or not I am incorrect is completely unrelated to whether I admit it or not. I will take this non-response to mean that you can't find anything I've said that is incorrect, unless you want to try again.
Now, here’s this :
So, I "weight" Kershaw's 8 seasons from 2016 onward at 177 RAA, slightly lower than I "weight" his 4 seasons from 2012-2015 (181 RAA). I'm taking full account of the number of innings Kershaw pitched, I assure you.
You’re really not. You’re hiding them with nonsense, calling your obscure and meaningless stats ‘important and better’ - because they reduce five individual seasons to one number, I guess?) which is somehow infinitely better than looking at a game log and then using them to hide from the fact that a pitcher who throws more than 5 and less than 6 innings a start when a full game is nine innings and then also makes an average of 24 starts when a full season is 33 starts is still a great pitcher having great seasons. I have news for you, if you don’t pitch 200 innings or make 33 starts, it’s not a full season. It’s just not. It has some value of course but it also has 9 times he didn’t start, on average. They still play those games anyway.
Well I can't really say anything you've said here is wrong since it's all entirely opinion. My opinion differs, but we already knew that. I tried to back up my opinion with statistics; your opinion is that statistics don't really matter and are in fact "obscure and meaningless". On the flip side, obviously, nothing you've said here (or anywhere else) demonstrates that I'm wrong about anything I've said. You need more than opinions to do that, but opinions are all you're offering.
I get that it may be hard for you to see all of this but those seasons really aren’t that good despite looking good through ratios and advanced stats. Even when you add in a good ERA, a good WHIP, a good K/9, or any other good ratios, theories, advanced stats, etc. you still have to reconcile what a full season of innings looks like. At the end of the day it’s still just 24 started games and 5-6 innings in each start over the last 7 years. Those aren’t great seasons or full seasons. They’re less than that in both cases.
You are definitely hung up on "seasons". As of now, Kershaw has pitched more innings than Koufax, and Kershaw's partial seasons are a hell of a lot more valuable than all the seasons Koufax didn't pitch. But, speaking personally, you don't count entirely missed seasons, you just count missed innings within a season. Miss 200 innings - doesn't count. Miss 50 innings - huge penalty. As I've said, consistently no matter how often you denied it, this is what you're doing and it doesn't make any sense. You have to do it to get Koufax ahead of Kershaw, so I know WHY you're doing it, but it still doesn't make any sense.
And now that I can rest easy knowing I didn't do ANY of the things you accused me of, I'll let this go. I completely understand your position, I don't agree with any facet of it, and there's nothing more you can add to it.
{Saw your last post - won't address it (again) except to say that everything I've said and every stat I've posted "diminishes" Kershaw's seasons to reflect the number of innings he pitched. If you'd like to understand how RAA works, I'd be happy to explain it to you. And now I mean it, I'm letting this thread go.}
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
After Koufax's first 6 seasons his record was 36-40 with an era over 4.00 and 405 bases on balls in 691 innings.
Just because he "figured it out" and had 6 very good/great years after that simply does not erase those first 6 pretty bad/awful seasons.
I agree with everything stated here (again) that he was average. Though I need to clarify something about Koufax’s first 6 seasons (since you are talking 6 season increments and I’m responding directly to you about that). They still featured individual starts, they’re not one big ugly clump. So, for instance, there were 22 times in that span from 1955-1960 that he threw a complete game, shutting out the opponent 5 times. Those five starts most certainly did not suck and I’d venture a guess to say that the vast majority of complete games were also of the non suck variety.
Despite pitching very well in the post season, his record was only 4-3.
In 6 WS, he wasn't used twice, failed to win a game twice and was really good twice.
Is the unspoken conclusion you are trying to hint at is that Sandy Koufax was somehow an average post season pitcher here? I’m not sure what you’re saying above so I’ll just say this - let’s not question Sandy Koufax in the postseason to much at the risk of straying into absurdity.
It's similar to his regular seasons;
First 4 years of his career, below average.
Second 4 of his career, slightly better than average, but certainly no one was thinking HOF.
Final 4 he was a tremendous pitcher.
Ok. Quartets now? Fine since it’s in the same post, I guess, but you’re pushing it. 😂
I say first four? 1955-58 Below average. Can’t dispute it.
Next four? He’s improving from 1959-1962 more than maybe is realized, pitching to a 3.48 ERA for the entire span with solid innings pitched totals, some work out of the bullpen plus a minimum of 23 starts a year increasing annually until the brilliant 1962. He also throws 39 complete games, of which 7 are shutouts and one no hitter.
Next four years? Not wasting time. Unreal. Suffice it to say, his other three no hitters land here as if his insane totals aren’t already enough.
Four great seasons and four World Series wins and he's being discussed as the greatest Dodger Pitcher?
Well, I see it more like 6 great regular seasons and zero bad postseason starts as evidenced in 7 GS that featured 6 earned runs over 57 dominant innings. I would also say that he carried the Dodgers to two World Series championships.
REALLY? 🤔
Yes, really.
Good thing he played on a great team, I guess.
When they won, he was as much the reason as any player on the roster especially given postseason performance and regular season innings pitched.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
What I’m saying is that if we’re going to credit/penalize a guy for four extra seasons, let’s contextualize it. Over their careers, Kershaw has 2693 IP to Sandy’s 2324 IP. Take that difference 369, divide by four and you get four extra half seasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
What I’m saying is that if we’re going to credit/penalize a guy for four extra seasons, let’s contextualize it. Over their careers, Kershaw has 2693 IP to Sandy’s 2324 IP. Take that difference 369, divide by four and you get four extra half seasons.
I admit I am not sure I follow the rationale behind that. I think I partly due, and if time I can ask a few questions to see, as I am curious seeing what looks like a view through a different lens. You and dallas have talked in detail but seems it went off the rails a little, so I stopped reading it through.
Can you follow up on the question you posed about pitcher A and B above that I answered. I am curious where you were heading with that.
And it’s the same ballpark that Clayton Kershaw pitched in, isn’t it?
Not quite since Kershaw doesn't get the ridiculously elevated mound that Sandy got.
Also, Kershaw was/is still significantly better than league average (2.79 ERA) outside of Dodger Stadium. Koufax wasn't.
Put another way, Kershaw on the road would be the 3rd best ERA among live ball starters (behind DeGrom and Ford).
And as awesome as Jacob deGrom and Clayton Kershaw can be when they’re on the hill - two really fun pitchers to watch with incredible talent - they simply aren’t on the hill enough over a season during their respective careers; Clayton’s second half and half of deGrom’s career haphazardly.
Remeber, thirty three starts and 220 innings pitched is a full season in a five man rotation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I obviously predicted (exactly) how @dallasactuary would respond so no surprise there.
I was hoping you of open mind and sound thinking might provide some further thoughts also? So innings pitched and games started have no role in evaluation? Are 125-175 IP in a season enough to merit such praise when they amount to missing 9 starts a year ? Or do they diminish those seasons on some level?
Inquiring minds want to know
Funny you mention this, I looked at this a little differently last night and instead of comparing them "head to head". Obviously pitchers are not allowed to pitch as many innings as they once did, so I compared the two in how many times they finished in the top 10.
Put as much or as little weight on the following as you like;
Cy Young awards; both won it 3 times, Koufax finished third one time. Kershaw had 2 seconds, a third and a fifth place finish, with 9 top 10 finishes to Sandy's 4.
WAR for pitchers; Kershaw 1,1,1,2,3,3. Koufax 1,1,2,2,3. Kershaw 9 times in the top 10, Koufax 6.
ERA; both led the league 5 times. Kershaw adds a third and fifth place finish, with 9 seasons in the top 10 while Koufax adds just 1 more good year with a seventh place finish. Kershaw 9 times in the top 10, Koufax 6.
WHIP; almost exactly the same, Kershaw 1,1,1,1,2,3. Koufax 1,1,1,1,2,4. Kershaw 7 in top 10, Koufax 6.
Innings pitched; Koufax was first 2 times, third once and fourth once. Kershaw was first once, second twice and third once. Both pitchers were in the top 10 4 times
Wins; Kershaw 1,1,1,3,3,4 with nine total top 10 finishes. Koufax 1,1,1,4,4 and that's it for him.
ERA+ Kershaw is 4th all time while Koufax is at 44th. Must be because of Kershaw's much longer career.
This is just looking at their best seasons and Kershaw "wins" in every single category except for top 10 in innings pitched, which is a tie.
Koufax had between 4 and 6 great seasons Kershaw had 7 to 9.
Going to the other end of the spectrum; Koufax had 3 horrible years to start his career, Kershaw had a bad year in 2008, he was hurt in 2020, but still had a great ERA.
The other 3 Koufax years are not nearly as good as Kershaw's second 6.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Lay out all the starts in their career from best to worst. No hitters at the top, down to when they got bombed.
Let’s start at the bottom. If I concede that Clayton Kershaw wins 104-0 at the bottom of our list because it goes against starts Sandy Koufax didn’t make, that’s the score.
Score
Kershaw 104
Koufax 0
Now let’s go to the top. I would posit that a no hitter and or a perfect game is the most dominant a pitcher can be. In both cases, I would also posit that in both cases, the number of strikeouts is almost totally irrelevant though walks matter considerably. And I would think a complete game shutout is the next most dominant a pitcher can be and that can be parsed out and ordered with hits and strikeouts. Yes, you can lose a game and throw a no hitter or pitch a complete game while even potentially pitch average or even badly but the chances are pretty slim that guy who goes nine had a terrible performance. I’d peg it at 1 out of 10 nine inning performances would fall into the category of a ‘bad start’ and I’m probably high with that estimate. Then you get the starts that went to 8 IP, 7 IP, 6 IP, etc. and some combination of strikeouts and hits helping sort those rankings and establish an order.
Is any of that illogical or in need of refinement? Is there some glaring error that I didn’t factor?
If we can accept this, then I think it starts to get really interesting.
The top of the list features 137 complete games, 40 of them shutouts and four of those no hitters. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw’s list has a no hitter on top, too, as well as 15 shutouts and in 25 complete games.
So the first listed a no hitters and Sandy had four to Clayton having 1. So, after the top four starts one is a tie and then three for Koufax .
Kershaw 104
Koufax 3
Sandy now has 36 shutouts on his list. Clayton has 11 shutouts.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 28
Sandy now has 97 complete games to account for while Kershaw has 10.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 125
That’s 229 starts that we’ve analyzed at this point by math. Sandy only has 189 starts remaining to finish his list and we have already accounted for the extra starts that all went Kershaw’s way against Sandy’s four fewer seasons.
Now we get into the part of the list that has the remaining starts for Sandy (starting with one’s of 8 IP, then 7 IP) and the remaining best listed starts for Clayton. Though I have to imagine properly that Kershaw burned through many/most/all of his 8 and 7 IP starts while competing with Sandy’s extra 87 complete games and coming up short by comparison, at least 90 percent of the time and 100% for the math provided above.
Now, I don’t have the actual list but I imagine the remaining list goes well for Sandy Koufax for about 60 starts, it’s close for about 60 starts and then Kershaw wins the last 69.
Kershaw 173
Koufax 185
With 60 toss up.
And 104-0 for starts Sandy didn’t make.
That’s not close?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
What I’m saying is that if we’re going to credit/penalize a guy for four extra seasons, let’s contextualize it. Over their careers, Kershaw has 2693 IP to Sandy’s 2324 IP. Take that difference 369, divide by four and you get four extra half seasons.
I admit I am not sure I follow the rationale behind that. I think I partly due, and if time I can ask a few questions to see, as I am curious seeing what looks like a view through a different lens. You and dallas have talked in detail but seems it went off the rails a little, so I stopped reading it through.
Can you follow up on the question you posed about pitcher A and B above that I answered. I am curious where you were heading with that.
Sure. It’s the idea that 5 innings, no matter how fantastic, isn’t as good of a start as going 8+ innings. And since they don’t let you go that deep unless you pitch well, I believe that’s the start I’d want, on average, from my pitchers. I think, and acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong, that over 162 games that would lead to more wins for a wide variety or real life baseball reasons.
It comes down to leaving the final 12 outs for the bullpen versus the final two outs for the bullpen. I watch real baseball games and have for 35 years.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after five innings (pitch count most often being the reason cited), the outcome is still very much in doubt in the baseball game.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after eight, it’s to an ovation and the win typically feels as close to assured as possible.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I obviously predicted (exactly) how @dallasactuary would respond so no surprise there.
I was hoping you of open mind and sound thinking might provide some further thoughts also? So innings pitched and games started have no role in evaluation? Are 125-175 IP in a season enough to merit such praise when they amount to missing 9 starts a year ? Or do they diminish those seasons on some level?
Inquiring minds want to know
Funny you mention this, I looked at this a little differently last night and instead of comparing them "head to head". Obviously pitchers are not allowed to pitch as many innings as they once did, so I compared the two in how many times they finished in the top 10.
Put as much or as little weight on the following as you like;
Cy Young awards; both won it 3 times, Koufax finished third one time. Kershaw had 2 seconds, a third and a fifth place finish, with 9 top 10 finishes to Sandy's 4.
WAR for pitchers; Kershaw 1,1,1,2,3,3. Koufax 1,1,2,2,3. Kershaw 9 times in the top 10, Koufax 6.
ERA; both led the league 5 times. Kershaw adds a third and fifth place finish, with 9 seasons in the top 10 while Koufax adds just 1 more good year with a seventh place finish. Kershaw 9 times in the top 10, Koufax 6.
WHIP; almost exactly the same, Kershaw 1,1,1,1,2,3. Koufax 1,1,1,1,2,4. Kershaw 7 in top 10, Koufax 6.
Innings pitched; Koufax was first 2 times, third once and fourth once. Kershaw was first once, second twice and third once. Both pitchers were in the top 10 4 times
Wins; Kershaw 1,1,1,3,3,4 with nine total top 10 finishes. Koufax 1,1,1,4,4 and that's it for him.
ERA+ Kershaw is 4th all time while Koufax is at 44th. Must be because of Kershaw's much longer career.
This is just looking at their best seasons and Kershaw "wins" in every single category except for top 10 in innings pitched, which is a tie.
Koufax had between 4 and 6 great seasons Kershaw had 7 to 9.
Going to the other end of the spectrum; Koufax had 3 horrible years to start his career, Kershaw had a bad year in 2008, he was hurt in 2020, but still had a great ERA.
The other 3 Koufax years are not nearly as good as Kershaw's second 6.
This is all good food for thought.
Thank you.
I would look at those numbers and still call it close, myself.
Guys like Joe DiMaggio, Albert Belle, Ralph Kiner and Sandy Koufax mess with things. Greatness over a short timeframe is hard to contextualize.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
What I’m saying is that if we’re going to credit/penalize a guy for four extra seasons, let’s contextualize it. Over their careers, Kershaw has 2693 IP to Sandy’s 2324 IP. Take that difference 369, divide by four and you get four extra half seasons.
I admit I am not sure I follow the rationale behind that. I think I partly due, and if time I can ask a few questions to see, as I am curious seeing what looks like a view through a different lens. You and dallas have talked in detail but seems it went off the rails a little, so I stopped reading it through.
Can you follow up on the question you posed about pitcher A and B above that I answered. I am curious where you were heading with that.
Sure. It’s the idea that 5 innings, no matter how fantastic, isn’t as good of a start as going 8+ innings. And since they don’t let you go that deep unless you pitch well, I believe that’s the start I’d want, on average, from my pitchers. I think, and acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong, that over 162 games that would lead to more wins for a wide variety or real life baseball reasons.
It comes down to leaving the final 12 outs for the bullpen versus the final two outs for the bullpen. I watch real baseball games and have for 35 years.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after five innings (pitch count most often being the reason cited), the outcome is still very much in doubt in the baseball game.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after eight, it’s to an ovation and the win typically feels as close to assured as possible.
There is some merit there with the guy going 8+ innings, but the example you used was too extreme(toward the five inning guy). You gave the 5+ inning guy an ERA of 0.00 and the 8+ inning guy an ERA of 2.08. An ERA of zero over five innings is historically amazing and is going to win out in that comparison. If you altered the five inning guy's runs allowed to a more realistic figure it might illustrate it more
I think most would agree that a pitcher who is eating up more innings per start and has a similar ERA is going to have more value. The amount of innings more and the degree of ratios make a difference though.
What I’m saying is that if we’re going to credit/penalize a guy for four extra seasons, let’s contextualize it. Over their careers, Kershaw has 2693 IP to Sandy’s 2324 IP. Take that difference 369, divide by four and you get four extra half seasons.
I admit I am not sure I follow the rationale behind that. I think I partly due, and if time I can ask a few questions to see, as I am curious seeing what looks like a view through a different lens. You and dallas have talked in detail but seems it went off the rails a little, so I stopped reading it through.
Can you follow up on the question you posed about pitcher A and B above that I answered. I am curious where you were heading with that.
Sure. It’s the idea that 5 innings, no matter how fantastic, isn’t as good of a start as going 8+ innings. And since they don’t let you go that deep unless you pitch well, I believe that’s the start I’d want, on average, from my pitchers. I think, and acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong, that over 162 games that would lead to more wins for a wide variety or real life baseball reasons.
It comes down to leaving the final 12 outs for the bullpen versus the final two outs for the bullpen. I watch real baseball games and have for 35 years.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after five innings (pitch count most often being the reason cited), the outcome is still very much in doubt in the baseball game.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after eight, it’s to an ovation and the win typically feels as close to assured as possible.
There is some merit there with the guy going 8+ innings, but the example you used was too extreme(toward the five inning guy). You gave the 5+ inning guy an ERA of 0.00 and the 8+ inning guy an ERA of 2.08. An ERA of zero over five innings is historically amazing and is going to win out in that comparison. If you altered the five inning guy's runs allowed to a more realistic figure it might illustrate it more
I think most would agree that a pitcher who is eating up more innings per start and has a similar ERA is going to have more value. The amount of innings more and the degree of ratios make a difference though.
This is debate, not ram your opinion down someone else’s throat. So, I wasn’t trying to give an example where it’s clear that you should pick one guy and then go ‘A-ha!’ but merely trying to get people thinking.
So, I was pointing out that, given those two scenarios where I thought it would be pretty tough to pick between them, is that I would want the starter giving me 8+ innings every time. Again, for real life baseball game reasons not individual performance ratio reasons.
Now, it gets even more interesting when you realize that in 16 seasons, Kershaw has made 418 starts and in 12 seasons, Sandy has 314.
Well, the math on that is that, on average, each guy makes 26 starts a year.
Yes, that’s right…Kershaw 26, Koufax 26.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
There was a time where I was really giving Koufax his due for being able to start 41 games in a year and throw complete games. It proved that he could do that. However, it only proved that he could do that in his era. He simply would not throw as many complete games where the run scoring environment was higher(such as in Kershaw's time).
This isn't an assumption either, because in Koufax's own time when he pitched in higher run scoring environments(for instance games not inside Dodger stadium), he simply could not complete games to the same degree or prevent runs to the same degree.
So when comparing to kershaw, you have to do two things:
1) Normalize it for the era. There were less runs per game in those years, hence easier to pitch more innings and start more games. Sure, Koufax threw more innings per start and started more games per year, but that environment back then was more conducive to do that. A lot of people were piling up starts and innings. It is not a valid comparison to make some of those claims you are without accounting for that.
@JoeBanzai gave a heck of a snapshot above with their league rankings per each in each of those categories. That was a very telling post the simplifies putting each of their innings and such into the context of their respective eras.
If you don't do that, then go ahead and compare Koufax to some of the guys in the deadball era and see how many games THEY started per year and how many innings they threw...which blow Koufax out of the water. If you do that and continue your methodology, then any ALL-TIME team would preclude even invoking Koufax's name compared to them. THat simply isn't a good way to go about getting objective evidence.
2) Dodger stadium. I haven't seen you account for that. Sure, it is the same stadium, but when Koufax was pitching it was an extreme pitchers park relative to his league. It is not as extreme for Kershaw. We know that the mound when Koufax wax pitching was much higher and they did that on purpose. You aren't considering any of that.
So your comparison of a 'guy' going 8+ innings does not mean anything unless you are putting that into the context of his league and park, because I would bet my life that Koufax would not be going 8+ innings per game in Coors field in 1999 and with an ERA anywhere near what his was in 1966. If you believe he would have, then how come he could not do the same outside of Dodger stadium as he did inside?
There was a time where I was really giving Koufax his due for being able to start 41 games in a year and throw complete games. It proved that he could do that. However, it only proved that he could do that in his era. He simply would not throw as many complete games where the run scoring environment was higher(such as in Kershaw's time).
This isn't an assumption either, because in Koufax's own time when he pitched in higher run scoring environments(for instance games not inside Dodger stadium), he simply could not complete games to the same degree or prevent runs to the same degree.
So when comparing to kershaw, you have to do two things:
1) Normalize it for the era. There were less runs per game in those years, hence easier to pitch more innings and start more games. Sure, Koufax threw more innings per start and started more games per year, but that environment back then was more conducive to do that. A lot of people were piling up starts and innings. It is not a valid comparison to make some of those claims you are without accounting for that.
@JoeBanzai gave a heck of a snapshot above with their league rankings per each in each of those categories. That was a very telling post the simplifies putting each of their innings and such into the context of their respective eras.
If you don't do that, then go ahead and compare Koufax to some of the guys in the deadball era and see how many games THEY started per year and how many innings they threw...which blow Koufax out of the water. If you do that and continue your methodology, then any ALL-TIME team would preclude even invoking Koufax's name compared to them. THat simply isn't a good way to go about getting objective evidence.
2) Dodger stadium. I haven't seen you account for that. Sure, it is the same stadium, but when Koufax was pitching it was an extreme pitchers park relative to his league. It is not as extreme for Kershaw. We know that the mound when Koufax wax pitching was much higher and they did that on purpose. You aren't considering any of that.
So your comparison of a 'guy' going 8+ innings does not mean anything unless you are putting that into the context of his league and park, because I would bet my life that Koufax would not be going 8+ innings per game in Coors field in 1999 and with an ERA anywhere near what his was in 1966. If you believe he would have, then how come he could not do the same outside of Dodger stadium as he did inside?
But isn’t the inverse also true?
Clayton Kershaw’s arm and body have not held up over 16 seasons in the coddled, 100 pitch is a full start regardless of innings pitched era, to the point that he has been unavailable for around 1/3 of each season for 10 of 16 seasons in his career and also a below average postseason pitcher.
If you were to put him in the 1950-60s where he’s expected to take the ball every 4th or 5th day, actually play hurt and ultimately pitch more often, what will you have then? Better performance? A longer career? Improved ratios?
Doesn’t seem likely to me.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
There was a time where I was really giving Koufax his due for being able to start 41 games in a year and throw complete games. It proved that he could do that. However, it only proved that he could do that in his era. He simply would not throw as many complete games where the run scoring environment was higher(such as in Kershaw's time).
This isn't an assumption either, because in Koufax's own time when he pitched in higher run scoring environments(for instance games not inside Dodger stadium), he simply could not complete games to the same degree or prevent runs to the same degree.
So when comparing to kershaw, you have to do two things:
1) Normalize it for the era. There were less runs per game in those years, hence easier to pitch more innings and start more games. Sure, Koufax threw more innings per start and started more games per year, but that environment back then was more conducive to do that. A lot of people were piling up starts and innings. It is not a valid comparison to make some of those claims you are without accounting for that.
@JoeBanzai gave a heck of a snapshot above with their league rankings per each in each of those categories. That was a very telling post the simplifies putting each of their innings and such into the context of their respective eras.
If you don't do that, then go ahead and compare Koufax to some of the guys in the deadball era and see how many games THEY started per year and how many innings they threw...which blow Koufax out of the water. If you do that and continue your methodology, then any ALL-TIME team would preclude even invoking Koufax's name compared to them. THat simply isn't a good way to go about getting objective evidence.
2) Dodger stadium. I haven't seen you account for that. Sure, it is the same stadium, but when Koufax was pitching it was an extreme pitchers park relative to his league. It is not as extreme for Kershaw. We know that the mound when Koufax wax pitching was much higher and they did that on purpose. You aren't considering any of that.
So your comparison of a 'guy' going 8+ innings does not mean anything unless you are putting that into the context of his league and park, because I would bet my life that Koufax would not be going 8+ innings per game in Coors field in 1999 and with an ERA anywhere near what his was in 1966. If you believe he would have, then how come he could not do the same outside of Dodger stadium as he did inside?
But isn’t the inverse also true?
Clayton Kershaw’s arm and body have not held up over 16 seasons in the coddled, 100 pitch is a full start regardless of innings pitched era, to the point that he has been unavailable for around 1/3 of each season for 10 of 16 seasons in his career and also a below average postseason pitcher.
If you were to put him in the 1950-60s where he’s expected to take the ball every 4th or 5th day, actually play hurt and ultimately pitch more often, what will you have then? Better performance? A longer career? Improved ratios?
Doesn’t seem likely to me.
I don't know. He may have been forced to grow a set.
It really isn't a case of putting them into each other's era, it is more of contextualizing the environement of each era that allowed players to do things not possible in subsequent eras.
So while Koufax's high IP totals are attractive, they aren't as special as you are making them out to be because there are a lot of league mates putting up more similar totals. So to compare that to Kershaw where his IP totals are lower, but still higher than his league mates to a similar degree that Koufax's are(as Banzi pointed out), you come to a different understanding.
Koufax's high IP total are a big product of the lower run scoring environment of his era not because he was THAT much better than Kershaw in that regard.
I repeat, compare Koufax's games started and IP to some of the players in the deadball era. Does that mean that THOSE guys were that much better than Koufax in that regard, or is it simply because it was an environment where it made those accomplishments more attainable?
And again, without Dodger stadium in his own era, Koufax could not repeat those CG totals and run suppression abilities.
@1951WheatiesPremium if Kershaw were forced to pitch 8 innings a game in his era he would not be able to hold those ratios he currently has. His era is not conducive for that.
However, If his era introduced a less lively ball, raised the mound twelve inches, and moved the fences back 20 feet, then yes, he would maintain his ratios and have even better ones along with more IP.
There was a time where I was really giving Koufax his due for being able to start 41 games in a year and throw complete games. It proved that he could do that. However, it only proved that he could do that in his era. He simply would not throw as many complete games where the run scoring environment was higher(such as in Kershaw's time).
This isn't an assumption either, because in Koufax's own time when he pitched in higher run scoring environments(for instance games not inside Dodger stadium), he simply could not complete games to the same degree or prevent runs to the same degree.
So when comparing to kershaw, you have to do two things:
1) Normalize it for the era. There were less runs per game in those years, hence easier to pitch more innings and start more games. Sure, Koufax threw more innings per start and started more games per year, but that environment back then was more conducive to do that. A lot of people were piling up starts and innings. It is not a valid comparison to make some of those claims you are without accounting for that.
@JoeBanzai gave a heck of a snapshot above with their league rankings per each in each of those categories. That was a very telling post the simplifies putting each of their innings and such into the context of their respective eras.
If you don't do that, then go ahead and compare Koufax to some of the guys in the deadball era and see how many games THEY started per year and how many innings they threw...which blow Koufax out of the water. If you do that and continue your methodology, then any ALL-TIME team would preclude even invoking Koufax's name compared to them. THat simply isn't a good way to go about getting objective evidence.
2) Dodger stadium. I haven't seen you account for that. Sure, it is the same stadium, but when Koufax was pitching it was an extreme pitchers park relative to his league. It is not as extreme for Kershaw. We know that the mound when Koufax wax pitching was much higher and they did that on purpose. You aren't considering any of that.
So your comparison of a 'guy' going 8+ innings does not mean anything unless you are putting that into the context of his league and park, because I would bet my life that Koufax would not be going 8+ innings per game in Coors field in 1999 and with an ERA anywhere near what his was in 1966. If you believe he would have, then how come he could not do the same outside of Dodger stadium as he did inside?
But isn’t the inverse also true?
Clayton Kershaw’s arm and body have not held up over 16 seasons in the coddled, 100 pitch is a full start regardless of innings pitched era, to the point that he has been unavailable for around 1/3 of each season for 10 of 16 seasons in his career and also a below average postseason pitcher.
If you were to put him in the 1950-60s where he’s expected to take the ball every 4th or 5th day, actually play hurt and ultimately pitch more often, what will you have then? Better performance? A longer career? Improved ratios?
Doesn’t seem likely to me.
I don't know. He may have been forced to grow a set.
It really isn't a case of putting them into each other's era, it is more of contextualizing the environement of each era that allowed players to do things not possible in subsequent eras.
So while Koufax's high IP totals are attractive, they aren't as special as you are making them out to be because there are a lot of league mates putting up more similar totals. So to compare that to Kershaw where his IP totals are lower, but still higher than his league mates to a similar degree that Koufax's are(as Banzi pointed out), you come to a different understanding.
Koufax's high IP total are a big product of the lower run scoring environment of his era not because he was THAT much better than Kershaw in that regard.
I repeat, compare Koufax's games started and IP to some of the players in the deadball era. Does that mean that THOSE guys were that much better than Koufax in that regard, or is it simply because it was an environment where it made those accomplishments more attainable?
And again, without Dodger stadium in his own era, Koufax could not repeat those CG totals and run suppression abilities.
Here’s where I zig as opposed to zag:
Pre Jackie, post Jackie - those are my eras. The ballparks and era adjustments and all that other stuff matters more the further part the players played. And it’s still a baseball game. I agree that performance and ranks against peers matter. And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc. maybe they’re lucky to stay healthy or maybe they pitch at less than 100% occasionally. Who knows? Point is, those guys are pitching full seasons and full workloads. There ERA’s aren’t as low but every firth day they’re there. I’d take Cole over Kershaw the last five years mainly on the strength of?
Games started and innings pitched.
Now, I hate that I mentioned another name but it was to illustrate the point.
In Koufax’s era, you’re acting like CG’s and shutouts are common.
I don’t think they’ve really ever been common.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
There was a time where I was really giving Koufax his due for being able to start 41 games in a year and throw complete games. It proved that he could do that. However, it only proved that he could do that in his era. He simply would not throw as many complete games where the run scoring environment was higher(such as in Kershaw's time).
This isn't an assumption either, because in Koufax's own time when he pitched in higher run scoring environments(for instance games not inside Dodger stadium), he simply could not complete games to the same degree or prevent runs to the same degree.
So when comparing to kershaw, you have to do two things:
1) Normalize it for the era. There were less runs per game in those years, hence easier to pitch more innings and start more games. Sure, Koufax threw more innings per start and started more games per year, but that environment back then was more conducive to do that. A lot of people were piling up starts and innings. It is not a valid comparison to make some of those claims you are without accounting for that.
@JoeBanzai gave a heck of a snapshot above with their league rankings per each in each of those categories. That was a very telling post the simplifies putting each of their innings and such into the context of their respective eras.
If you don't do that, then go ahead and compare Koufax to some of the guys in the deadball era and see how many games THEY started per year and how many innings they threw...which blow Koufax out of the water. If you do that and continue your methodology, then any ALL-TIME team would preclude even invoking Koufax's name compared to them. THat simply isn't a good way to go about getting objective evidence.
2) Dodger stadium. I haven't seen you account for that. Sure, it is the same stadium, but when Koufax was pitching it was an extreme pitchers park relative to his league. It is not as extreme for Kershaw. We know that the mound when Koufax wax pitching was much higher and they did that on purpose. You aren't considering any of that.
So your comparison of a 'guy' going 8+ innings does not mean anything unless you are putting that into the context of his league and park, because I would bet my life that Koufax would not be going 8+ innings per game in Coors field in 1999 and with an ERA anywhere near what his was in 1966. If you believe he would have, then how come he could not do the same outside of Dodger stadium as he did inside?
But isn’t the inverse also true?
Clayton Kershaw’s arm and body have not held up over 16 seasons in the coddled, 100 pitch is a full start regardless of innings pitched era, to the point that he has been unavailable for around 1/3 of each season for 10 of 16 seasons in his career and also a below average postseason pitcher.
If you were to put him in the 1950-60s where he’s expected to take the ball every 4th or 5th day, actually play hurt and ultimately pitch more often, what will you have then? Better performance? A longer career? Improved ratios?
Doesn’t seem likely to me.
I don't know. He may have been forced to grow a set.
It really isn't a case of putting them into each other's era, it is more of contextualizing the environement of each era that allowed players to do things not possible in subsequent eras.
So while Koufax's high IP totals are attractive, they aren't as special as you are making them out to be because there are a lot of league mates putting up more similar totals. So to compare that to Kershaw where his IP totals are lower, but still higher than his league mates to a similar degree that Koufax's are(as Banzi pointed out), you come to a different understanding.
Koufax's high IP total are a big product of the lower run scoring environment of his era not because he was THAT much better than Kershaw in that regard.
I repeat, compare Koufax's games started and IP to some of the players in the deadball era. Does that mean that THOSE guys were that much better than Koufax in that regard, or is it simply because it was an environment where it made those accomplishments more attainable?
And again, without Dodger stadium in his own era, Koufax could not repeat those CG totals and run suppression abilities.
Here’s where I zig as opposed to zag:
Pre Jackie, post Jackie - those are my eras. The ballparks and era adjustments and all that other stuff matters more the further part the players played. And it’s still a baseball game. I agree that performance and ranks against peers matter. And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc. maybe they’re lucky to stay healthy or maybe they pitch at less than 100% occasionally. Who knows? Point is, those guys are pitching full seasons and full workloads. There ERA’s aren’t as low but every firth day they’re there. I’d take Cole over Kershaw the last five years mainly on the strength of?
Games started and innings pitched.
Now, I hate that I mentioned another name but it was to illustrate the point.
In Koufax’s era, you’re acting like CG’s and shutouts are common.
I don’t think they’ve really ever been common.
Without a doubt Kershaw's last seven years he has been made of glass compared to his league.
Lay out all the starts in their career from best to worst. No hitters at the top, down to when they got bombed.
Let’s start at the bottom. If I concede that Clayton Kershaw wins 104-0 at the bottom of our list because it goes against starts Sandy Koufax didn’t make, that’s the score.
Score
Kershaw 104
Koufax 0
Now let’s go to the top. I would posit that a no hitter and or a perfect game is the most dominant a pitcher can be. In both cases, I would also posit that in both cases, the number of strikeouts is almost totally irrelevant though walks matter considerably. And I would think a complete game shutout is the next most dominant a pitcher can be and that can be parsed out and ordered with hits and strikeouts. Yes, you can lose a game and throw a no hitter or pitch a complete game while even potentially pitch average or even badly but the chances are pretty slim that guy who goes nine had a terrible performance. I’d peg it at 1 out of 10 nine inning performances would fall into the category of a ‘bad start’ and I’m probably high with that estimate. Then you get the starts that went to 8 IP, 7 IP, 6 IP, etc. and some combination of strikeouts and hits helping sort those rankings and establish an order.
Is any of that illogical or in need of refinement? Is there some glaring error that I didn’t factor?
If we can accept this, then I think it starts to get really interesting.
The top of the list features 137 complete games, 40 of them shutouts and four of those no hitters. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw’s list has a no hitter on top, too, as well as 15 shutouts and in 25 complete games.
So the first listed a no hitters and Sandy had four to Clayton having 1. So, after the top four starts one is a tie and then three for Koufax .
Kershaw 104
Koufax 3
Sandy now has 36 shutouts on his list. Clayton has 11 shutouts.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 28
Sandy now has 97 complete games to account for while Kershaw has 10.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 125
That’s 229 starts that we’ve analyzed at this point by math. Sandy only has 189 starts remaining to finish his list and we have already accounted for the extra starts that all went Kershaw’s way against Sandy’s four fewer seasons.
Now we get into the part of the list that has the remaining starts for Sandy (starting with one’s of 8 IP, then 7 IP) and the remaining best listed starts for Clayton. Though I have to imagine properly that Kershaw burned through many/most/all of his 8 and 7 IP starts while competing with Sandy’s extra 87 complete games and coming up short by comparison, at least 90 percent of the time and 100% for the math provided above.
Now, I don’t have the actual list but I imagine the remaining list goes well for Sandy Koufax for about 60 starts, it’s close for about 60 starts and then Kershaw wins the last 69.
Kershaw 173
Koufax 185
With 60 toss up.
And 104-0 for starts Sandy didn’t make.
That’s not close?
Pitchers are not allowed to throw as many pitches/innings now, so most of your argument means very little.
That's why I looked at how each pitcher performed against his contemporaries.
Kershaw is better.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
I saw your comment about players playing the game further away so I updated this question.
Plank retired and 38 years later Koufax started.
Koufax retired and 42 years later Kershaw started.
SO, does Plank absolutely blow Koufax out of the water in all the things you are saying?
Based on your premise, Koufax was soft. Look how much more durable and dominant Plank was.
@1951WheatiesPremium in addition to recognizing Plank as better than Koufax, and Koufax being soft since he could not match the IP and CG that Plank did,
At what point do you recognize Dodger stadium for helping Koufax throw CG and more IP and suppress runs easier? You keep putting his totals up and completely ignoring that.
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
Koufax himself could not throw as many complete games when just ONE of his factors helping him do so is removed from the equation.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
I saw your comment about players playing the game further away so I updated this question.
Plank retired and 38 years later Koufax started.
Koufax retired and 42 years later Kershaw started.
SO, does Plank absolutely blow Koufax out of the water in all the things you are saying?
Based on your premise, Koufax was soft. Look how much more durable and dominant Plank was.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with thinking Eddie Plank was better than both Koufax and Kershaw?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
I saw your comment about players playing the game further away so I updated this question.
Plank retired and 38 years later Koufax started.
Koufax retired and 42 years later Kershaw started.
SO, does Plank absolutely blow Koufax out of the water in all the things you are saying?
Based on your premise, Koufax was soft. Look how much more durable and dominant Plank was.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with thinking Eddie Plank was better than both Koufax and Kershaw?
Have you seen the topic of best left handed pitcher ever debated? Koufax is typically the choice.
If you choose Plank, then the point doesn't apply to you. You answered, and I move on.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
I saw your comment about players playing the game further away so I updated this question.
Plank retired and 38 years later Koufax started.
Koufax retired and 42 years later Kershaw started.
SO, does Plank absolutely blow Koufax out of the water in all the things you are saying?
Based on your premise, Koufax was soft. Look how much more durable and dominant Plank was.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with thinking Eddie Plank was better than both Koufax and Kershaw?
Have you seen the topic of best left handed pitcher ever debated? Koufax is typically the choice.
If you choose Plank, then the point doesn't apply to you. You answered, and I move on.
Lefty Grove is my answer
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
I saw your comment about players playing the game further away so I updated this question.
Plank retired and 38 years later Koufax started.
Koufax retired and 42 years later Kershaw started.
SO, does Plank absolutely blow Koufax out of the water in all the things you are saying?
Based on your premise, Koufax was soft. Look how much more durable and dominant Plank was.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with thinking Eddie Plank was better than both Koufax and Kershaw?
Have you seen the topic of best left handed pitcher ever debated? Koufax is typically the choice.
If you choose Plank, then the point doesn't apply to you. You answered, and I move on.
Lefty Grove is my answer
Ok, that choice shows you do value eras and adjustments and context of run scoring environment.
It seems you have a little stricter definition toward Kershaw and most of it is in regard to his last seven years as a part time pitcher. I respect your point of view on that in regard to Kershaw. I disagree and no need to rehash, but I respect that viewpoint you are putting forth toward Kershaw. It is a little different than what is usually put forth.
I think you have a little disdain for the modern starting pitcher usage in general, and you aren't alone. The game has changed a lot in that regard. Some would say it isn't as fun without the workhorse matchups and they are probably right, but it doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
Lay out all the starts in their career from best to worst. No hitters at the top, down to when they got bombed.
Let’s start at the bottom. If I concede that Clayton Kershaw wins 104-0 at the bottom of our list because it goes against starts Sandy Koufax didn’t make, that’s the score.
Score
Kershaw 104
Koufax 0
Now let’s go to the top. I would posit that a no hitter and or a perfect game is the most dominant a pitcher can be. In both cases, I would also posit that in both cases, the number of strikeouts is almost totally irrelevant though walks matter considerably. And I would think a complete game shutout is the next most dominant a pitcher can be and that can be parsed out and ordered with hits and strikeouts. Yes, you can lose a game and throw a no hitter or pitch a complete game while even potentially pitch average or even badly but the chances are pretty slim that guy who goes nine had a terrible performance. I’d peg it at 1 out of 10 nine inning performances would fall into the category of a ‘bad start’ and I’m probably high with that estimate. Then you get the starts that went to 8 IP, 7 IP, 6 IP, etc. and some combination of strikeouts and hits helping sort those rankings and establish an order.
Is any of that illogical or in need of refinement? Is there some glaring error that I didn’t factor?
If we can accept this, then I think it starts to get really interesting.
The top of the list features 137 complete games, 40 of them shutouts and four of those no hitters. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw’s list has a no hitter on top, too, as well as 15 shutouts and in 25 complete games.
So the first listed a no hitters and Sandy had four to Clayton having 1. So, after the top four starts one is a tie and then three for Koufax .
Kershaw 104
Koufax 3
Sandy now has 36 shutouts on his list. Clayton has 11 shutouts.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 28
Sandy now has 97 complete games to account for while Kershaw has 10.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 125
That’s 229 starts that we’ve analyzed at this point by math. Sandy only has 189 starts remaining to finish his list and we have already accounted for the extra starts that all went Kershaw’s way against Sandy’s four fewer seasons.
Now we get into the part of the list that has the remaining starts for Sandy (starting with one’s of 8 IP, then 7 IP) and the remaining best listed starts for Clayton. Though I have to imagine properly that Kershaw burned through many/most/all of his 8 and 7 IP starts while competing with Sandy’s extra 87 complete games and coming up short by comparison, at least 90 percent of the time and 100% for the math provided above.
Now, I don’t have the actual list but I imagine the remaining list goes well for Sandy Koufax for about 60 starts, it’s close for about 60 starts and then Kershaw wins the last 69.
Kershaw 173
Koufax 185
With 60 toss up.
And 104-0 for starts Sandy didn’t make.
That’s not close?
Pitchers are not allowed to throw as many pitches/innings now, so most of your argument means very little.
That's why I looked at how each pitcher performed against his contemporaries.
Kershaw is better.
Sarcasm or actual opinion?
That’s crazy talk, dude. Maybe Clayton Kershaw isn’t allowed to pitch (and basically, for a variety of reasons, he’s not and the ‘why’ of which is a separate topic). Most guys are still welcomed to go deep into ballgames as often as possible.
There are still no-no’s (and even perfect games) being recorded annually. Guys pitch complete games.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Lay out all the starts in their career from best to worst. No hitters at the top, down to when they got bombed.
Let’s start at the bottom. If I concede that Clayton Kershaw wins 104-0 at the bottom of our list because it goes against starts Sandy Koufax didn’t make, that’s the score.
Score
Kershaw 104
Koufax 0
Now let’s go to the top. I would posit that a no hitter and or a perfect game is the most dominant a pitcher can be. In both cases, I would also posit that in both cases, the number of strikeouts is almost totally irrelevant though walks matter considerably. And I would think a complete game shutout is the next most dominant a pitcher can be and that can be parsed out and ordered with hits and strikeouts. Yes, you can lose a game and throw a no hitter or pitch a complete game while even potentially pitch average or even badly but the chances are pretty slim that guy who goes nine had a terrible performance. I’d peg it at 1 out of 10 nine inning performances would fall into the category of a ‘bad start’ and I’m probably high with that estimate. Then you get the starts that went to 8 IP, 7 IP, 6 IP, etc. and some combination of strikeouts and hits helping sort those rankings and establish an order.
Is any of that illogical or in need of refinement? Is there some glaring error that I didn’t factor?
If we can accept this, then I think it starts to get really interesting.
The top of the list features 137 complete games, 40 of them shutouts and four of those no hitters. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw’s list has a no hitter on top, too, as well as 15 shutouts and in 25 complete games.
So the first listed a no hitters and Sandy had four to Clayton having 1. So, after the top four starts one is a tie and then three for Koufax .
Kershaw 104
Koufax 3
Sandy now has 36 shutouts on his list. Clayton has 11 shutouts.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 28
Sandy now has 97 complete games to account for while Kershaw has 10.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 125
That’s 229 starts that we’ve analyzed at this point by math. Sandy only has 189 starts remaining to finish his list and we have already accounted for the extra starts that all went Kershaw’s way against Sandy’s four fewer seasons.
Now we get into the part of the list that has the remaining starts for Sandy (starting with one’s of 8 IP, then 7 IP) and the remaining best listed starts for Clayton. Though I have to imagine properly that Kershaw burned through many/most/all of his 8 and 7 IP starts while competing with Sandy’s extra 87 complete games and coming up short by comparison, at least 90 percent of the time and 100% for the math provided above.
Now, I don’t have the actual list but I imagine the remaining list goes well for Sandy Koufax for about 60 starts, it’s close for about 60 starts and then Kershaw wins the last 69.
Kershaw 173
Koufax 185
With 60 toss up.
And 104-0 for starts Sandy didn’t make.
That’s not close?
Pitchers are not allowed to throw as many pitches/innings now, so most of your argument means very little.
That's why I looked at how each pitcher performed against his contemporaries.
Kershaw is better.
Sarcasm or actual opinion?
That’s crazy talk, dude. Maybe Clayton Kershaw isn’t allowed to pitch (and basically, for a variety of reasons, he’s not and the ‘why’ of which is a separate topic). Most guys are still welcomed to go deep into ballgames as often as possible.
There are still no-no’s (and even perfect games) being recorded annually. Guys pitch complete games.
You do know we have gone to a 5 man starting rotation from a 4 man, yes? This means less starts and innings pitched.
I watch games all the time, have been since the mid 1960's. Generally speaking, top starters in the past were expected to pitch 8-9 innings. Now I see the starter pulled after 5-6 innings when leading regardless of how well he is pitching. This even includes guys pitching no hitters, something unheard of in the past. Then you get 3 different relief pitchers come in and pitch an inning and finally the closer comes in to start the ninth.
If you don't see that complete games are WAY down, I don't think there's any point to a rational discussion.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
And as awesome as Jacob deGrom and Clayton Kershaw can be when they’re on the hill - two really fun pitchers to watch with incredible talent - they simply aren’t on the hill enough over a season during their respective careers; Clayton’s second half and half of deGrom’s career haphazardly.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
@1951WheatiesPremium seems to think that Innings Pitched and Complete Games are the most important things. I offer that Koufax is 8th in Dodgers history in Games Started, 11th in Innings Pitched, and 3rd in Shutouts. Incidentally, Koufax ranks behind his (almost) immediate successor Don Sutton in all three categories. I trust no one will make the argument that Sutton was better than Koufax, even if you consider the seven seasons he played elsewhere.
By the way, anyone who thinks that a Koufax, or a Clemens, Ryan, Spahn, Grove, Walter Johnson, Young, or a Pud Galvin would pitch even ten CG in a season today hasn't been watching baseball lately. Since Clemens retired there have been only two double digit CG seasons: Sabathia had 10 in 2008 and James Shields 11 in 2011. The last ten years Sandy Alcantara, Chris Sale, and, yes, Kershaw have had as many as six. Six. In 1966 53 pitchers pitched that many.
The reason Kershaw isn't throwing as many complete games can't possibly because he's never had a season as good as Dick Ellsworth in 1966.
@daltex said: @1951WheatiesPremium seems to think that Innings Pitched and Complete Games are the most important things.
Nothing about that statement is correct.That’s picking one minuscule point that no one said and arguing about it.
Seems like a familiar tact around here.
🤔
Making the below comments completely superfluous and points that aren’t relevant to a discussion of Kershaw, Koufax or Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever.It’s like a child who wanders into the room and tries to join a conversation the adults are having.Really.
If you have a question for me?Ask it.
Otherwise, let the men talk.
I offer that Koufax is 8th in Dodgers history in Games Started, 11th in Innings Pitched, and 3rd in Shutouts. Incidentally, Koufax ranks behind his (almost) immediate successor Don Sutton in all three categories. I trust no one will make the argument that Sutton was better than Koufax, even if you consider the seven seasons he played elsewhere.
By the way, anyone who thinks that a Koufax, or a Clemens, Ryan, Spahn, Grove, Walter Johnson, Young, or a Pud Galvin would pitch even ten CG in a season today hasn't been watching baseball lately. Since Clemens retired there have been only two double digit CG seasons: Sabathia had 10 in 2008 and James Shields 11 in 2011. The last ten years Sandy Alcantara, Chris Sale, and, yes, Kershaw have had as many as six. Six. In 1966 53 pitchers pitched that many.
The reason Kershaw isn't throwing as many complete games can't possibly because he's never had a season as good as Dick Ellsworth in 1966.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
That was kind of going to be my next point too.
Koufax really only had four complete seasons by the standards of his times. He was close one other time (223 IP), but after that it was all partial/incomplete seasons.
Kershaw by his times standards had five complete seasons. He was close three other times.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
I’d have to look and see. I’m pretty well versed in current stats because I play fantasy baseball every year for the last 20.
Quick Reminder (so it doesn’t keep happening)
And again, please let’s not forget what’s being discussed here - a comparison of Kershaw and Koufax (and any other name who played for the team that is worthy) as to who was ‘Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever’.
If another name came up or comes up in discussion as a comparison or to illustrate a point, let’s not go into the nonsense of ‘Well, since you said this about this guy then that means that you must feel…”
That’s just a waste of time and seems to be a favored method here.
“Hey, you said you like the color red? Well, the Russian flag is red so you must be a commie!”
See how foolish that looks?
Pretty sure we’re all better than that.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
That was kind of going to be my next point too.
Koufax really only had four complete seasons by the standards of his times. He was close one other time (223 IP), but after that it was all partial/incomplete seasons.
Kershaw by his times standards had five complete seasons. He was close three other times.
I think it's unfair to hold Kershaw to a standard that no longer applies and equally unfair to give Koufax credit for meeting today's standards while not meeting the standards he was expected in his era.
Koufax had 4 "full" seasons where he made at least 35 starts and pitched 250+ innings.
One of those years (1961) his ERA was a full run higher than the league leaders, although he led the league in strikeouts and finally started to walk less guys per inning.
Three dominant years. One above average.
In 1964 he missed 30% of his starts. He did pitch brilliantly, when he was able to play.
One great year.
In 1958, 1960 & 1962 he missed 35% of his starts. He was good in 1962, but did not receive any Cy Young votes.
One solid year, one average year and a below average year (1958).
1955, 1956, 1957 & 1959 were bad years.
Koufax had 3 dominant, 1 great, and 1 solid, 1 average He had 1 below average year and 4 bad years.
Kershaw had 6 seasons where he started at least 30 games and 2020 where he made enough starts in a shortened season to qualify as a full year.
7 full seasons, with 4 being dominant (side note, how does he not win the Cy Young award in 2012?).
4 dominant years and 3 very good ones. You could call 2020 dominant, but I didn't here.
Now we have 4 seasons where he made 80% of his starts. Not "full" seasons , but a 10-15 higher percentage of expected games started than Koufax's second tier.
Two dominant years and 2 very good ones.
Now we have 5 seasons that are at 65% of expected starts, right at the same % as Koufax's second tier. 2016, 2022 and 2023 were dominant, but let's drop it to very good because of him missing starts.
Three very good (great?) Seasons an average year, and a bad one (2008).
Years pitched;
Kershaw 16, Koufax 12.
Full seasons;
Kershaw 7, Koufax 4
80% of expected starts
Kershaw 4, koufax 0.
65% of expected starts.
Kershaw 5, Koufax 3.
33% of expected starts or less.
Koufax 4, Kershaw 0
Dominant seasons;
Kershaw 6, Koufax 3.
Great years;
Kershaw 3, Koufax 1
Very good years;
Kershaw 5, Koufax 2.
Average years;
Kershaw 1, Koufax 2.
Bad years;
Koufax 4, Kershaw 1.
Seems odd to me that Kershaw's getting the reputation as being "made of glass", he's made 80% or more of his starts 11 times.
Thoughts?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
That was kind of going to be my next point too.
Koufax really only had four complete seasons by the standards of his times. He was close one other time (223 IP), but after that it was all partial/incomplete seasons.
Kershaw by his times standards had five complete seasons. He was close three other times.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
That was kind of going to be my next point too.
Koufax really only had four complete seasons by the standards of his times. He was close one other time (223 IP), but after that it was all partial/incomplete seasons.
Kershaw by his times standards had five complete seasons. He was close three other times.
Sandy Koufax’s rookie season was 1955. The Dodgers won the World Series that year. He was a spot starter who also pitched out of the bullpen from 1955-57 (3 seasons). Over that three year span, he starts 28 games and pitches to a four ERA. In 1958, he becomes a full time starter. Some of that was in part because he was wild and needed further development and some was in part because more established veterans were present like Don Newcombe, Carl Erskine, Roger Craig, Clem Labine, etc. many of whom were on the title winning team and more tenured Dodgers at a time when that mattered more.
By contrast, the 2008 Dodgers 5 man staff features Chad Billingsly, Derek Lowe, Hiroka Kuroda, Brad Penny and Kershaw. And not as an insult but there’s no attempt to improve it the next season. Kershaw makes 20 starts his rookie season that year and posts a 4.25 ERA. The point? Through their first 20 starts they were both learning to pitch in the majors but had different paths to them.
And were once again pretty similar (in lots of ways, not just starts and ERA).
I don’t really have disdain for the modern era - I just like all eras of sports. I old enough to have seen a few eras in a few sports, now. When we go from one era to the next, we need to acknowledge our unspoken assumptions.
Here’s mine - I don’t believe that the guys we are seeing today are, by default, the best players of all time.
I hear that often and I believe that to be bunk.
Mainly because the moment people say that it closes their minds to possibilities. To keep it fun, let’s discuss…time travel!
When you take a player from now to the past, like say a Barry Bonds, why does he get to take his steroids and dietary regimen and training and his having played against a wider pool of talent with him? But then Babe Ruth will come forward as a hot dog eating drunken fat guy doing the Charleston who played against inferior talent?
Why?
Because many assume the players in front of them are ‘vastly superior’ so it then reinforces that point even further. And yet? Pitchers pitch fewer innings and batters hit for a lower average, two things that don’t really jive with clear cut improvement. At least not for me.
There are a million variables besides eras and ballparks. MLB has sometimes admitted (and other times not) to tinkering with the baseball, itself, and has permitted a varying array of approved bat materials over the years as just one example that can change statistics from year to year.
Its a 9 inning game and a lot has changed since they started playing over at Elysian Fields. A lot. And yet, some players endured because of reputation or statistics or championships or some combination of them. It is natural to compare the great ones.
Kershaw and Koufax are both all time great pitchers. And each in their own way but with lots and lots of similarities. Again, I don’t take issue with a pick of Kershaw. I do take issue with ‘Kershaw by a mile and it’s not even close’.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Comments
Wow. I missed the panty-twisting potential of changing a 5 to a 6, which I did only because I too late realized that stopping at 15 would miss one of Kershaw's seasons. And I also now understand what you're doing; you're using "first 5" and I was using "best 5". That was just a misunderstanding. "Best 5" yields more meaningful results so I always use it, but we can switch to "First 5".
Then we get:
First 5: Koufax 0 (exactly average), Kershaw 154
To say "Kershaw wins" is to avoid the issue. Kershaw wins by a landslide and builds an enormous lead. If you think it is proper to credit Kershaw with the same lead here as you would if he was 1 run better, please just say so and I can laugh and walk away.
Second 5: Koufax 149, Kershaw 213
It's not a royal beatdown like the First 5, but it's a clear and convincing win. I lack the creativity to visualize how to credit Koufax with the win here.
Next 5:
Here you got way too cute. First you tried to include 1964, which had already been included in his Second 5, then you tried to pretend that 3 (actually 2) seasons could be compared straight up with 6 seasons without an adjustment of any kind.
Anyway, only correcting for your 1964 error, we have:
Koufax (2 seasons) 99, Kershaw (6 seasons) 105
I'm not sure how this untwists your panties, but using your method Kershaw still wins all three buckets. And even here, the lead for Kershaw is actually much larger since I'm continuing the error of not downgrading Koufax for pitching such a short career. Throw in the negative runs for Alan Foster and Mike Kekich and the other replacement pitchers the Dodgers were forced to use, and Koufax's total gets cut in half.
I don't weight WS innings at anything close to your weights (57 innings = over 1,000 innings), but I already conceded that if you want to call that a blowout on equal footing with one of Kershaw's blowouts, you're free to do so. It's the only bucket Koufax wins, even using calendar year 5 instead of best 5, so I understand why you would want to inflate it's importance.
I think we're making progress now, but I still do not understand why you think Koufax was better than Kershaw, even if only by a little bit.
Since I have exposed the weakness in the methodologies and called your ‘change the basis of arguments’ approach about five posts BEFORE you pulled them, I guess the debate is over.
Since you can’t admit you are incorrect and can only argue against things no one said, I think we’re done here.
SUMMARY: You asked me direct questions, I responded to said questions, I proved nearly every word you said wrong on your own terms, with your analogies and criteria as specified by you and you were entirely wrong so rather than acknowledge that you just picked something else to talk about.
If I blow up your peak seasons argument now, you’ll go to ballpark factors ERA+, xFIP and other useless shlt that isn’t relevant or being discussed.
You also haven’t defended any of the things you were so obviously wrong about - repeatedly.
So I think we’re done here.
So, feel free to now ‘win the argument’ that you created, lost on and then changed the criteria (again) for yourself and then debate yourself on that point.
Hopefully, you can further wow people with your obscure stats that “really tell the tale” with some witty one liners at the expense of your opponents intelligence.
PS - I am not ‘making fun’ of Kershaw’s stats and innings pitched totals, merely pointing out what they actually are and more specifically that they are not now (nor have they ever been historically considered) a total that indicates a full season by a starting pitcher by either starts or innings pitched. Though it begs the question, if you thought that was the case, then maybe you think those totals are laughable?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Hand to God, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
I apologize for making you repeat yourself, but going back over your posts I still can't figure out what you're referring to.
What weaknesses in my methodologies did you "expose"?
What part of my approach did I "pull"?
In what way did I "change the basis of my argument"?
What is it that I have said that is "incorrect"?
I’ll stop you there. Read MY posts. It will probably be the first time so go slowly and then read them a second time so you fully grasp how I responded to YOU.
Point by point.
If you’re still confused at that point, feel free to call me back into the thread.
If you’re not confused and want to refute literally anything that I said in our direct discourse on the specific points already mentioned by my me in direct response to you, call me back to the thread.
If you want to continue to not read my posts and also continue to argue for Kershaw therefore arguing with yourself on points you raise and refute yourself, I don’t need to be called back to thread any more.
And yes, I see how you reduced five seasons of baseball to a singular number. Do you also have a ratio, too?
That’s a much better indicator than how guys actually pitched in their games and how good they were.
And I appreciate your correcting my double use of 1964. Thought he pitched 13 seasons, not twelve. Don’t miss the point, though, that he still comes very close to Kershaw’s innings pitched and start totals in two seasons versus six seasons.
My math error doesn’t undue the enormity of that issue - the actual biggest issue I have.
So here’s my direct question for you if you want to picque my interests and respark a debate.
How much credit and how should we weight the seasons Kershaw pitches from 2016 onward?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
As with all things related to pitcher effectiveness, by a combination of innings pitched and runs allowed (for hitters, it's plate appearances and runs created). Runs allowed greater than average (RAA) is a stat that combines the two very effectively. It favors pitchers who pitch more innings, and it favors pitchers who allow fewer runs. If a pitcher is better at both than another pitcher, that pitcher will "win" by a large margin. If one pitcher is better at one of them, but the other pitcher is better at the other, then the product of the two will be a very good indicator of which one was better, and how much better.
So, I "weight" Kershaw's 8 seasons from 2016 onward at 177 RAA, slightly lower than I "weight" his 4 seasons from 2012-2015 (181 RAA). I'm taking full account of the number of innings Kershaw pitched, I assure you.
Now, I had already read all of your posts, carefully, and now I've done so again. And I still have no idea what you're talking about. So if you could answer my four questions, I'd appreciate it.
@dallasactuary
What weaknesses in my methodologies did you "expose"?
When you are wrong, you immediately change the topic.
You spelled out five start stretches, I responded, you were wrong, so then said ‘I meant six seasons and when you look at 6 seasons and peak values…’
Stop. Just stop. It’s tired it’s old and I said you’d do it before you did it. Then you feigned confusion.
Since you are unaware that you do this - a lot - it’s now being pointed out clearly.
Speak to this.
What part of my approach did I "pull"?
The above. Speak to it.
In what way did I "change the basis of my argument"?
From 5 inning chronological buckets that I actually responded too to 6 inning buckets with ear value seasons selected from whenever by criteria you then looked up to back up the new evaluation system you wanted to present that worked better.
What is it that I have said that is "incorrect"?
Not much. Why? Because when you are incorrect, you don’t say ‘I was wrong’, you invent new things to talk about that are related to, but decidedly are not, the topic at hand.
I’ve now responded to you directly several times. In this post and others.
Now, here’s this :
So, I "weight" Kershaw's 8 seasons from 2016 onward at 177 RAA, slightly lower than I "weight" his 4 seasons from 2012-2015 (181 RAA). I'm taking full account of the number of innings Kershaw pitched, I assure you.
You’re really not. You’re hiding them with nonsense, calling your obscure and meaningless stats ‘important and better’ - because they reduce five individual seasons to one number, I guess?) which is somehow infinitely better than looking at a game log and then using them to hide from the fact that a pitcher who throws more than 5 and less than 6 innings a start when a full game is nine innings and then also makes an average of 24 starts when a full season is 33 starts is still a great pitcher having great seasons. I have news for you, if you don’t pitch 200 innings or make 33 starts, it’s not a full season. It’s just not. It has some value of course but it also has 9 times he didn’t start, on average. They still play those games anyway.
I get that it may be hard for you to see all of this but those seasons really aren’t that good despite looking good through ratios and advanced stats. Even when you add in a good ERA, a good WHIP, a good K/9, or any other good ratios, theories, advanced stats, etc. you still have to reconcile what a full season of innings looks like. At the end of the day it’s still just 24 started games and 5-6 innings in each start over the last 7 years. Those aren’t great seasons or full seasons. They’re less than that in both cases.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Also, when I made an error in using 1964 twice, I acknowledged it.
Directly and immediately.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Let’s play a game where you don’t know how many runs of support you’ll get in a game or who your bullpen is.
Pitcher A throws 5 2/3 scoreless, no hit innings 33 times a year.
Pitcher B throws 8 1/3 innings of 2 run ball 33 times a year.
Which outing, on average, do you think produces more games won?
The above is not intended to invoke Kershaw and Koufax - that’s not their numbers. And I’m not talking about W-L record for a pitcher when I say games won.
I just want you to think about what is ultimately important for a pitcher to do - pitch well enough to give the team a chance to win the game.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
After Koufax's first 6 seasons his record was 36-40 with an era over 4.00 and 405 bases on balls in 691 innings.
Just because he "figured it out" and had 6 very good/great years after that simply does not erase those first 6 pretty bad/awful seasons.
Despite pitching very well in the post season, his record was only 4-3.
In 6 WS, he wasn't used twice, failed to win a game twice and was really good twice.
It's similar to his regular seasons;
First 4 years of his career, below average.
Second 4 of his career, slightly better than average, but certainly no one was thinking HOF.
Final 4 he was a tremendous pitcher.
Four great seasons and four World Series wins and he's being discussed as the greatest Dodger Pitcher?
REALLY? 🤔
Good thing he played on a great team, I guess.
@JoeBanzai
I obviously predicted (exactly) how @dallasactuary would respond so no surprise there.
I was hoping you of open mind and sound thinking might provide some further thoughts also? So innings pitched and games started have no role in evaluation? Are 125-175 IP in a season enough to merit such praise when they amount to missing 9 starts a year ? Or do they diminish those seasons on some level?
Inquiring minds want to know
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
Are both of these true that you are saying?
1)Koufax wax better at his peak
2)Kershaw was better for career
Just want to point out that you might be treating 2020 as a partial season for Kershaw, but> @1951WheatiesPremium said:
Pitcher A would have their teams win more games:
Pitcher A would need the bullpen to come in and give up 2 runs in 2 and 2/3 innings to equal what pitcher B did.
That means that team A would have a bullpen ERA of 6.74 which I don't think a bullpen has ever had that bad of an ERA, so team A would win more games with the combination of Pitcher A and almost any bullpen in the history of the league.
I really did think you were saying that it was something other than the 5 vs. 6, which is of course a meaningless distinction that makes no difference. Which is why when you shrieked about it I switched back to 5. What you posted in between certainly didn't demonstrate that I was "wrong" about anything, and my switch from 5 to 6 had nothing at all to do with anything you had posted. In any event, switching to 5 didn't change the outcome, so I'm confused what you think was "wrong" that I was trying to avoid.
This is painful. Pick 3, pick 4, pick 5, pick 6, pick 7 - I DON'T CARE. The outcome will be the same no matter what periods we use, and I've always known that. I switched from 5 to 6 so I didn't leave one of Kershaw's seasons "hanging" in a bucket that I had not asked you to assign a weight to, and just adding it to the "last 5" bucket would also have violated the rules I laid out. I made a mistake breaking out Kershaw's career into 3 5-year periods when he had 16 seasons. I picked a logical, harmless way to reconcile it in the full knowledge that no matter what I did the outcome would be the same. As I demonstrated. Why you are still shrieking about it is a total mystery to. me (and I imagine to anyone else following this bizarre discussion).
You laid out four separate charges of debate malfeasance, but now I'm learning that all of them relate back to the completely meaningless 5/6 issue.
Cute. Whether or not I am incorrect is completely unrelated to whether I admit it or not. I will take this non-response to mean that you can't find anything I've said that is incorrect, unless you want to try again.
Well I can't really say anything you've said here is wrong since it's all entirely opinion. My opinion differs, but we already knew that. I tried to back up my opinion with statistics; your opinion is that statistics don't really matter and are in fact "obscure and meaningless". On the flip side, obviously, nothing you've said here (or anywhere else) demonstrates that I'm wrong about anything I've said. You need more than opinions to do that, but opinions are all you're offering.
You are definitely hung up on "seasons". As of now, Kershaw has pitched more innings than Koufax, and Kershaw's partial seasons are a hell of a lot more valuable than all the seasons Koufax didn't pitch. But, speaking personally, you don't count entirely missed seasons, you just count missed innings within a season. Miss 200 innings - doesn't count. Miss 50 innings - huge penalty. As I've said, consistently no matter how often you denied it, this is what you're doing and it doesn't make any sense. You have to do it to get Koufax ahead of Kershaw, so I know WHY you're doing it, but it still doesn't make any sense.
And now that I can rest easy knowing I didn't do ANY of the things you accused me of, I'll let this go. I completely understand your position, I don't agree with any facet of it, and there's nothing more you can add to it.
{Saw your last post - won't address it (again) except to say that everything I've said and every stat I've posted "diminishes" Kershaw's seasons to reflect the number of innings he pitched. If you'd like to understand how RAA works, I'd be happy to explain it to you. And now I mean it, I'm letting this thread go.}
I agree with everything stated here (again) that he was average. Though I need to clarify something about Koufax’s first 6 seasons (since you are talking 6 season increments and I’m responding directly to you about that). They still featured individual starts, they’re not one big ugly clump. So, for instance, there were 22 times in that span from 1955-1960 that he threw a complete game, shutting out the opponent 5 times. Those five starts most certainly did not suck and I’d venture a guess to say that the vast majority of complete games were also of the non suck variety.
Is the unspoken conclusion you are trying to hint at is that Sandy Koufax was somehow an average post season pitcher here? I’m not sure what you’re saying above so I’ll just say this - let’s not question Sandy Koufax in the postseason to much at the risk of straying into absurdity.
Ok. Quartets now? Fine since it’s in the same post, I guess, but you’re pushing it. 😂
I say first four? 1955-58 Below average. Can’t dispute it.
Next four? He’s improving from 1959-1962 more than maybe is realized, pitching to a 3.48 ERA for the entire span with solid innings pitched totals, some work out of the bullpen plus a minimum of 23 starts a year increasing annually until the brilliant 1962. He also throws 39 complete games, of which 7 are shutouts and one no hitter.
Next four years? Not wasting time. Unreal. Suffice it to say, his other three no hitters land here as if his insane totals aren’t already enough.
Well, I see it more like 6 great regular seasons and zero bad postseason starts as evidenced in 7 GS that featured 6 earned runs over 57 dominant innings. I would also say that he carried the Dodgers to two World Series championships.
Yes, really.
When they won, he was as much the reason as any player on the roster especially given postseason performance and regular season innings pitched.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@1948_Swell_Robinson
No.
What I’m saying is that if we’re going to credit/penalize a guy for four extra seasons, let’s contextualize it. Over their careers, Kershaw has 2693 IP to Sandy’s 2324 IP. Take that difference 369, divide by four and you get four extra half seasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Not quite since Kershaw doesn't get the ridiculously elevated mound that Sandy got.
Also, Kershaw was/is still significantly better than league average (2.79 ERA) outside of Dodger Stadium. Koufax wasn't.
Put another way, Kershaw on the road would be the 3rd best ERA among live ball starters (behind DeGrom and Ford).
I admit I am not sure I follow the rationale behind that. I think I partly due, and if time I can ask a few questions to see, as I am curious seeing what looks like a view through a different lens. You and dallas have talked in detail but seems it went off the rails a little, so I stopped reading it through.
Can you follow up on the question you posed about pitcher A and B above that I answered. I am curious where you were heading with that.
And as awesome as Jacob deGrom and Clayton Kershaw can be when they’re on the hill - two really fun pitchers to watch with incredible talent - they simply aren’t on the hill enough over a season during their respective careers; Clayton’s second half and half of deGrom’s career haphazardly.
Remeber, thirty three starts and 220 innings pitched is a full season in a five man rotation.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Funny you mention this, I looked at this a little differently last night and instead of comparing them "head to head". Obviously pitchers are not allowed to pitch as many innings as they once did, so I compared the two in how many times they finished in the top 10.
Put as much or as little weight on the following as you like;
Cy Young awards; both won it 3 times, Koufax finished third one time. Kershaw had 2 seconds, a third and a fifth place finish, with 9 top 10 finishes to Sandy's 4.
WAR for pitchers; Kershaw 1,1,1,2,3,3. Koufax 1,1,2,2,3. Kershaw 9 times in the top 10, Koufax 6.
ERA; both led the league 5 times. Kershaw adds a third and fifth place finish, with 9 seasons in the top 10 while Koufax adds just 1 more good year with a seventh place finish. Kershaw 9 times in the top 10, Koufax 6.
WHIP; almost exactly the same, Kershaw 1,1,1,1,2,3. Koufax 1,1,1,1,2,4. Kershaw 7 in top 10, Koufax 6.
Innings pitched; Koufax was first 2 times, third once and fourth once. Kershaw was first once, second twice and third once. Both pitchers were in the top 10 4 times
Complete games; Kershaw 1,1,3,3,3,4,5. Koufax 1,1,2,2,6.
Wins; Kershaw 1,1,1,3,3,4 with nine total top 10 finishes. Koufax 1,1,1,4,4 and that's it for him.
ERA+ Kershaw is 4th all time while Koufax is at 44th. Must be because of Kershaw's much longer career.
This is just looking at their best seasons and Kershaw "wins" in every single category except for top 10 in innings pitched, which is a tie.
Koufax had between 4 and 6 great seasons Kershaw had 7 to 9.
Going to the other end of the spectrum; Koufax had 3 horrible years to start his career, Kershaw had a bad year in 2008, he was hurt in 2020, but still had a great ERA.
The other 3 Koufax years are not nearly as good as Kershaw's second 6.
@Tabe
@1948_Swell_Robinson
@JoeBanzai
A fun thought exercise?
Lay out all the starts in their career from best to worst. No hitters at the top, down to when they got bombed.
Let’s start at the bottom. If I concede that Clayton Kershaw wins 104-0 at the bottom of our list because it goes against starts Sandy Koufax didn’t make, that’s the score.
Score
Kershaw 104
Koufax 0
Now let’s go to the top. I would posit that a no hitter and or a perfect game is the most dominant a pitcher can be. In both cases, I would also posit that in both cases, the number of strikeouts is almost totally irrelevant though walks matter considerably. And I would think a complete game shutout is the next most dominant a pitcher can be and that can be parsed out and ordered with hits and strikeouts. Yes, you can lose a game and throw a no hitter or pitch a complete game while even potentially pitch average or even badly but the chances are pretty slim that guy who goes nine had a terrible performance. I’d peg it at 1 out of 10 nine inning performances would fall into the category of a ‘bad start’ and I’m probably high with that estimate. Then you get the starts that went to 8 IP, 7 IP, 6 IP, etc. and some combination of strikeouts and hits helping sort those rankings and establish an order.
Is any of that illogical or in need of refinement? Is there some glaring error that I didn’t factor?
If we can accept this, then I think it starts to get really interesting.
The top of the list features 137 complete games, 40 of them shutouts and four of those no hitters. By contrast, Clayton Kershaw’s list has a no hitter on top, too, as well as 15 shutouts and in 25 complete games.
So the first listed a no hitters and Sandy had four to Clayton having 1. So, after the top four starts one is a tie and then three for Koufax .
Kershaw 104
Koufax 3
Sandy now has 36 shutouts on his list. Clayton has 11 shutouts.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 28
Sandy now has 97 complete games to account for while Kershaw has 10.
Kershaw 104
Koufax 125
That’s 229 starts that we’ve analyzed at this point by math. Sandy only has 189 starts remaining to finish his list and we have already accounted for the extra starts that all went Kershaw’s way against Sandy’s four fewer seasons.
Now we get into the part of the list that has the remaining starts for Sandy (starting with one’s of 8 IP, then 7 IP) and the remaining best listed starts for Clayton. Though I have to imagine properly that Kershaw burned through many/most/all of his 8 and 7 IP starts while competing with Sandy’s extra 87 complete games and coming up short by comparison, at least 90 percent of the time and 100% for the math provided above.
Now, I don’t have the actual list but I imagine the remaining list goes well for Sandy Koufax for about 60 starts, it’s close for about 60 starts and then Kershaw wins the last 69.
Kershaw 173
Koufax 185
With 60 toss up.
And 104-0 for starts Sandy didn’t make.
That’s not close?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Sure. It’s the idea that 5 innings, no matter how fantastic, isn’t as good of a start as going 8+ innings. And since they don’t let you go that deep unless you pitch well, I believe that’s the start I’d want, on average, from my pitchers. I think, and acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong, that over 162 games that would lead to more wins for a wide variety or real life baseball reasons.
It comes down to leaving the final 12 outs for the bullpen versus the final two outs for the bullpen. I watch real baseball games and have for 35 years.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after five innings (pitch count most often being the reason cited), the outcome is still very much in doubt in the baseball game.
When a pitcher pitches great and leaves after eight, it’s to an ovation and the win typically feels as close to assured as possible.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This is all good food for thought.
Thank you.
I would look at those numbers and still call it close, myself.
Guys like Joe DiMaggio, Albert Belle, Ralph Kiner and Sandy Koufax mess with things. Greatness over a short timeframe is hard to contextualize.
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 is some merit there with the guy going 8+ innings, but the example you used was too extreme(toward the five inning guy). You gave the 5+ inning guy an ERA of 0.00 and the 8+ inning guy an ERA of 2.08. An ERA of zero over five innings is historically amazing and is going to win out in that comparison. If you altered the five inning guy's runs allowed to a more realistic figure it might illustrate it more
I think most would agree that a pitcher who is eating up more innings per start and has a similar ERA is going to have more value. The amount of innings more and the degree of ratios make a difference though.
This is debate, not ram your opinion down someone else’s throat. So, I wasn’t trying to give an example where it’s clear that you should pick one guy and then go ‘A-ha!’ but merely trying to get people thinking.
So, I was pointing out that, given those two scenarios where I thought it would be pretty tough to pick between them, is that I would want the starter giving me 8+ innings every time. Again, for real life baseball game reasons not individual performance ratio reasons.
Now, it gets even more interesting when you realize that in 16 seasons, Kershaw has made 418 starts and in 12 seasons, Sandy has 314.
Well, the math on that is that, on average, each guy makes 26 starts a year.
Yes, that’s right…Kershaw 26, Koufax 26.
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
There was a time where I was really giving Koufax his due for being able to start 41 games in a year and throw complete games. It proved that he could do that. However, it only proved that he could do that in his era. He simply would not throw as many complete games where the run scoring environment was higher(such as in Kershaw's time).
This isn't an assumption either, because in Koufax's own time when he pitched in higher run scoring environments(for instance games not inside Dodger stadium), he simply could not complete games to the same degree or prevent runs to the same degree.
So when comparing to kershaw, you have to do two things:
1) Normalize it for the era. There were less runs per game in those years, hence easier to pitch more innings and start more games. Sure, Koufax threw more innings per start and started more games per year, but that environment back then was more conducive to do that. A lot of people were piling up starts and innings. It is not a valid comparison to make some of those claims you are without accounting for that.
@JoeBanzai gave a heck of a snapshot above with their league rankings per each in each of those categories. That was a very telling post the simplifies putting each of their innings and such into the context of their respective eras.
If you don't do that, then go ahead and compare Koufax to some of the guys in the deadball era and see how many games THEY started per year and how many innings they threw...which blow Koufax out of the water. If you do that and continue your methodology, then any ALL-TIME team would preclude even invoking Koufax's name compared to them. THat simply isn't a good way to go about getting objective evidence.
2) Dodger stadium. I haven't seen you account for that. Sure, it is the same stadium, but when Koufax was pitching it was an extreme pitchers park relative to his league. It is not as extreme for Kershaw. We know that the mound when Koufax wax pitching was much higher and they did that on purpose. You aren't considering any of that.
So your comparison of a 'guy' going 8+ innings does not mean anything unless you are putting that into the context of his league and park, because I would bet my life that Koufax would not be going 8+ innings per game in Coors field in 1999 and with an ERA anywhere near what his was in 1966. If you believe he would have, then how come he could not do the same outside of Dodger stadium as he did inside?
But isn’t the inverse also true?
Clayton Kershaw’s arm and body have not held up over 16 seasons in the coddled, 100 pitch is a full start regardless of innings pitched era, to the point that he has been unavailable for around 1/3 of each season for 10 of 16 seasons in his career and also a below average postseason pitcher.
If you were to put him in the 1950-60s where he’s expected to take the ball every 4th or 5th day, actually play hurt and ultimately pitch more often, what will you have then? Better performance? A longer career? Improved ratios?
Doesn’t seem likely to me.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I don't know. He may have been forced to grow a set.
It really isn't a case of putting them into each other's era, it is more of contextualizing the environement of each era that allowed players to do things not possible in subsequent eras.
So while Koufax's high IP totals are attractive, they aren't as special as you are making them out to be because there are a lot of league mates putting up more similar totals. So to compare that to Kershaw where his IP totals are lower, but still higher than his league mates to a similar degree that Koufax's are(as Banzi pointed out), you come to a different understanding.
Koufax's high IP total are a big product of the lower run scoring environment of his era not because he was THAT much better than Kershaw in that regard.
I repeat, compare Koufax's games started and IP to some of the players in the deadball era. Does that mean that THOSE guys were that much better than Koufax in that regard, or is it simply because it was an environment where it made those accomplishments more attainable?
And again, without Dodger stadium in his own era, Koufax could not repeat those CG totals and run suppression abilities.
@1951WheatiesPremium if Kershaw were forced to pitch 8 innings a game in his era he would not be able to hold those ratios he currently has. His era is not conducive for that.
However, If his era introduced a less lively ball, raised the mound twelve inches, and moved the fences back 20 feet, then yes, he would maintain his ratios and have even better ones along with more IP.
Here’s where I zig as opposed to zag:
Pre Jackie, post Jackie - those are my eras. The ballparks and era adjustments and all that other stuff matters more the further part the players played. And it’s still a baseball game. I agree that performance and ranks against peers matter. And there have been plenty of guys logging 220 IP seasons to Kershaw’s 150’s the last seven years: Gerritt Cole, Max Scherzer, etc. maybe they’re lucky to stay healthy or maybe they pitch at less than 100% occasionally. Who knows? Point is, those guys are pitching full seasons and full workloads. There ERA’s aren’t as low but every firth day they’re there. I’d take Cole over Kershaw the last five years mainly on the strength of?
Games started and innings pitched.
Now, I hate that I mentioned another name but it was to illustrate the point.
In Koufax’s era, you’re acting like CG’s and shutouts are common.
I don’t think they’ve really ever been common.
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 for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
Without a doubt Kershaw's last seven years he has been made of glass compared to his league.
Pitchers are not allowed to throw as many pitches/innings now, so most of your argument means very little.
That's why I looked at how each pitcher performed against his contemporaries.
Kershaw is better.
@1951WheatiesPremium for example, if the disccusion for best LH pitcher ever comes up again, based on what you are saying with Koufax in regard to Kershaw, I would expect you to put Eddie Plank as better than Koufax.
Plank threw 4,449 IP in only 17 years. He had 410 complete games. His lifetime ERA was 2.35. He had 326 wins.
I saw your comment about players playing the game further away so I updated this question.
Plank retired and 38 years later Koufax started.
Koufax retired and 42 years later Kershaw started.
SO, does Plank absolutely blow Koufax out of the water in all the things you are saying?
Based on your premise, Koufax was soft. Look how much more durable and dominant Plank was.
@1951WheatiesPremium in addition to recognizing Plank as better than Koufax, and Koufax being soft since he could not match the IP and CG that Plank did,
At what point do you recognize Dodger stadium for helping Koufax throw CG and more IP and suppress runs easier? You keep putting his totals up and completely ignoring that.
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
Koufax himself could not throw as many complete games when just ONE of his factors helping him do so is removed from the equation.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with thinking Eddie Plank was better than both Koufax and Kershaw?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Have you seen the topic of best left handed pitcher ever debated? Koufax is typically the choice.
If you choose Plank, then the point doesn't apply to you. You answered, and I move on.
Lefty Grove is my answer
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Ok, that choice shows you do value eras and adjustments and context of run scoring environment.
It seems you have a little stricter definition toward Kershaw and most of it is in regard to his last seven years as a part time pitcher. I respect your point of view on that in regard to Kershaw. I disagree and no need to rehash, but I respect that viewpoint you are putting forth toward Kershaw. It is a little different than what is usually put forth.
I think you have a little disdain for the modern starting pitcher usage in general, and you aren't alone. The game has changed a lot in that regard. Some would say it isn't as fun without the workhorse matchups and they are probably right, but it doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.
Sarcasm or actual opinion?
That’s crazy talk, dude. Maybe Clayton Kershaw isn’t allowed to pitch (and basically, for a variety of reasons, he’s not and the ‘why’ of which is a separate topic). Most guys are still welcomed to go deep into ballgames as often as possible.
There are still no-no’s (and even perfect games) being recorded annually. Guys pitch complete games.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You do know we have gone to a 5 man starting rotation from a 4 man, yes? This means less starts and innings pitched.
I watch games all the time, have been since the mid 1960's. Generally speaking, top starters in the past were expected to pitch 8-9 innings. Now I see the starter pulled after 5-6 innings when leading regardless of how well he is pitching. This even includes guys pitching no hitters, something unheard of in the past. Then you get 3 different relief pitchers come in and pitch an inning and finally the closer comes in to start the ninth.
If you don't see that complete games are WAY down, I don't think there's any point to a rational discussion.
Complete games, not to many these days.
100% fair criticism.
Gerrit Cole has never once thrown 220 innings.
@1951WheatiesPremium seems to think that Innings Pitched and Complete Games are the most important things. I offer that Koufax is 8th in Dodgers history in Games Started, 11th in Innings Pitched, and 3rd in Shutouts. Incidentally, Koufax ranks behind his (almost) immediate successor Don Sutton in all three categories. I trust no one will make the argument that Sutton was better than Koufax, even if you consider the seven seasons he played elsewhere.
By the way, anyone who thinks that a Koufax, or a Clemens, Ryan, Spahn, Grove, Walter Johnson, Young, or a Pud Galvin would pitch even ten CG in a season today hasn't been watching baseball lately. Since Clemens retired there have been only two double digit CG seasons: Sabathia had 10 in 2008 and James Shields 11 in 2011. The last ten years Sandy Alcantara, Chris Sale, and, yes, Kershaw have had as many as six. Six. In 1966 53 pitchers pitched that many.
The reason Kershaw isn't throwing as many complete games can't possibly because he's never had a season as good as Dick Ellsworth in 1966.
Nothing about that statement is correct. That’s picking one minuscule point that no one said and arguing about it.
Seems like a familiar tact around here.
🤔
Making the below comments completely superfluous and points that aren’t relevant to a discussion of Kershaw, Koufax or Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever. It’s like a child who wanders into the room and tries to join a conversation the adults are having. Really.
If you have a question for me? Ask it.
Otherwise, let the men talk.
I offer that Koufax is 8th in Dodgers history in Games Started, 11th in Innings Pitched, and 3rd in Shutouts. Incidentally, Koufax ranks behind his (almost) immediate successor Don Sutton in all three categories. I trust no one will make the argument that Sutton was better than Koufax, even if you consider the seven seasons he played elsewhere.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
A typo; was supposed to say 200, which I have repeatedly said, along with 33 starts, is a modern day full season.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Would then, 40 starts and 250 innings be fair to say as a full season in the 1960's?
That was kind of going to be my next point too.
Koufax really only had four complete seasons by the standards of his times. He was close one other time (223 IP), but after that it was all partial/incomplete seasons.
Kershaw by his times standards had five complete seasons. He was close three other times.
@JoeBanzai
I’d have to look and see. I’m pretty well versed in current stats because I play fantasy baseball every year for the last 20.
Quick Reminder (so it doesn’t keep happening)
And again, please let’s not forget what’s being discussed here - a comparison of Kershaw and Koufax (and any other name who played for the team that is worthy) as to who was ‘Best Dodgers Pitcher Ever’.
If another name came up or comes up in discussion as a comparison or to illustrate a point, let’s not go into the nonsense of ‘Well, since you said this about this guy then that means that you must feel…”
That’s just a waste of time and seems to be a favored method here.
“Hey, you said you like the color red? Well, the Russian flag is red so you must be a commie!”
See how foolish that looks?
Pretty sure we’re all better than that.
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 think it's unfair to hold Kershaw to a standard that no longer applies and equally unfair to give Koufax credit for meeting today's standards while not meeting the standards he was expected in his era.
Koufax had 4 "full" seasons where he made at least 35 starts and pitched 250+ innings.
One of those years (1961) his ERA was a full run higher than the league leaders, although he led the league in strikeouts and finally started to walk less guys per inning.
Three dominant years. One above average.
In 1964 he missed 30% of his starts. He did pitch brilliantly, when he was able to play.
One great year.
In 1958, 1960 & 1962 he missed 35% of his starts. He was good in 1962, but did not receive any Cy Young votes.
One solid year, one average year and a below average year (1958).
1955, 1956, 1957 & 1959 were bad years.
Koufax had 3 dominant, 1 great, and 1 solid, 1 average He had 1 below average year and 4 bad years.
Kershaw had 6 seasons where he started at least 30 games and 2020 where he made enough starts in a shortened season to qualify as a full year.
7 full seasons, with 4 being dominant (side note, how does he not win the Cy Young award in 2012?).
4 dominant years and 3 very good ones. You could call 2020 dominant, but I didn't here.
Now we have 4 seasons where he made 80% of his starts. Not "full" seasons , but a 10-15 higher percentage of expected games started than Koufax's second tier.
Two dominant years and 2 very good ones.
Now we have 5 seasons that are at 65% of expected starts, right at the same % as Koufax's second tier. 2016, 2022 and 2023 were dominant, but let's drop it to very good because of him missing starts.
Three very good (great?) Seasons an average year, and a bad one (2008).
Years pitched;
Kershaw 16, Koufax 12.
Full seasons;
Kershaw 7, Koufax 4
80% of expected starts
Kershaw 4, koufax 0.
65% of expected starts.
Kershaw 5, Koufax 3.
33% of expected starts or less.
Koufax 4, Kershaw 0
Dominant seasons;
Kershaw 6, Koufax 3.
Great years;
Kershaw 3, Koufax 1
Very good years;
Kershaw 5, Koufax 2.
Average years;
Kershaw 1, Koufax 2.
Bad years;
Koufax 4, Kershaw 1.
Seems odd to me that Kershaw's getting the reputation as being "made of glass", he's made 80% or more of his starts 11 times.
Thoughts?
Sandy Koufax’s rookie season was 1955. The Dodgers won the World Series that year. He was a spot starter who also pitched out of the bullpen from 1955-57 (3 seasons). Over that three year span, he starts 28 games and pitches to a four ERA. In 1958, he becomes a full time starter. Some of that was in part because he was wild and needed further development and some was in part because more established veterans were present like Don Newcombe, Carl Erskine, Roger Craig, Clem Labine, etc. many of whom were on the title winning team and more tenured Dodgers at a time when that mattered more.
By contrast, the 2008 Dodgers 5 man staff features Chad Billingsly, Derek Lowe, Hiroka Kuroda, Brad Penny and Kershaw. And not as an insult but there’s no attempt to improve it the next season. Kershaw makes 20 starts his rookie season that year and posts a 4.25 ERA. The point? Through their first 20 starts they were both learning to pitch in the majors but had different paths to them.
And were once again pretty similar (in lots of ways, not just starts and ERA).
I don’t really have disdain for the modern era - I just like all eras of sports. I old enough to have seen a few eras in a few sports, now. When we go from one era to the next, we need to acknowledge our unspoken assumptions.
Here’s mine - I don’t believe that the guys we are seeing today are, by default, the best players of all time.
I hear that often and I believe that to be bunk.
Mainly because the moment people say that it closes their minds to possibilities. To keep it fun, let’s discuss…time travel!
When you take a player from now to the past, like say a Barry Bonds, why does he get to take his steroids and dietary regimen and training and his having played against a wider pool of talent with him? But then Babe Ruth will come forward as a hot dog eating drunken fat guy doing the Charleston who played against inferior talent?
Why?
Because many assume the players in front of them are ‘vastly superior’ so it then reinforces that point even further. And yet? Pitchers pitch fewer innings and batters hit for a lower average, two things that don’t really jive with clear cut improvement. At least not for me.
There are a million variables besides eras and ballparks. MLB has sometimes admitted (and other times not) to tinkering with the baseball, itself, and has permitted a varying array of approved bat materials over the years as just one example that can change statistics from year to year.
Its a 9 inning game and a lot has changed since they started playing over at Elysian Fields. A lot. And yet, some players endured because of reputation or statistics or championships or some combination of them. It is natural to compare the great ones.
Kershaw and Koufax are both all time great pitchers. And each in their own way but with lots and lots of similarities. Again, I don’t take issue with a pick of Kershaw. I do take issue with ‘Kershaw by a mile and it’s not even close’.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest