I don't think I said "by a mile" but I do feel Kershaw clearly has a better (and of course) longer career and I think most would agree.
Dominant is hard to define. Koufax certainly was pretty amazing for a couple of years, but his command was very bad for the first 6 years.
Unlike many here, I don't put as much emphasis on post season play.
Koufax was simply unbelievable in the 1965 WS against my Twins, he only lost a game because of errors made by his team mate(s). He was practically unhittable.
1965 and 1966 were two dominant seasons to end his career, but those years cannot erase his first 6 where he just couldn't throw strikes consistently.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I sort of responded to a lot of this in posts I was typing up as you were preparing to ask them.
I think it should, but rarely, goes both ways when we move players between eras. I explained more fully a few posts back.
Just a few other quicks things…
I don’t always put a huge emphasis on postseason play but when things are close it can be an additional factor. And if I’m being fair?
Koufax maybe benefits from small sample size and maybe even generous scoring, too. He pitches in 7 games and gives up 10 runs (6 earned). A total of 57 IP.
But Kershaw has 194 postseason innings which isn’t really a small sample and so that’s a little harder to explain away. And he’s two full runs worse as a pitcher in the postseason compared to the regular season. And his arms not tired because the Dodgers have rested him for the last seven years. And his “best” combined season and post season came in a season where he pitched the full season and the combined innings total for the season and playoffs was 70 and the year was 2020. Again, tough year to contextualize. No fans, etc.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Postseason Koufax;
1955 not deemed good enough to pitch.
1956 not deemed good enough to pitch.
1959 pitched once pitched well but lost.
1963 dominant, 2 complete game wins.
1965 dominant, wins 2 games, loses 1.
1966 not good, pitched 6 innings gave up 6 hits and 2 home runs.
Great 2 times.
Not very good 2 times.
Not good enough to pitch 2 times.
Some horrible years and an equal number of great years and a meh appearance in 1966.
Again, we ignore when he was bad and celebrate when he is great.
🤔
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@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.
Well it is a sad thing to see a man who has no answers to legitimate points brought up by another poster has to resort to ad hominem attacks.
I've said above that Kershaw is no doubt the best Dodger pitcher ever, and strongly implied that Vance is also better than Koufax but that an argument could be made otherwise.
So, OK, here is a question, then. If the argument for Koufax over Kershaw isn't that Kershaw has pitched fewer games per season and fewer innings per game than Koufax, or rather that because of this it is "very close" and Koufax' post-season play pushes him over the line, then what is it?
And, if @dallasactuary is still here, I'm curious as to why he thinks Fairly should have won the 1965 WS MVP over Koufax and if there is an instance of a player in a World Series with a cWPA over 70% who didn't win MVP.
Not to get too far in the weeds here, but cWPA is an estimate of what a pitcher or hitter has done towards a team winning a championship. 50% of this is reserved for the World Series, so the winning team will total 50% and the losing team will total -50%. So the rest of the Dodgers totaled -20.45% (actually -13.4% when you factor in Koufax' batting). For comparison, Dave Winfield's 1981 WS where he hit 1 for 22 and earned the nickname "Mr. May" was only worth -10.90% cWPA.
Tl;dr. To say that Koufax put the 1965 team on his back and carried them to the title is a gross understatement. It was almost certainly among the very best WS performances of all time.
@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.
Well it is a sad thing to see a man who has no answers to legitimate points brought up by another poster has to resort to ad hominem attacks.
I've said above that Kershaw is no doubt the best Dodger pitcher ever, and strongly implied that Vance is also better than Koufax but that an argument could be made otherwise.
So, OK, here is a question, then. If the argument for Koufax over Kershaw isn't that Kershaw has pitched fewer games per season and fewer innings per game than Koufax, or rather that because of this it is "very close" and Koufax' post-season play pushes him over the line, then what is it?
Oh, and apology accepted. LOL - I deserved that.
I’ve laid out my argument as to why I pick Koufax at length in this thread. In addition, I seem to be defending the position against 4 posters and some don’t read my posts or consider what I say, instead responding to minuscule tangent points and then expound upon them at length while also putting words in my mouth in the process. Some are oblivious to it and some just keep doing it.
Now…
Both players are flawed and most of the reasons cited for Kershaw come down to his extra seasons played. Over the course of the argument, I’ve often conceded the point for the sake of the argument.
But as I alluded to earlier, Joe DiMaggio also had a short career and there are players with great, HOF (longer) careers that I don’t think are ‘better players’ or even ‘better Yankees’. For example, Joe DiMaggio vs Mickey Mantle as best Yankees CF is also very close.
The reasons for Clayton Kershaw’s extra seasons come down to factors both on field and off including the existing Dodgers rosters, organizational goals, the era in which each player played and how players earned their money (and it’s impact on player and organizational decisions).
Part of the reason why stats are only a factor in evaluating players (for me) is they can be manipulated to suit any purpose. Especially when they are cherry picked or run through a meat grinder a few times to produce new data.
We have someone present a battery of selected Kershaw stats from the postseason and he looks good. We have someone else present a battery of selected Koufax stats from the postseason and he looks bad.
If you watched the games or look at the box scores of their games, it is hard to make those same claims.
We see posters celebrate the fact that Kershaw throws 80% of complete seasons in his eras and, in the same post, downplay the fact that Koufax pitches 330 IP seasons because ‘no one does that anymore’ and ‘everyone pitched that many innings back then’. In reality, there’s only about 6-7* players since 1954 that have pitched a 330+ inning season.
As I have pointed out consistently, these two all time great pitchers are incredibly similar players. You only need to read my posts to see why.
*I went fast, it’s possible I missed someone, so here’s the list…
@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?
I wanted to respond to some stuff randomly…
Oddly enough, I think the edge for the 2012 CY maybe came down to RA Dickey’s 5 CG and 3 shutouts.
I do appreciate the breakdown above. However, it has its own problems in the sense that (again) we’re penalizing Koufax for his shorter career. And giving no weight - or defense of - the 194 IP in the postseason. (Not a single pro-Kershaw poster has even addressed the postseason other than to dismiss it.)
As to the ‘made of glass’ criticism of Kershaw, I think the issue with Kershaw has been the reduced number of starts coupled with reduced innings per start. Without the shortened 2020 season included, he’s made 72% of his starts since 2016 (73% if you include 2020) and he also doesn’t pitch as deep into the game when he does take the hill.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium I posted only the(several) dominant Kershaw post series starts to refute the rationale that he wasn't capable of pitching in big games. If a man isn't capable of pitching in 'big games' then he would not have that many excellent series in the post season.
HIs high post season ERA is mostly the result of FOUR disaster post season starts. Four starts are really making it look worse than it is as he was dominant in many...and that is why small sample sizes are a bad method to make judgements on. Yes, 194 IP is still a small sample size in the MLB baseball world.
There is a lot of randomness in baseball and that is why batting titles aren't awarded in May and why players don't go to the Hall of Fame because of a single great season.
You brought up Dimaggio as an illustration of a short career, and say it is close between him and Mantle, but why are you not penalizing Joe Dimaggio for his World Series numbers and vaulting Mantle for his?
Dimaggio had a lifetime OPS of .760 in the World Series. His lifetime OPS was .970.
That is a stark difference and kind of looks like Kershaw's splits. Seems DiMaggio should be getting the same negative treatment Kershaw is(per post season performance).
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium I posted only the(several) dominant Kershaw post series starts to refute the rationale that he wasn't capable of pitching in big games. If a man isn't capable of pitching in 'big games' then he would not have that many excellent series in the post season.
HIs high post season ERA is mostly the result of FOUR disaster post season starts. Four starts are really making it look worse than it is as he was dominant in many...and that is why small sample sizes are a bad method to make judgements on. Yes, 194 IP is still a small sample size in the MLB baseball world.
There is a lot of randomness in baseball and that is why batting titles aren't awarded in May and why players don't go to the Hall of Fame because of a single great season.
You brought up Dimaggio as an illustration of a short career, and say it is close between him and Mantle, but why are you not penalizing Joe Dimaggio for his World Series numbers and vaulting Mantle for his?
Dimaggio had a lifetime OPS of .760 in the World Series. His lifetime OPS was .970.
That is a stark difference and kind of looks like Kershaw's splits. Seems DiMaggio should be getting the same negative treatment Kershaw is(per post season performance).
When evaluating these players, I’m weighing them against each other. Each case is unique and each evaluation is unique and I operate under the assumption that they’re two players being compared to one another, not the field.
But I’m a little different.
Just to give you an idea, I would give the edge to Mantle. And I would call it ‘close’. And you’re right that goes in contrast on some levels to how I felt about Kershaw and Koufax. That’s ok.
When Dazzy Vance and Don Drysdale came up, I went and looked them up and I would say both have a right to be included in the discussion, too.
Why?
Because it seems more and more apparent that everybody’s criteria for what constitutes the ‘best pitcher’ is a little different.
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?
I wanted to respond to some stuff randomly…
Oddly enough, I think the edge for the 2012 CY maybe came down to RA Dickey’s 5 CG and 3 shutouts.
In looking at the numbers, it looks like a bad decision to me.
>
I do appreciate the breakdown above. However, it has its own problems in the sense that (again) we’re penalizing Koufax for his shorter career. And giving no weight - or defense of - the 194 IP in the postseason. (Not a single pro-Kershaw poster has even addressed the postseason other than to dismiss it.)
Yes, we are penalizing him for a shorter career, he had a short career. No one is debating that he pitched better in the post season because it's a small fraction of his career. The post season is about winning and Sandy was 4-3, even though he didn't give up many runs, he was beaten by the opponents pitcher.
>
As to the ‘made of glass’ criticism of Kershaw, I think the issue with Kershaw has been the reduced number of starts coupled with reduced innings per start. Without the shortened 2020 season included, he’s made 72% of his starts since 2016 (73% if you include 2020) and he also doesn’t pitch as deep into the game when he does take the hill.
>
>
You keep insisting that Kershaw was "made of glass", I really don't see that as a criticism when comparing him to Koufax.
What's more "made of glass", a guy who can't pitch at all past the age of 30, or a guy who has a record of 56-22, an ERA of 2.81 and an ERA+ of 149 and (if he stays healthy this year) 3 full seasons, after the age of 30? He has missed some time, but Koufax didn't pitch at all after 30.
Koufax made more than 70% of his starts 4 times out of 12, Kershaw did it 11 times.
Being hurt while a negative is better than not being effective and/or hurt.
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.
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?
I wanted to respond to some stuff randomly…
Oddly enough, I think the edge for the 2012 CY maybe came down to RA Dickey’s 5 CG and 3 shutouts.
In looking at the numbers, it looks like a bad decision to me.
>
I do appreciate the breakdown above. However, it has its own problems in the sense that (again) we’re penalizing Koufax for his shorter career. And giving no weight - or defense of - the 194 IP in the postseason. (Not a single pro-Kershaw poster has even addressed the postseason other than to dismiss it.)
Yes, we are penalizing him for a shorter career, he had a short career. No one is debating that he pitched better in the post season because it's a small fraction of his career. The post season is about winning and Sandy was 4-3, even though he didn't give up many runs, he was beaten by the opponents pitcher.
>
As to the ‘made of glass’ criticism of Kershaw, I think the issue with Kershaw has been the reduced number of starts coupled with reduced innings per start. Without the shortened 2020 season included, he’s made 72% of his starts since 2016 (73% if you include 2020) and he also doesn’t pitch as deep into the game when he does take the hill.
>
>
You keep insisting that Kershaw was "made of glass", I really don't see that as a criticism when comparing him to Koufax.
What's more "made of glass", a guy who can't pitch at all past the age of 30, or a guy who has a record of 56-22, an ERA of 2.81 and an ERA+ of 149 and (if he stays healthy this year) 3 full seasons, after the age of 30? He has missed some time, but Koufax didn't pitch at all after 30.
Koufax made more than 70% of his starts 4 times out of 12, Kershaw did it 11 times.
Being hurt while a negative is better than not being effective and/or hurt.
My use of quotes was not ironic; I didn’t say it and was quoting someone else.
What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic.
And I believe everyone continues to ignore the factors outside of the stats that they put up that significantly impacted each players career on the field, so many of which majorly favor Clayton Kershaw.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @1951WheatiesPremium I posted only the(several) dominant Kershaw post series starts to refute the rationale that he wasn't capable of pitching in big games. If a man isn't capable of pitching in 'big games' then he would not have that many excellent series in the post season.
HIs high post season ERA is mostly the result of FOUR disaster post season starts. Four starts are really making it look worse than it is as he was dominant in many...and that is why small sample sizes are a bad method to make judgements on. Yes, 194 IP is still a small sample size in the MLB baseball world.
There is a lot of randomness in baseball and that is why batting titles aren't awarded in May and why players don't go to the Hall of Fame because of a single great season.
You brought up Dimaggio as an illustration of a short career, and say it is close between him and Mantle, but why are you not penalizing Joe Dimaggio for his World Series numbers and vaulting Mantle for his?
Dimaggio had a lifetime OPS of .760 in the World Series. His lifetime OPS was .970.
That is a stark difference and kind of looks like Kershaw's splits. Seems DiMaggio should be getting the same negative treatment Kershaw is(per post season performance).
When evaluating these players, I’m weighing them against each other. Each case is unique and each evaluation is unique and I operate under the assumption that they’re two players being compared to one another, not the field.
But I’m a little different.
Just to give you an idea, I would give the edge to Mantle. And I would call it ‘close’. And you’re right that goes in contrast on some levels to how I felt about Kershaw and Koufax. That’s ok.
When Dazzy Vance and Don Drysdale came up, I went and looked them up and I would say both have a right to be included in the discussion, too.
Why?
Because it seems more and more apparent that everybody’s criteria for what constitutes the ‘best pitcher’ is a little different.
The one aspect you haven't really touched on is Koufax's sudden departure from the game just at the point where he had reached the apex of his career. Seeing how 'offended' people get by considering Ted Williams missing war years, I would imagine that making any assumptions on Koufax going forward would be met with even more criticism by more people.
However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either.
"What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic."
2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 he made at least 80% of his starts, looks like he will again this year. He doesn't pitch a lot of innings, but that's not his fault.
Even if I would agree it's "problematic" it's better than non existent, which is what Koufax was able to do after age 30.
"However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either."
Koufax didn't get "cheated" out of anything, he couldn't continue to play. There's plenty of players (Tony Olivia comes to mind) that were dominant and got hurt then were either a lesser player or forced to retire. Koufax was unable to pitch, the Dodgers begged him not to retire, he was in too much pain to continue.
Huge difference in comparing this to Ted Williams, who missed time due to 2 wars. He hit well before and after each, so it's safe to assume he would have done well had he been able to play uninterrupted. Yes he might have gotten hurt.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
"What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic."
2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 he made at least 80% of his starts, looks like he will again this year. He doesn't pitch a lot of innings, but that's not his fault.
Even if I would agree it's "problematic" it's better than non existent, which is what Koufax was able to do after age 30.
"However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either."
Koufax didn't get "cheated" out of anything, he couldn't continue to play. There's plenty of players (Tony Olivia comes to mind) that were dominant and got hurt then were either a lesser player or forced to retire. Koufax was unable to pitch, the Dodgers begged him not to retire, he was in too much pain to continue.
Huge difference in comparing this to Ted Williams, who missed time due to 2 wars. He hit well before and after each, so it's safe to assume he would have done well had he been able to play uninterrupted. Yes he might have gotten hurt.
That’s not entirely correct. And again, no one seems to care.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium I believe many are defining how good someone is(Koufax), not based on a career value they provided to the sport, but their proven skill level. Injuries, while limiting the value a player, are not part of the equation on how good someone is. They are either 'X' good or not.
Think of Gale Sayers and Frank Gore. Yes I know Kershaw isn't Gore. I think if asked, that most football fans, players, and coaches would say that Gale Sayers was a better football player than Frank Gore. Injuries don't change that Sayers was a better football player. Gore may have played longer and provided more value to some theoretical team, but that doesn't necessarily make him better in the eyes of many, and I believe it is that lens that they look at Koufax.
Do not think of Bo Jackson. Bo Jackson is more of a 'what if' because he never established how good he was (in either sport) at the top level. He had potential to be great, but none of what he did was great on the baseball field at all, and what he did on the football was of such limited time that one cannot deduce how good that actually was. He simply did not do enough on the football field to establish how good he was or was not.
Koufax did establish how good he was. While his early learning curve is well documented and does diminish his career value to a team, he become amazing. He was amazing long enough to know that it was not a one year fluke. He was good enough to show how good he was for a several year run while doing it in a high amount of IP(yes high amount even for his time).
If you look at the Run Expectancy saved for the pitchers
Koufax best sessons were:
68.
60.5
56.2
45.7
Those were his last four years. That is how good he became. 68 was his final year. So is it really a matte of looking at his injury as saying, "you can't credit him for future performance," or is it looking at his injury and saying, "Four years of amazinginess and that represents how good of a pitcher Sandy Koufax had become, and I don't even need to look any further?"
Is someone wrong for thinking the latter, "Four years of amazinginess and that represents how good of a pitcher Sandy Koufax had become, and I don't even need to look any further," and then conclude that Koufax was better than Tom Glavine because when Glavine was at his proven best....
'
the best Glavine could do was 49.2, 44.7, 36.7, 35.6..
There is a big difference between Koufax and Glavine and how good they were. Am I wrong in sayiing that? Is four years enough to establish how good a player is?
If it is a matter of value to a theoretical team for 20 years, then Glavine is going to provide more than Koufax, but does that make him better than Koufax. If we wanted to get into that value question, then what is Glavine's value to a team when he is past his prime and getting paid a lot of money in the millions to just be average or below?
@JoeBanzai said:
"What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic."
2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 he made at least 80% of his starts, looks like he will again this year. He doesn't pitch a lot of innings, but that's not his fault.
Even if I would agree it's "problematic" it's better than non existent, which is what Koufax was able to do after age 30.
"However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either."
Koufax didn't get "cheated" out of anything, he couldn't continue to play. There's plenty of players (Tony Olivia comes to mind) that were dominant and got hurt then were either a lesser player or forced to retire. Koufax was unable to pitch, the Dodgers begged him not to retire, he was in too much pain to continue.
Huge difference in comparing this to Ted Williams, who missed time due to 2 wars. He hit well before and after each, so it's safe to assume he would have done well had he been able to play uninterrupted. Yes he might have gotten hurt.
That’s not entirely correct. And again, no one seems to care.
I care. What's not correct? I do (rarely😁) make mistakes.
I have the utmost respect for Sandy Koufax, when he was "on", he was one of the best of all time.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
"What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic."
2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 he made at least 80% of his starts, looks like he will again this year. He doesn't pitch a lot of innings, but that's not his fault.
Even if I would agree it's "problematic" it's better than non existent, which is what Koufax was able to do after age 30.
"However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either."
Koufax didn't get "cheated" out of anything, he couldn't continue to play. There's plenty of players (Tony Olivia comes to mind) that were dominant and got hurt then were either a lesser player or forced to retire. Koufax was unable to pitch, the Dodgers begged him not to retire, he was in too much pain to continue.
Huge difference in comparing this to Ted Williams, who missed time due to 2 wars. He hit well before and after each, so it's safe to assume he would have done well had he been able to play uninterrupted. Yes he might have gotten hurt.
That’s not entirely correct. And again, no one seems to care.
I care. What's not correct? I do (rarely😁) make mistakes.
I have the utmost respect for Sandy Koufax, when he was "on", he was one of the best of all time.
Sandy’s a class act so he never says anything. But you can verify this story…it doesn’t come up because he continues to say ‘his arm’.
First, at the beginning of his career he is signed as a ‘Bonus Baby’ and the rules dictate that he can’t pitch anywhere but in the Major Leagues and for the Brooklyn Dodgers. So, he pitched out of the bullpen as a means of keeping him, so great was his talent. But they were also attempting to win so they couldn’t just let him start every fourth or fifth day, either. And as I mentioned earlier, neither Kershaw or Koufax is amazing during there first 20 starts. Kershaw’s come in one rookie season, Koufax in parts of three seasons from 1955-57.
Then there’s the end of his career. In 1962, Sandy Koufax is diagnosed with his injury. It is the injury that forces him to retire. His doctors told him to retire after the 1964 season. He plays another - posting arguably the best totals of his career. However, he and Don Drysdale are both free agents at the end of the ‘65 season and they are operating under the reserve clause so they can’t negotiate with anyone but the Dodgers. But being good friends, they decide to ask for a raise - together. They ask for a combined $1,000,000 to pitch three more years each, with something like a 55-45 split of the money. They hold out and get sort of vilified in the press for doing so (again, different times but it was largely in stories leaked to the press by the Dodgers so not so different) and ultimately, Koufax gets $125,000 for one year and Drysdale gets $110,000. In addition, Koufax (it is rumored) was told he might have to take a pay cut in 1967 and the damage is officially done; Koufax walks away in disgust, cites his arm and the hats it. The Dodgers begged him to come back…for $100,000. And had they offered $140-150,000 then he probably pitches in 1967 and then again in 1968, along the lines of the original three more years that he wanted to pitch.
This, in contrast to Clayton Kershaw who had a spot carved out for him in the rotation early on and as he has aged has been paid more money each year and been asked to pitch less each year. And again, it’s the modern game - I get it.
But goodness, what a difference!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Did you know that the Dodgers also signed Roberto Clemente to a bonus baby contact and tried to hide him in the minors?
The Pirates were able to acquire him that way.
I have said that the "bonus rule" was bad for Killebrew, I think it robbed him of at least 2 years of at bats while he sat on the bench in the majors.
The difference here is, the Senators/Nationals were a last place club, it wouldn't have hurt them to let Harmon play......even if he wasn't ready.
Koufax wasn't ready either, and not pitching for those first two years was a waste.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Killebrew was a "bonus baby" too.
Did you know that the Dodgers also signed Roberto Clemente to a bonus baby contact and tried to hide him in the minors?
The Pirates were able to acquire him that way.
I have said that the "bonus rule" was bad for Killebrew, I think it robbed him of at least 2 years of at bats while he sat on the bench in the majors.
The difference here is, the Senators/Nationals were a last place club, it wouldn't have hurt them to let Harmon play......even if he wasn't ready.
Koufax wasn't ready either, and not pitching for those first two years was a waste.
It’s his first three years, really. He makes 28 starts from 1955-57 and also appears out of the bullpen 40 times in that span, and usually in long relief.
He is 19, 20 and 21 years old during those seasons.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
The one aspect you haven't really touched on is Koufax's sudden departure from the game just at the point where he had reached the apex of his career. Seeing how 'offended' people get by considering Ted Williams missing war years, I would imagine that making any assumptions on Koufax going forward would be met with even more criticism by more people.
However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either.
Doesn't wash. From 1943-5 and 1952-3 Williams was one of the best left fielders on the planet. I'd say the best, but I don't want any disagreement on this point. From no fault of his own, he wasn't able to use his talent in the major leagues. Whether Koufax was physically unable to play at a high enough level or unwilling to play for what the Dodgers were willing to pay him, in 1967 Koufax was not one of the best pitchers on the planet who wasn't playing in the major leagues through no fault of his own.
The one aspect you haven't really touched on is Koufax's sudden departure from the game just at the point where he had reached the apex of his career. Seeing how 'offended' people get by considering Ted Williams missing war years, I would imagine that making any assumptions on Koufax going forward would be met with even more criticism by more people.
However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either.
Doesn't wash. From 1943-5 and 1952-3 Williams was one of the best left fielders on the planet. I'd say the best, but I don't want any disagreement on this point. From no fault of his own, he wasn't able to use his talent in the major leagues. Whether Koufax was physically unable to play at a high enough level or unwilling to play for what the Dodgers were willing to pay him, in 1967 Koufax was not one of the best pitchers on the planet who wasn't playing in the major leagues through no fault of his own.
Absolutely correct!
I think everyone here agrees that Koufax was very, very good after he stopped walking so many batters and he was healthy.
What confuses me, is people completely ignore the first 6 seasons where he was an average pitcher. It's also confusing that a Koufax supporter would bring up Kershaw's injury problems, when Sandy was the guy who was only able to pitch 4 full seasons for his entire career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
This gets into the argument as which is better. Is a guy who was really good for many years have it over a player who burned like a Roman candle for a few years.
There was a period in the early 1960s when Koufax was almost unhitable. Mickey Mantle summed it up during the 1963 World Series when he said, "How are you supposed to hit this s***.
Kershaw had the longer career. Koufax was incredible for a shorter period of time. I always go with the guys are were good for many years. So I guess you have to say Kershaw.
I'd give Warren Spahn over both of them. People like to dump on Spahn because his lifetime won - loss record was 363 - 245. An ERA of 3.00 is considered to be good for a season. Spahn's lifetime ERA was 3.09.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@dallasactuary said:
I was joking, but you were serious. You really are placing 100% weight on WS performance and 0% weight on everything else.
So would that mean that Griffey is not really the Player of the 90s? I remember him saying how envious he was of his dad's three WS rings (75, 76, 90) and how he hoped to get at least one of his own. Sadly and VERY surprisingly seeing as how Seattle had some very fine teams in the 90s...Griffey never got to make the World Series at all.
Such an odd argument to criticize Kershaw for pitching less than 33 games a season in his 30s when Koufax pitched one season total in his 30s. Basically, Koufax was great his last 5 years (ages 26-30) and sucked before that. In those 5 seasons, Koufax only pitched a full season 3 times, then he never pitched again. Koufax didn't even start 30+ games in a season until he was 25 and only did it 4 times.
Kershaw sucked his rookie season and has been basically great every year since.
Comparing innings pitched in a season, total starts, etc. is nonsense because modern pitchers are simply not permitted to pitch like they did in the 50s & 60s when Koufax was playing. There is no evidence that Kershaw would not have been able to start 40+ games a season in his 20s like Koufax did or pitch 300+ innings if he were allowed (Koufax did each of those only 3 times). Kershaw lead the league in starts twice, innings pitched once, complete games twice, and shutouts three times. The totals are smaller than what happened in the 50s and 60s because modern day managers don't allow pitchers to stay late in games, throw more than 100 pitches, etc.
In the end, Koufax was amazing for 5 seasons, and was great in the postseason (though he did only have a 4-3 WL record when push comes to shove). I just don't think that compares to the full career of Kershaw. I think there is just a lot of nostalgia around Koufax and how dominant he was for a short period of time. Since he quit before his old man years, people are left with a feeling of what could have been if he continued to pitch. Folks never had to see what a declining Koufax would have looked like on the mound since he stopped pitching while still in his prime. People can give all the backstory and excuses they want for Koufax but the fact is he never pitched after age 30.
@dallasactuary said:
I was joking, but you were serious. You really are placing 100% weight on WS performance and 0% weight on everything else.
So would that mean that Griffey is not really the Player of the 90s? I remember him saying how envious he was of his dad's three WS rings (75, 76, 90) and how he hoped to get at least one of his own. Sadly and VERY surprisingly seeing as how Seattle had some very fine teams in the 90s...Griffey never got to make the World Series at all.
Well, not to go off topic here, but Bonds was much better than Griffey in the '90s. Can make a case for Clemens and Maddux for second place.
@stevek said:
Easy call because Koufax was the best pitcher ever.
Sandy Koufax benefits from playing in the best pitcher's park in the best era for pitching in history. That's not to say that his 1963 and 1966 weren't elite, because they were, but Wilbur Wood's 1971 and 1972 were better, for example. 1964 and 1965 were very good, though not nearly as good as the best seasons of guys like Dean Chance or Dick Ellsworth. 1961 and 1962 were good seasons, but nothing special. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2022 Yu Darvish and Brady Singer in 1962, and better in 1961, but not really as good as Max Fried was last year. Before 1961 he was very, very pedestrian, and, of course, he was literally nothing after 1966.
As I see it, the argument for Koufax rests on two prongs. 1) that he had a very high peak and 2) that if he'd been able to pitch after his very serious injury he would have accumulated the numbers to make him great. To me this is essentially the same argument as the one for Thurman Munson except 1) he was actually a good player in the first half of his career and 2) his injury was much more extreme.
Tl;dr. Koufax was great, but for a very short time. I don't understand the argument for putting him in the HoF when Munson isn't even seriously considered.
@stevek said:
Easy call because Koufax was the best pitcher ever.
So why was he so very average outside of Dodger Stadium? Sandy started 5+ games in 13 parks other than Chavez Ravine. In 6 of them, he had an ERA over 3.50. Of the remaining 7, 2 of them were the expansion teams. So, against non-expansion teams, more than half the time, he was over 3.50 in an era when there were seasons where the entire league was below 3.50.
@stevek said:
Easy call because Koufax was the best pitcher ever.
Sandy Koufax benefits from playing in the best pitcher's park in the best era for pitching in history. That's not to say that his 1963 and 1966 weren't elite, because they were, but Wilbur Wood's 1971 and 1972 were better, for example. 1964 and 1965 were very good, though not nearly as good as the best seasons of guys like Dean Chance or Dick Ellsworth. 1961 and 1962 were good seasons, but nothing special. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2022 Yu Darvish and Brady Singer in 1962, and better in 1961, but not really as good as Max Fried was last year. Before 1961 he was very, very pedestrian, and, of course, he was literally nothing after 1966.
As I see it, the argument for Koufax rests on two prongs. 1) that he had a very high peak and 2) that if he'd been able to pitch after his very serious injury he would have accumulated the numbers to make him great. To me this is essentially the same argument as the one for Thurman Munson except 1) he was actually a good player in the first half of his career and 2) his injury was much more extreme.
Tl;dr. Koufax was great, but for a very short time. I don't understand the argument for putting him in the HoF when Munson isn't even seriously considered.
>
>
Pasted: With two words censored
Led by Koufax and Don Drysdale, the Dodgers made it to the 1963 World Series against the New York Yankees. Koufax pitched the first game. The scouting report on Mickey Mantle read, “Do not throw him a curveball. He’ll crush it.” In the first inning, Koufax struck out Mantle throwing nothing but fastballs. On Mantle’s second plate appearance, Koufax threw two quick fastball strikes. Dodgers catcher John Roseboro signaled for another heater but Koufax shook him off. He wanted to try his curveball on Mantle, despite the warning. Koufax threw the curve and at the last second the bottom came out of the pitch. Mantle flinched and the umpire called “strike three.” Mantle hesitated, turned to Roseboro and said, “How the F is anybody supposed to hit that S?” The Dodgers went on to win the Series in four games with Koufax winning two.
When a pitcher can get Mickey Mantle to say something like this, to me that's greatness. 😊
@stevek said:
Easy call because Koufax was the best pitcher ever.
So why was he so very average outside of Dodger Stadium? Sandy started 5+ games in 13 parks other than Chavez Ravine. In 6 of them, he had an ERA over 3.50. Of the remaining 7, 2 of them were the expansion teams. So, against non-expansion teams, more than half the time, he was over 3.50 in an era when there were seasons where the entire league was below 3.50.
Nitpick all ya want, even with facts, and that's fine.
I fully realize that some have more lifetime wins than Koufax, longer careers, etc. But in my view the criteria regarding greatness for pitchers is different than for hitters. Pitchers generally because of arm problems, have shorter careers than hitters.
More power to those pitchers like Cy Young. However if I'm a manager, and had to win one key game or a World Series, I'm taking Sandy Koufax. To me that's a pitching GOAT when combining it with many other Koufax achievements.
@dallasactuary said:
I was joking, but you were serious. You really are placing 100% weight on WS performance and 0% weight on everything else.
So would that mean that Griffey is not really the Player of the 90s? I remember him saying how envious he was of his dad's three WS rings (75, 76, 90) and how he hoped to get at least one of his own. Sadly and VERY surprisingly seeing as how Seattle had some very fine teams in the 90s...Griffey never got to make the World Series at all.
Well, not to go off topic here, but Bonds was much better than Griffey in the '90s. Can make a case for Clemens and Maddux for second place.
Griffey was a much friendlier and likeable guy and was always at or near the top of Beckett's Hot List back in the day. And Barry only appeared in one WS (2002). Also I could've sworn he once went on record as saying "A World Series ring doesn't feed my family".
You know sometimes I wonder if Barry sometimes lays in bed at night and wonders if all that attitude and all that selfish cheating he did...was it really worth it? Was it worth losing his HOF plaque and having his 756* ball in Cooperstown with a giant asterisk stamped on it?
@Estil said:
And Barry only appeared in one WS (2002) and he sucked!
You have a weird definition of "sucked". 4 homers in 7 games, a .700 OBP, and 1.994 OPS. Imagine what he could have done if he'd played even decently instead of sucking!
@Estil said:
And Barry only appeared in one WS (2002) and he sucked!
You have a weird definition of "sucked". 4 homers in 7 games, a .700 OBP, and 1.994 OPS. Imagine what he could have done if he'd played even decently instead of sucking!
I guess I stand corrected! I guess I was thinking more along the lines of his 1990-92 NLCS performances...
@Estil said:
And Barry only appeared in one WS (2002) and he sucked!
You have a weird definition of "sucked". 4 homers in 7 games, a .700 OBP, and 1.994 OPS. Imagine what he could have done if he'd played even decently instead of sucking!
I guess I stand corrected! I guess I was thinking more along the lines of his 1990-92 NLCS performances...
Yeah, the narrative before 2002 was that he was a choker. 2002, with his 8 homers in 17 games, turned all that around.
@Estil said:
And Barry only appeared in one WS (2002) and he sucked!
You have a weird definition of "sucked". 4 homers in 7 games, a .700 OBP, and 1.994 OPS. Imagine what he could have done if he'd played even decently instead of sucking!
I guess I stand corrected! I guess I was thinking more along the lines of his 1990-92 NLCS performances...
When it comes to Bonds and choking that is one example I won't defend small sample sizes. When Bonds and his puss arm failed to throw out Sid Bream in the LCS that year, it was all on Bonds.
Van Slyke was trying to reposition Bonds before that play and Bonds told him to "F Off." Had Bonds listened to Van Slyke, then even with his puss filled arm he would have thrown Bream out at the plate.
When it comes to Bonds and choking that is one example I won't defend small sample sizes. When Bonds and his puss arm failed to throw out Sid Bream in the LCS that year, it was all on Bonds.
Van Slyke was trying to reposition Bonds before that play and Bonds told him to "F Off." Had Bonds listened to Van Slyke, then even with his puss filled arm he would have thrown Bream out at the plate.
Oh yes, Andy Van Slyke, the real leader of the Buccaneers! And sadly for Pittsburgh, after just barely missing making the World Series twice and winning the division thrice, they would go twenty years without so much as a winning record. Was that 'tude of Barry's worth it? Honestly how does the man live with himself knowing how mean and cruel he was and how he stole the HR record and is now an outcast and a big joke to baseball and its fans. I do wonder if he's getting or will get regrets for all this...
This question really boils down to what folks want to believe... I like Koufax and he will always have that legendary status but that status has limitations based in reality. And reality is an going proposition based on the past, present and future. It is never easy to compare the past to the present. And to be blunt... I am not a fan of the comparisons. In this instance legends will remain legends. However, Koufax had the benefit of having a terrific team to support him in the the 1956-60 period.
Few pitchers have had that benefit of the having the offensive power of the Brooklyn Dodgers line up. And those pitchers who were great are not even reduced to a footnote in MLB history. So NO Koufax is not the greatest Dodgers pitcher and his legacy diminishes others that are deserving of our respect.
I like Leo Durocher and he knows baseball...He really knows Baseball and I respect him despite the 1969 Cubs season. I just do not think his commentary is relevant- what did he say about "Dutch " Leonard? We know what Jackie Robinson said...
And "Dutch" Leonard is barely a footnote in MLB history which is simply unacceptable.
So my point is simple... Koufax has achieved legendary status but that status should NOT come at the expense of those that will be easily forgotten. And we really have a greater obligation in preserving what matters. MLB history should not be reduced to a selected few.
Take a moment and revisit my earlier thread - I will suggest and argue that Camilo Pascual would be in the HOF today if he he had the luxury of pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers instead of the Washington Senators in that same 1956-60 period that Koufax had. To just ignore the benefit that Koufax had in terms of having an offensive line up that was a powerhouse during the years he struggled is simply why he was not the best. Period.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
I will suggest and argue that Camilo Pascual would be in the HOF today if he he had the luxury of pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers instead of the Washington Senators in that same 1956-60 period that Koufax had.
You think a guy with a 103 ERA+ would be in the HOF if he'd played for a better team?
@coinkat said:
I will suggest and argue that Camilo Pascual would be in the HOF today if he he had the luxury of pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers instead of the Washington Senators in that same 1956-60 period that Koufax had.
You think a guy with a 103 ERA+ would be in the HOF if he'd played for a better team?
Very, very good pitcher from 1958-64. Even better if you narrow it to 61-64. Lots of strikeouts, complete games and shutouts during that period.
Injured back in 1965, never was the same after that.
Senators and early Twins teams were pretty bad.
We could have used a healthy Pasqual against the Dodgers in 1965!
HOF might be a stretch, but he was great for a few years!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Pascual was 53-77 from 1955-1960- pitching for the Senators- Koufax was 36-40 pitching for the Dodgers. Pascual's stats would be vastly different had pitched for Brooklyn.
Read what Ted Williams thought about Pascual as a pitcher-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
If you remove Pascual's seasons from 1956-60 with the Senators and place him in the starting rotation for Brooklyn - he would be in the HOF.
He had a 5.87 ERA in 1956. He'd have been lucky to see the field at all for Brooklyn that year.
Pascual had a good career but, no, he's not a HOFer for Brooklyn or the Yankees.
@coinkat said:
I will suggest and argue that Camilo Pascual would be in the HOF today if he he had the luxury of pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers instead of the Washington Senators in that same 1956-60 period that Koufax had.
You think a guy with a 103 ERA+ would be in the HOF if he'd played for a better team?
Very, very good pitcher from 1958-64. Even better if you narrow it to 61-64. Lots of strikeouts, complete games and shutouts during that period.
Seems like an all-or-nothing guy at times. In 1961, he led the league with 8 shutouts in 33 starts. But he also allowed 4+ runs 19 times.
@coinkat said:
I will suggest and argue that Camilo Pascual would be in the HOF today if he he had the luxury of pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers instead of the Washington Senators in that same 1956-60 period that Koufax had.
You think a guy with a 103 ERA+ would be in the HOF if he'd played for a better team?
Very, very good pitcher from 1958-64. Even better if you narrow it to 61-64. Lots of strikeouts, complete games and shutouts during that period.
Seems like an all-or-nothing guy at times. In 1961, he led the league with 8 shutouts in 33 starts. But he also allowed 4+ runs 19 times.
Great stuff, apparently had a tremendous curve ball and great heater.
I think he was the first Cuban pitcher to win 20 games.
Just no way you can consider him a HOFer unless he would have not gotten hurt and if he pitched several more years at his 1961-64 level.
Griffith Stadium was one of the biggest parks if I am not mistaken, so he wasn't that great despite the big stadium
He was bad in 1956, but he got better each year until a very good 1959.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
@daltex
As I re-read my above post, I mean every word of the content but I was also incredibly rude in the process of delivering it.
I could obviously go delete it but I think a man should stand behind his words and be accountable for them.
So, I apologize to you for being incredibly rude and will make sure not to do so again.
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 think I said "by a mile" but I do feel Kershaw clearly has a better (and of course) longer career and I think most would agree.
Dominant is hard to define. Koufax certainly was pretty amazing for a couple of years, but his command was very bad for the first 6 years.
Unlike many here, I don't put as much emphasis on post season play.
Koufax was simply unbelievable in the 1965 WS against my Twins, he only lost a game because of errors made by his team mate(s). He was practically unhittable.
1965 and 1966 were two dominant seasons to end his career, but those years cannot erase his first 6 where he just couldn't throw strikes consistently.
@JoeBanzai
I sort of responded to a lot of this in posts I was typing up as you were preparing to ask them.
I think it should, but rarely, goes both ways when we move players between eras. I explained more fully a few posts back.
Just a few other quicks things…
I don’t always put a huge emphasis on postseason play but when things are close it can be an additional factor. And if I’m being fair?
Koufax maybe benefits from small sample size and maybe even generous scoring, too. He pitches in 7 games and gives up 10 runs (6 earned). A total of 57 IP.
But Kershaw has 194 postseason innings which isn’t really a small sample and so that’s a little harder to explain away. And he’s two full runs worse as a pitcher in the postseason compared to the regular season. And his arms not tired because the Dodgers have rested him for the last seven years. And his “best” combined season and post season came in a season where he pitched the full season and the combined innings total for the season and playoffs was 70 and the year was 2020. Again, tough year to contextualize. No fans, etc.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Postseason Koufax;
1955 not deemed good enough to pitch.
1956 not deemed good enough to pitch.
1959 pitched once pitched well but lost.
1963 dominant, 2 complete game wins.
1965 dominant, wins 2 games, loses 1.
1966 not good, pitched 6 innings gave up 6 hits and 2 home runs.
Great 2 times.
Not very good 2 times.
Not good enough to pitch 2 times.
Some horrible years and an equal number of great years and a meh appearance in 1966.
Again, we ignore when he was bad and celebrate when he is great.
🤔
Sandy pitched twice in 1959, once in relief. 2 innings of perfect relief, 7 innings with 1 ER in his only start.
Sandy gave up 4 hits in 6 IP in 1966, allowing 0 homers and 1 ER.
He allowed just 2 homers in his 57 postseason IP, both in 1963.
His highest ERA in any postseason was 1.50, the aforementioned 1966. Heck his highest ERA in any postseason game was 2.00.
Well it is a sad thing to see a man who has no answers to legitimate points brought up by another poster has to resort to ad hominem attacks.
I've said above that Kershaw is no doubt the best Dodger pitcher ever, and strongly implied that Vance is also better than Koufax but that an argument could be made otherwise.
So, OK, here is a question, then. If the argument for Koufax over Kershaw isn't that Kershaw has pitched fewer games per season and fewer innings per game than Koufax, or rather that because of this it is "very close" and Koufax' post-season play pushes him over the line, then what is it?
Oh, and apology accepted.
And, if @dallasactuary is still here, I'm curious as to why he thinks Fairly should have won the 1965 WS MVP over Koufax and if there is an instance of a player in a World Series with a cWPA over 70% who didn't win MVP.
Not to get too far in the weeds here, but cWPA is an estimate of what a pitcher or hitter has done towards a team winning a championship. 50% of this is reserved for the World Series, so the winning team will total 50% and the losing team will total -50%. So the rest of the Dodgers totaled -20.45% (actually -13.4% when you factor in Koufax' batting). For comparison, Dave Winfield's 1981 WS where he hit 1 for 22 and earned the nickname "Mr. May" was only worth -10.90% cWPA.
Tl;dr. To say that Koufax put the 1965 team on his back and carried them to the title is a gross understatement. It was almost certainly among the very best WS performances of all time.
I’ve laid out my argument as to why I pick Koufax at length in this thread. In addition, I seem to be defending the position against 4 posters and some don’t read my posts or consider what I say, instead responding to minuscule tangent points and then expound upon them at length while also putting words in my mouth in the process. Some are oblivious to it and some just keep doing it.
Now…
Both players are flawed and most of the reasons cited for Kershaw come down to his extra seasons played. Over the course of the argument, I’ve often conceded the point for the sake of the argument.
But as I alluded to earlier, Joe DiMaggio also had a short career and there are players with great, HOF (longer) careers that I don’t think are ‘better players’ or even ‘better Yankees’. For example, Joe DiMaggio vs Mickey Mantle as best Yankees CF is also very close.
The reasons for Clayton Kershaw’s extra seasons come down to factors both on field and off including the existing Dodgers rosters, organizational goals, the era in which each player played and how players earned their money (and it’s impact on player and organizational decisions).
Part of the reason why stats are only a factor in evaluating players (for me) is they can be manipulated to suit any purpose. Especially when they are cherry picked or run through a meat grinder a few times to produce new data.
We have someone present a battery of selected Kershaw stats from the postseason and he looks good. We have someone else present a battery of selected Koufax stats from the postseason and he looks bad.
If you watched the games or look at the box scores of their games, it is hard to make those same claims.
We see posters celebrate the fact that Kershaw throws 80% of complete seasons in his eras and, in the same post, downplay the fact that Koufax pitches 330 IP seasons because ‘no one does that anymore’ and ‘everyone pitched that many innings back then’. In reality, there’s only about 6-7* players since 1954 that have pitched a 330+ inning season.
As I have pointed out consistently, these two all time great pitchers are incredibly similar players. You only need to read my posts to see why.
*I went fast, it’s possible I missed someone, so here’s the list…
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_season.shtml
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
We’re now knocking down Sandy Koufax’s postseason record?!?!!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@JoeBanzai
I wanted to respond to some stuff randomly…
Oddly enough, I think the edge for the 2012 CY maybe came down to RA Dickey’s 5 CG and 3 shutouts.
I do appreciate the breakdown above. However, it has its own problems in the sense that (again) we’re penalizing Koufax for his shorter career. And giving no weight - or defense of - the 194 IP in the postseason. (Not a single pro-Kershaw poster has even addressed the postseason other than to dismiss it.)
As to the ‘made of glass’ criticism of Kershaw, I think the issue with Kershaw has been the reduced number of starts coupled with reduced innings per start. Without the shortened 2020 season included, he’s made 72% of his starts since 2016 (73% if you include 2020) and he also doesn’t pitch as deep into the game when he does take the hill.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
My apologies on the 2 HR I said he gave up in 1966. I read it wrong.
My point still remains that the claim is being made that he was so good in the post season, that it elevates him by a lot in this comparison.
His ERA is terrific, unfortunately he was out pitched in his 1959 start, over a light hitting White Sox team, by Bob Shaw. He lost the game.
He lost to the great Jim Palmer in 1966.
His ERA was very good in the WS, however, he was out pitched 3 times while out pitching the opponent 4 times.
Twice he wasn't allowed to pitch, so those two times he was not good.
I was trying to point out that, similar to his regular season, he was not a great pitcher in the first 1/3-1/2 of his career.
Again, apologies for the incorrect information on the HRs given up in 1966.
@1951WheatiesPremium I posted only the(several) dominant Kershaw post series starts to refute the rationale that he wasn't capable of pitching in big games. If a man isn't capable of pitching in 'big games' then he would not have that many excellent series in the post season.
HIs high post season ERA is mostly the result of FOUR disaster post season starts. Four starts are really making it look worse than it is as he was dominant in many...and that is why small sample sizes are a bad method to make judgements on. Yes, 194 IP is still a small sample size in the MLB baseball world.
There is a lot of randomness in baseball and that is why batting titles aren't awarded in May and why players don't go to the Hall of Fame because of a single great season.
You brought up Dimaggio as an illustration of a short career, and say it is close between him and Mantle, but why are you not penalizing Joe Dimaggio for his World Series numbers and vaulting Mantle for his?
Dimaggio had a lifetime OPS of .760 in the World Series. His lifetime OPS was .970.
That is a stark difference and kind of looks like Kershaw's splits. Seems DiMaggio should be getting the same negative treatment Kershaw is(per post season performance).
When evaluating these players, I’m weighing them against each other. Each case is unique and each evaluation is unique and I operate under the assumption that they’re two players being compared to one another, not the field.
But I’m a little different.
Just to give you an idea, I would give the edge to Mantle. And I would call it ‘close’. And you’re right that goes in contrast on some levels to how I felt about Kershaw and Koufax. That’s ok.
When Dazzy Vance and Don Drysdale came up, I went and looked them up and I would say both have a right to be included in the discussion, too.
Why?
Because it seems more and more apparent that everybody’s criteria for what constitutes the ‘best pitcher’ is a little different.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In looking at the numbers, it looks like a bad decision to me.
>
Yes, we are penalizing him for a shorter career, he had a short career. No one is debating that he pitched better in the post season because it's a small fraction of his career. The post season is about winning and Sandy was 4-3, even though he didn't give up many runs, he was beaten by the opponents pitcher.
>
>
>
You keep insisting that Kershaw was "made of glass", I really don't see that as a criticism when comparing him to Koufax.
What's more "made of glass", a guy who can't pitch at all past the age of 30, or a guy who has a record of 56-22, an ERA of 2.81 and an ERA+ of 149 and (if he stays healthy this year) 3 full seasons, after the age of 30? He has missed some time, but Koufax didn't pitch at all after 30.
Koufax made more than 70% of his starts 4 times out of 12, Kershaw did it 11 times.
Being hurt while a negative is better than not being effective and/or hurt.
My use of quotes was not ironic; I didn’t say it and was quoting someone else.
What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic.
And I believe everyone continues to ignore the factors outside of the stats that they put up that significantly impacted each players career on the field, so many of which majorly favor Clayton 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
The one aspect you haven't really touched on is Koufax's sudden departure from the game just at the point where he had reached the apex of his career. Seeing how 'offended' people get by considering Ted Williams missing war years, I would imagine that making any assumptions on Koufax going forward would be met with even more criticism by more people.
However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either.
"What I have pointed out is that over the last seven to eight years, his start totals and innings pitched are problematic."
2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 he made at least 80% of his starts, looks like he will again this year. He doesn't pitch a lot of innings, but that's not his fault.
Even if I would agree it's "problematic" it's better than non existent, which is what Koufax was able to do after age 30.
"However, it is hard to ignore that Koufax basically got cheated out of what could have been another three or four dominant years that would have made this a completely different discussion. I think a lot of people are intuitively putting this viewpoint into why they believe Koufax was better. I can't fault them for doing that either."
Koufax didn't get "cheated" out of anything, he couldn't continue to play. There's plenty of players (Tony Olivia comes to mind) that were dominant and got hurt then were either a lesser player or forced to retire. Koufax was unable to pitch, the Dodgers begged him not to retire, he was in too much pain to continue.
Huge difference in comparing this to Ted Williams, who missed time due to 2 wars. He hit well before and after each, so it's safe to assume he would have done well had he been able to play uninterrupted. Yes he might have gotten hurt.
That’s not entirely correct. And again, no one seems to care.
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 I believe many are defining how good someone is(Koufax), not based on a career value they provided to the sport, but their proven skill level. Injuries, while limiting the value a player, are not part of the equation on how good someone is. They are either 'X' good or not.
Think of Gale Sayers and Frank Gore. Yes I know Kershaw isn't Gore. I think if asked, that most football fans, players, and coaches would say that Gale Sayers was a better football player than Frank Gore. Injuries don't change that Sayers was a better football player. Gore may have played longer and provided more value to some theoretical team, but that doesn't necessarily make him better in the eyes of many, and I believe it is that lens that they look at Koufax.
Do not think of Bo Jackson. Bo Jackson is more of a 'what if' because he never established how good he was (in either sport) at the top level. He had potential to be great, but none of what he did was great on the baseball field at all, and what he did on the football was of such limited time that one cannot deduce how good that actually was. He simply did not do enough on the football field to establish how good he was or was not.
Koufax did establish how good he was. While his early learning curve is well documented and does diminish his career value to a team, he become amazing. He was amazing long enough to know that it was not a one year fluke. He was good enough to show how good he was for a several year run while doing it in a high amount of IP(yes high amount even for his time).
If you look at the Run Expectancy saved for the pitchers
Koufax best sessons were:
68.
60.5
56.2
45.7
Those were his last four years. That is how good he became. 68 was his final year. So is it really a matte of looking at his injury as saying, "you can't credit him for future performance," or is it looking at his injury and saying, "Four years of amazinginess and that represents how good of a pitcher Sandy Koufax had become, and I don't even need to look any further?"
Is someone wrong for thinking the latter, "Four years of amazinginess and that represents how good of a pitcher Sandy Koufax had become, and I don't even need to look any further," and then conclude that Koufax was better than Tom Glavine because when Glavine was at his proven best....
'
the best Glavine could do was 49.2, 44.7, 36.7, 35.6..
There is a big difference between Koufax and Glavine and how good they were. Am I wrong in sayiing that? Is four years enough to establish how good a player is?
If it is a matter of value to a theoretical team for 20 years, then Glavine is going to provide more than Koufax, but does that make him better than Koufax. If we wanted to get into that value question, then what is Glavine's value to a team when he is past his prime and getting paid a lot of money in the millions to just be average or below?
I care. What's not correct? I do (rarely😁) make mistakes.
I have the utmost respect for Sandy Koufax, when he was "on", he was one of the best of all time.
Sandy’s a class act so he never says anything. But you can verify this story…it doesn’t come up because he continues to say ‘his arm’.
First, at the beginning of his career he is signed as a ‘Bonus Baby’ and the rules dictate that he can’t pitch anywhere but in the Major Leagues and for the Brooklyn Dodgers. So, he pitched out of the bullpen as a means of keeping him, so great was his talent. But they were also attempting to win so they couldn’t just let him start every fourth or fifth day, either. And as I mentioned earlier, neither Kershaw or Koufax is amazing during there first 20 starts. Kershaw’s come in one rookie season, Koufax in parts of three seasons from 1955-57.
Then there’s the end of his career. In 1962, Sandy Koufax is diagnosed with his injury. It is the injury that forces him to retire. His doctors told him to retire after the 1964 season. He plays another - posting arguably the best totals of his career. However, he and Don Drysdale are both free agents at the end of the ‘65 season and they are operating under the reserve clause so they can’t negotiate with anyone but the Dodgers. But being good friends, they decide to ask for a raise - together. They ask for a combined $1,000,000 to pitch three more years each, with something like a 55-45 split of the money. They hold out and get sort of vilified in the press for doing so (again, different times but it was largely in stories leaked to the press by the Dodgers so not so different) and ultimately, Koufax gets $125,000 for one year and Drysdale gets $110,000. In addition, Koufax (it is rumored) was told he might have to take a pay cut in 1967 and the damage is officially done; Koufax walks away in disgust, cites his arm and the hats it. The Dodgers begged him to come back…for $100,000. And had they offered $140-150,000 then he probably pitches in 1967 and then again in 1968, along the lines of the original three more years that he wanted to pitch.
This, in contrast to Clayton Kershaw who had a spot carved out for him in the rotation early on and as he has aged has been paid more money each year and been asked to pitch less each year. And again, it’s the modern game - I get it.
But goodness, what a difference!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Killebrew was a "bonus baby" too.
Did you know that the Dodgers also signed Roberto Clemente to a bonus baby contact and tried to hide him in the minors?
The Pirates were able to acquire him that way.
I have said that the "bonus rule" was bad for Killebrew, I think it robbed him of at least 2 years of at bats while he sat on the bench in the majors.
The difference here is, the Senators/Nationals were a last place club, it wouldn't have hurt them to let Harmon play......even if he wasn't ready.
Koufax wasn't ready either, and not pitching for those first two years was a waste.
It’s his first three years, really. He makes 28 starts from 1955-57 and also appears out of the bullpen 40 times in that span, and usually in long relief.
He is 19, 20 and 21 years old during those 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
Doesn't wash. From 1943-5 and 1952-3 Williams was one of the best left fielders on the planet. I'd say the best, but I don't want any disagreement on this point. From no fault of his own, he wasn't able to use his talent in the major leagues. Whether Koufax was physically unable to play at a high enough level or unwilling to play for what the Dodgers were willing to pay him, in 1967 Koufax was not one of the best pitchers on the planet who wasn't playing in the major leagues through no fault of his own.
Absolutely correct!
I think everyone here agrees that Koufax was very, very good after he stopped walking so many batters and he was healthy.
What confuses me, is people completely ignore the first 6 seasons where he was an average pitcher. It's also confusing that a Koufax supporter would bring up Kershaw's injury problems, when Sandy was the guy who was only able to pitch 4 full seasons for his entire career.
This gets into the argument as which is better. Is a guy who was really good for many years have it over a player who burned like a Roman candle for a few years.
There was a period in the early 1960s when Koufax was almost unhitable. Mickey Mantle summed it up during the 1963 World Series when he said, "How are you supposed to hit this s***.
Kershaw had the longer career. Koufax was incredible for a shorter period of time. I always go with the guys are were good for many years. So I guess you have to say Kershaw.
I'd give Warren Spahn over both of them. People like to dump on Spahn because his lifetime won - loss record was 363 - 245. An ERA of 3.00 is considered to be good for a season. Spahn's lifetime ERA was 3.09.
So would that mean that Griffey is not really the Player of the 90s? I remember him saying how envious he was of his dad's three WS rings (75, 76, 90) and how he hoped to get at least one of his own. Sadly and VERY surprisingly seeing as how Seattle had some very fine teams in the 90s...Griffey never got to make the World Series at all.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Such an odd argument to criticize Kershaw for pitching less than 33 games a season in his 30s when Koufax pitched one season total in his 30s. Basically, Koufax was great his last 5 years (ages 26-30) and sucked before that. In those 5 seasons, Koufax only pitched a full season 3 times, then he never pitched again. Koufax didn't even start 30+ games in a season until he was 25 and only did it 4 times.
Kershaw sucked his rookie season and has been basically great every year since.
Comparing innings pitched in a season, total starts, etc. is nonsense because modern pitchers are simply not permitted to pitch like they did in the 50s & 60s when Koufax was playing. There is no evidence that Kershaw would not have been able to start 40+ games a season in his 20s like Koufax did or pitch 300+ innings if he were allowed (Koufax did each of those only 3 times). Kershaw lead the league in starts twice, innings pitched once, complete games twice, and shutouts three times. The totals are smaller than what happened in the 50s and 60s because modern day managers don't allow pitchers to stay late in games, throw more than 100 pitches, etc.
In the end, Koufax was amazing for 5 seasons, and was great in the postseason (though he did only have a 4-3 WL record when push comes to shove). I just don't think that compares to the full career of Kershaw. I think there is just a lot of nostalgia around Koufax and how dominant he was for a short period of time. Since he quit before his old man years, people are left with a feeling of what could have been if he continued to pitch. Folks never had to see what a declining Koufax would have looked like on the mound since he stopped pitching while still in his prime. People can give all the backstory and excuses they want for Koufax but the fact is he never pitched after age 30.
Robb
Easy call because Koufax was the best pitcher ever.
Well, not to go off topic here, but Bonds was much better than Griffey in the '90s. Can make a case for Clemens and Maddux for second place.
Sandy Koufax benefits from playing in the best pitcher's park in the best era for pitching in history. That's not to say that his 1963 and 1966 weren't elite, because they were, but Wilbur Wood's 1971 and 1972 were better, for example. 1964 and 1965 were very good, though not nearly as good as the best seasons of guys like Dean Chance or Dick Ellsworth. 1961 and 1962 were good seasons, but nothing special. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2022 Yu Darvish and Brady Singer in 1962, and better in 1961, but not really as good as Max Fried was last year. Before 1961 he was very, very pedestrian, and, of course, he was literally nothing after 1966.
As I see it, the argument for Koufax rests on two prongs. 1) that he had a very high peak and 2) that if he'd been able to pitch after his very serious injury he would have accumulated the numbers to make him great. To me this is essentially the same argument as the one for Thurman Munson except 1) he was actually a good player in the first half of his career and 2) his injury was much more extreme.
Tl;dr. Koufax was great, but for a very short time. I don't understand the argument for putting him in the HoF when Munson isn't even seriously considered.
So why was he so very average outside of Dodger Stadium? Sandy started 5+ games in 13 parks other than Chavez Ravine. In 6 of them, he had an ERA over 3.50. Of the remaining 7, 2 of them were the expansion teams. So, against non-expansion teams, more than half the time, he was over 3.50 in an era when there were seasons where the entire league was below 3.50.
>
>
Pasted: With two words censored
Led by Koufax and Don Drysdale, the Dodgers made it to the 1963 World Series against the New York Yankees. Koufax pitched the first game. The scouting report on Mickey Mantle read, “Do not throw him a curveball. He’ll crush it.” In the first inning, Koufax struck out Mantle throwing nothing but fastballs. On Mantle’s second plate appearance, Koufax threw two quick fastball strikes. Dodgers catcher John Roseboro signaled for another heater but Koufax shook him off. He wanted to try his curveball on Mantle, despite the warning. Koufax threw the curve and at the last second the bottom came out of the pitch. Mantle flinched and the umpire called “strike three.” Mantle hesitated, turned to Roseboro and said, “How the F is anybody supposed to hit that S?” The Dodgers went on to win the Series in four games with Koufax winning two.
When a pitcher can get Mickey Mantle to say something like this, to me that's greatness. 😊
Nitpick all ya want, even with facts, and that's fine.
I fully realize that some have more lifetime wins than Koufax, longer careers, etc. But in my view the criteria regarding greatness for pitchers is different than for hitters. Pitchers generally because of arm problems, have shorter careers than hitters.
More power to those pitchers like Cy Young. However if I'm a manager, and had to win one key game or a World Series, I'm taking Sandy Koufax. To me that's a pitching GOAT when combining it with many other Koufax achievements.
Griffey was a much friendlier and likeable guy and was always at or near the top of Beckett's Hot List back in the day. And Barry only appeared in one WS (2002). Also I could've sworn he once went on record as saying "A World Series ring doesn't feed my family".
You know sometimes I wonder if Barry sometimes lays in bed at night and wonders if all that attitude and all that selfish cheating he did...was it really worth it? Was it worth losing his HOF plaque and having his 756* ball in Cooperstown with a giant asterisk stamped on it?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
You have a weird definition of "sucked". 4 homers in 7 games, a .700 OBP, and 1.994 OPS. Imagine what he could have done if he'd played even decently instead of sucking!
I guess I stand corrected! I guess I was thinking more along the lines of his 1990-92 NLCS performances...
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Yeah, the narrative before 2002 was that he was a choker. 2002, with his 8 homers in 17 games, turned all that around.
When it comes to Bonds and choking that is one example I won't defend small sample sizes. When Bonds and his puss arm failed to throw out Sid Bream in the LCS that year, it was all on Bonds.
Van Slyke was trying to reposition Bonds before that play and Bonds told him to "F Off." Had Bonds listened to Van Slyke, then even with his puss filled arm he would have thrown Bream out at the plate.
Oh yes, Andy Van Slyke, the real leader of the Buccaneers! And sadly for Pittsburgh, after just barely missing making the World Series twice and winning the division thrice, they would go twenty years without so much as a winning record. Was that 'tude of Barry's worth it? Honestly how does the man live with himself knowing how mean and cruel he was and how he stole the HR record and is now an outcast and a big joke to baseball and its fans. I do wonder if he's getting or will get regrets for all this...
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
This question really boils down to what folks want to believe... I like Koufax and he will always have that legendary status but that status has limitations based in reality. And reality is an going proposition based on the past, present and future. It is never easy to compare the past to the present. And to be blunt... I am not a fan of the comparisons. In this instance legends will remain legends. However, Koufax had the benefit of having a terrific team to support him in the the 1956-60 period.
Few pitchers have had that benefit of the having the offensive power of the Brooklyn Dodgers line up. And those pitchers who were great are not even reduced to a footnote in MLB history. So NO Koufax is not the greatest Dodgers pitcher and his legacy diminishes others that are deserving of our respect.
I like Leo Durocher and he knows baseball...He really knows Baseball and I respect him despite the 1969 Cubs season. I just do not think his commentary is relevant- what did he say about "Dutch " Leonard? We know what Jackie Robinson said...
And "Dutch" Leonard is barely a footnote in MLB history which is simply unacceptable.
So my point is simple... Koufax has achieved legendary status but that status should NOT come at the expense of those that will be easily forgotten. And we really have a greater obligation in preserving what matters. MLB history should not be reduced to a selected few.
Take a moment and revisit my earlier thread - I will suggest and argue that Camilo Pascual would be in the HOF today if he he had the luxury of pitching for the Brooklyn Dodgers instead of the Washington Senators in that same 1956-60 period that Koufax had. To just ignore the benefit that Koufax had in terms of having an offensive line up that was a powerhouse during the years he struggled is simply why he was not the best. Period.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You think a guy with a 103 ERA+ would be in the HOF if he'd played for a better team?
If you remove Pascual's seasons from 1956-60 with the Senators and place him in the starting rotation for Brooklyn - he would be in the HOF.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Very, very good pitcher from 1958-64. Even better if you narrow it to 61-64. Lots of strikeouts, complete games and shutouts during that period.
Injured back in 1965, never was the same after that.
Senators and early Twins teams were pretty bad.
We could have used a healthy Pasqual against the Dodgers in 1965!
HOF might be a stretch, but he was great for a few years!
Pascual was 53-77 from 1955-1960- pitching for the Senators- Koufax was 36-40 pitching for the Dodgers. Pascual's stats would be vastly different had pitched for Brooklyn.
Read what Ted Williams thought about Pascual as a pitcher-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
He had a 5.87 ERA in 1956. He'd have been lucky to see the field at all for Brooklyn that year.
Pascual had a good career but, no, he's not a HOFer for Brooklyn or the Yankees.
Seems like an all-or-nothing guy at times. In 1961, he led the league with 8 shutouts in 33 starts. But he also allowed 4+ runs 19 times.
Great stuff, apparently had a tremendous curve ball and great heater.
I think he was the first Cuban pitcher to win 20 games.
Just no way you can consider him a HOFer unless he would have not gotten hurt and if he pitched several more years at his 1961-64 level.
Griffith Stadium was one of the biggest parks if I am not mistaken, so he wasn't that great despite the big stadium
He was bad in 1956, but he got better each year until a very good 1959.
Absolutely. And yet, he was better than Catfish Hunter.
Not sure if I go that far.