Sandy Koufax

[tibber]

in a thread titled "overrated players" on mlbcenter.com, i got into a discussion with a guy that says sandy koufax was not HOF caliber because he wasn't in the top 2% in overall value. i have no idea what that is, but i do realize those with really strict standards might not care for his induction, so i've been thinking about his pros and cons:

pros:
had one of the highest peaks of any modern pitcher
a key component of some great dodgers teams

cons:
had a short career by HOF standards
pitched in a pitcher's park in the "neo-deadball" era

taking all these things into consideration, does koufax deserve to be ranked amongst the greats? or is he overrated?

[Brad Harris]

The answer to your question is "yes" - on both counts.

Yes. Sandy Koufax is one of the all-time great pitchers.

Yes. He is also overrated very often.



And, the way I interpret what was said (by way of your first paragraph), it sounds like your friend's argument is that only the two 2% of players in terms of career (ie. "overall") value should be considered for the Hall of Fame?

Because that seems like a much lower standard for the Hall than admitting Sandy Koufax, if that's the case.

[tibber]

here's the thread in question, since i probably didn't explain it very well. i also take exception to what someone else said about hank aaron, but that's another thread.

[leecemark]

Tibber, I checked out that thread and wasn't overly impressed with the quality of arguement. I can agree with the guy who says Koufax wasn't great long enough to be top 5 or 10 all time, but the arguement that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame is nonsense. The same guy says Dizzy Dean does belong in the Hall. The arguement for both is pretty much the same, but Koufax is better than Dean. Dizzy was a very good workhorse type pitcher who won alot of games for some very good teams. He wasn't as dominant as Koufax (Hubbell was the best pitcher of Dean's time). If you want some ammo for the argument you might mention that Koufax led the league in ERA 5 years in a row, while Dean never did.
--The argument on Aaron wasn't very articulate, but I don't have a problem with his main point. Although Aaron was a great player (I've been arguing on another thread to get him in the top 10 all time), he wasn't as good as Ruth. Although he was the most consistently great player ever, Aaron never dominated the way Ruth did. He was a better HR hitter than Ruth only in the sense that Rose was a better hit maker than Cobb.

[PumpsieGreen]

In my mind, Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time. He isn't with the likes of Grove, Walter Johnson, or Warren Spahn in these eyes, but rather in the 15-25 greatest starting pitchers ever. He was dominant for awhile, dominating enough to be remembered, and if his arm hadn't blown out, he could've been with Johnson and Grove. However, he is undeniably overrated at times, as well. Remember, he played in a pitcher's park, for sure. That's what puts him behind Pedro Martinez, who he is often compared to. He had a truly great peak, greater than that of Dizzy Dean, and I'm not saying that he wasn't a great starting pitcher. Just not one of the top 15 of all time.

Pumpsie

[The Commissioner]

I'm not quite sure how Koufax can even be considered overrated? He won three pitching triple crowns, was twice the WS MVP, three times was #2 or higher in the MVP voting (fairly close in each year), and garnered three CY Young Awards in an era where there was only per the entire Major Leagues. True, Dodger Stadium is considerd a pitcher's park, but exactly how much is that supposed to detract from his stats? Enough that we should add on to Steve Gravey's credentials and have him considered as a Hall of Famer? Keep in mind that while in some respects Koufax may have been helped by Dodger Stadium, in other areas he was also hurt by it. The Dodgers in that era could not hit there either. He had to go out and pitch a masterpiece every time out or he lost. Go back and look at those Dodger teams and where their hitting ranked them each season. Did those ballclubs have any right to be that successful? Were it not for Koufax and Drysdale they certainly would not have ever come close to being pennant winners. It's easy to simply say that Koufax benefitted statistically from being in a big ballpark such as Dodger Stadium, but look at how little support his own hitter gave him !!! In '66 he went 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Explain to me how you manage to lose 9 games with that earned run average? Okay, it's fair to say that his ERA may have been higher had he pitched in a different home park. However, if you are going to "adjust" that stat, then shouldn't you also consider that he probably would have won 30 games playing somewhere else as well?

[leecemark]

--Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher for 5 years. When we're talking all time greats that is a pretty short period of greatness. He didn't accomplish a whole lot outside those years.
--As to Dodger Stadium, the effect on Koufax record can't really be ignored. Even taking Dodger Stadium out of the equation Koufax was probably the best pitcher in baseball over that period. However, Dodger Stadium unquestionably made Koufax look better AND made the Dodger's hitters look worse.
--In the context of the time and place he pitched, Koufax did receive reasonable offensive support. Dodger Stadium reduced scoring by about 25% during those years. Naturally that kept the score down for both teams. On the road, the Dodgers were actually a good offensive ballclub. In both 1963 and 64 the Dodgers were second in the NL in runs scored on the road. They weren't quite as good in 1965-66, but still came in the middle of the pack in road runs. On another team his era would have unquestionable gone up and he would have been as likely to lose more as win more.

[julusnc]

I like Koufax but I have always thought Juan Marichal was just as good and for a much longer period of time.

agree to disagree with me

[PumpsieGreen]

I agree, julusnc. Juan Marichal is one, if not the, most underrated starting pitchers of all time(sorry if that sentence came out messed up.) He was a truly great pitcher, one of the 15 greatest ever in these eyes.

Pumpsie

[abacab]

Koufax is overrated in terms of career value, and can't reasonably be considered in the top 20 pitching careers.

On the other hand, if I had to win one game and could pick any pitcher at his best, I might just go with Koufax. That has to count for something.

I have to rate Koufax ahead of Pedro at this point, even though Pedro's ERAs are more impressive, taking era into account. But, Koufax had much better endurance; Pedro's innings pitched are really dropping, and I think a great pitcher needs to be great for the whole game, instead of just six innings. Koufax was also much better in the postseason. I consider Pedro the goat of that Red Sox vs Yankees series last year. Plus, he's a real jerk.

[santotohof]

Koufax left the people wanting more and left on Mt Everest in terms of success.Who knows had he had 4 more so so years to go with his first half career mediocrity we wouldn't be having this discussion. He was unreal for 5 years but so was Ron Guidry, long term I'll take Fergie or Marichal over Koufax. PS Noone is more overratted than Don Drysdale.Mel Stottlemyre ,playing for the CBS Yankees mirrors and partially bests Drysdales career while Drysdale was playing for the perrenial contender Dodgers.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm not quite sure how Koufax can even be considered overrated? He won three pitching triple crowns, was twice the WS MVP, three times was #2 or higher in the MVP voting (fairly close in each year), and garnered three CY Young Awards in an era where there was only per the entire Major Leagues. True, Dodger Stadium is considerd a pitcher's park, but exactly how much is that supposed to detract from his stats? Enough that we should add on to Steve Gravey's credentials and have him considered as a Hall of Famer? Keep in mind that while in some respects Koufax may have been helped by Dodger Stadium, in other areas he was also hurt by it. The Dodgers in that era could not hit there either. He had to go out and pitch a masterpiece every time out or he lost. Go back and look at those Dodger teams and where their hitting ranked them each season. Did those ballclubs have any right to be that successful? Were it not for Koufax and Drysdale they certainly would not have ever come close to being pennant winners. It's easy to simply say that Koufax benefitted statistically from being in a big ballpark such as Dodger Stadium, but look at how little support his own hitter gave him !!! In '66 he went 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Explain to me how you manage to lose 9 games with that earned run average? Okay, it's fair to say that his ERA may have been higher had he pitched in a different home park. However, if you are going to "adjust" that stat, then shouldn't you also consider that he probably would have won 30 games playing somewhere else as well?

Koufax won three pitching TCs with the help of Dodger Stadium, because in terms of ADJUSTED ERA, he was only tied for 2nd in '62, second in 63, third in 65. The Dodgers were SECOND in adjusted Batter Runs in '62, third in '63 and fourth in '66 so they weren't always the batting patsies you make them out to be (but ask Gibson in '68).

[KHenry14]

As someone who saw Koufax pitch in person, I find it hard to believe that anybody could ever be better than him. With that said, I guess I have to agree that he has to fall some on the all time list because of the shortness of the career. But for one game, I'll take him over anybody who's ever played the game.

BTW, I'm glad to see the support for the Dominican Dandy! Juan was a true artist on the mound. He threw 5 pitches from three different angles. Imagine trying to hit that, especially if you hit right handed! One of my greatest memories is Aug 1, 1968 (I still have the ticket stub!), when as a kid I saw Juan throw a 2-0 shutout over the Bums at the Ravine. Dodgers had none chance that day..NONE!

KH14

[RuthMayBond]

And you guys LUUV to conveniently ignore Koufax's seasons from 1955-1960

[The Commissioner]

Koufax won three pitching TCs with the help of Dodger Stadium, because in terms of ADJUSTED ERA, he was only tied for 2nd in '62, second in 63, third in 65. The Dodgers were SECOND in adjusted Batter Runs in '62, third in '63 and fourth in '66 so they weren't always the batting patsies you make them out to be (but ask Gibson in '68).

The problem with all these supposedly "adjusted" stats, is that they also ignore several factors in their "expert" calculations. First of all, you have to keep in mind that by weighing the ballpark factor, league ERA's, etc. in this manner that you are including Koufax in the overall calculations which his individual stats are being weighed against. Being that there were less teams then than there are now, and how many innings a pitcher such as Koufax threw, you also have to consider that his percentage in such factors was more than it would be for a present day pitcher. For example, it is easy to look at the 1963 Dodgers and say that Koufax had an advantage because the Dodgers as a team had an ERA of almost a fourth of a run lower than the next closest ballclub. That must be due to Dodger Stadium, right? However, if you remove Koufax himself from the equation, the Dodgers only have the fourth best ERA in the NL that season. Why was Dodger Stadium benefitting him so much more than the rest of the staff? Another factor which always seems to be ignored is that Dodger Stadium helps out pitchers that put the ball in play a lot. You have to remember that Koufax was striking out batters at a rate which was completely unprecedented in the history of baseball. No one had ever struck out batters at that pace before. Would he have really accumulated less strikeouts picthing off another mound. Was the field at Dodger Stadium really responsible for batter's not being able to get good wood on the ball? Dodger Stadium certainly benefits those finese pitchers that induce players to put the ball into play alot. However, that wasn't what Koufax was. He was a power fastball and curveball hurler. Dodger Stadium made him no more unhittable than he would have been in any other ballpark. When Koufax was knocked around, he would have been knocked around in any other ballpark, and when he was untouchable it really didn't matter too much where he was pitching then either. He could have been throwing a juiced up baseball on a Little League field against the Balco All-Star squad and no one was going to beat him. My one question would be this, does anyone that actually saw him pitch claim that he is overrated? Or are all the cries of "overrated" coming from those that are simply looking at his stats and never saw the man?

[KHenry14]

My one question would be this, does anyone that actually saw him pitch claim that he is overrated? Or are all the cries of "overrated" coming from those that are simply looking at his stats and never saw the man?

Anyone who ever saw him would never, ever, use the word "overrated" in reference to Koufax. Also, I've never read a quote from any player who ever hit off of him who ever disparaged him. Most of the time, players, writers, fans etc. view him (like I do) as an awesome pitcher. Gibson, Marichal etc. were great, Koufax pitched in a league of his own.

KH14

[2Chance]

You can come to either conclusion. Sandy Koufax had two careers, each lasting six years. In his first half, he was just a hard thrower. That’s all. Hardly even a pitcher. Just one of those guys who clubs used to round out a rotation. After these six seasons he was unremarkable in every other way, with a 36-40 record.

And anybody who says that there’s no pitching today because there are so many teams that the minor leagues are depleted blah blah blah...it’s the same as it’s always been. Clubs get one or two really good pitchers and have to fill in for the other days. How often do you get teams with three or four front-line starters like the Braves of the 90s, the Orioles of the 70s? For some teams, their time is now, and over the past few years! But that’s a different thread.

Anyway, legend has it that in 1961 the Dodgers were in Vero Beach for spring training, and catcher Norm Sherry says to Koufax, “Come on, let’s have some fun today. Ease up a little on the fastball, and let’s mix in some curves and breaking stuff.” For the rest of the National League, that was the beginning of Sandy’s reign of terror. The man was nigh unhittable, and the next six years he dominated like probably no one else ever has. He went 129-47, running off seasons of 18, 14, 25, 19, 26 and 27 wins. He became the first man to have 3 seasons with over 300 strikeouts, and won five ERA titles (three years it was under 2.00)--and brought his otherwise bloated career era down to 2.76. He had two 18-strikeout games, and dominated the World Series in 1963 and ‘65.

Those six seasons were phenomenal, and Sandy was untouchable then, with the wickedest fastball and the wickedest curve most people have ever seen. And the frightening part is that he wasn’t throwing as hard as he used to. He belongs just on the basis of those six years, regardless of how bad he was in his first six.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't have a problem with him belonging (although six years is short). I have a problem with people claiming he was better than Walter Johnson (and Pedro, if you want me to pull ElHalo into this ) and forgetting about the high mound and pitchers' park of Dodger Stadium.

[2Chance]

I’ve got no problem with Koufax being there either, but I don’t rate him at the top. At his peak, he was the greatest...maybe ever. But I grade players over their entire careers, not so much for their peak.

And if I may start an argument, I’d like it to be this one:
The 1960s was not so much the pitchers’ era because of favorable conditions as who was pitching. When Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, etc. were out there every 4th day, OF COURSE strikeouts are going up and ERA’s are going down. That would have happened no matter when they were playing.

(Uh, unfortunately, I can’t make much of an argument. My best material on the subject is above. But it would be interesting to read a rebuttal!)

[RuthMayBond]

And if I may start an argument, I’d like it to be this one:
The 1960s was not so much the pitchers’ era because of favorable conditions as who was pitching. When Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, etc. were out there every 4th day, OF COURSE strikeouts are going up and ERA’s are going down. That would have happened no matter when they were playing.

(Uh, unfortunately, I can’t make much of an argument.)

You're right, you can't make much of an argument EVERY era had great pitchers, but look at the league average. If your ERA was 3 in 1968, it was WORSE THAN AVERAGE. Wrap your mind around that

[Brad Harris]

Adjusted Pitching Runs (ie. "Adjusted Starter Runs") are available in The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition). They do not incorporate a pitcher's batting, baserunning and fielding performance - only his pitching performance, valued in terms of runs and adjusted for a pitcher's home park and his league's level of offense in a given season. The following totals were taken by adding individual season totals.



Best 6-consecutive seasons among sampling of all-time greats
329 Walter Johnson, 1910-15
325 Pedro Martinez, 1997-02
313 Lefty Grove, 1928-33
313 Greg Maddux, 1993-98
305 Randy Johnson, 1997-02
261 Carl Hubbell, 1931-36
256 Cy Young, 1900-05*
253 Roger Clemens, 1986-91
240 Christy Mathewson, 1908-13
240 Sandy Koufax, 1961-66
233 Pete Alexander, 1915-20
227 Tom Seaver, 1968-73
212 Bob Gibson, 1965-70
200 Juan Marichal, 1964-69
173 Warren Spahn, 1949-54

* Cy Young's best 6-year stretch was 1891-96 (370 apr), but I've excluded 19th century seasons due to the drastic change in the role of a starting pitcher. (Else, the entire list would be dominated by 6-year runs by 19th century starters.)



Remainding value of careers of sample pitchers
347 Roger Clemens
320 Walter Johnson
309 Lefty Grove
281 Pete Alexander
205 Greg Maddux
203 Tom Seaver
192 Warren Spahn
138 Christy Mathewson
134 Randy Johnson
126 Bob Gibson
111 Carl Hubbell
111 Pedro Martinez
55 Cy Young*
37 Juan Marichal
1 Sandy Koufax

* Does not include Young's pre-1900 seasons, else his career minus his 6-run stretch would yield a whopping 430 apr remaining.


Percent of career value represented by sample pitchers' 6-year run
99% Sandy Koufax
84% Juan Marichal
82% Cy Young*
75% Pedro Martinez
70% Carl Hubbell
69% Randy Johnson
63% Bob Gibson
63% Christy Mathewson
60% Greg Maddux
58% Roger Clemens
53% Tom Seaver
51% Walter Johnson
50% Lefty Grove
47% Warren Spahn
45% Pete Alexander

* While 82% of Young's 20th century career value is in his 1900-05 stretch, when looking at his entire career, his 1891-96 stretch represents 370 just 46% of his career value.



Also please note that many of these players had one or more outstanding (40+ apr) seasons that weren't included in their best 6-year run. These totals would look different if I had just added each pitcher's best six seasons (rather than his six best consecutive seasons). Steve Carlton didn't make this list solely because his best seasons were so spaced apart he would have easily been quite a ways behind the lowest total on the first list.

Also note that Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez are still active and in their declining years so it is highly probable that their 6-year run will represent a lesser percentage of their career value by the time each retires.

There are a lot of comparisons between Koufax and Dizzy Dean. So here's Dean's breakdown (before I'm asked for it):

Dean's best 6-year stretch was 176 apr from 1932-37, the rest of his career (1931, 1938-41, 1947) is valued at only 18 apr, making his 6-year "prime" approximately 91% of his total career value. Unlike Koufax, Martinez or other short-career stars (Addie Joss comes to mind), Dean had only 2 great seasons (1934-35), not 4, 5 or 6 and Dean never led his league in apr, losing to Carl Hubbell (1934) and Cy Blanton (1935) respectively.

All data presented here was taken from The Baseball Encyclopedia by Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette. For $24.95, I recommend anyone interested in a print encyclopedia stop by their local B&N.

[leecemark]

--I think an interesting approach to evaluating pitching might be to assign a value for their ranking on each of those lists and add tho together. You would get a number which placed equal value on peak vs career without allowing a huge factor on one to override the other. I'd only use say the top 25 peak value pitchers or you will end up with some guys who were just pretty good for a long time ahead of truely great pitchers. There have to be a couple hundred guys whose "rest of career" would rank ahead of Koufax.
--For this group of 14 (Alexander was left out of the "rest of career list, which I assume would have been a good number for him) it would give you a list like this:.............peak......rest of career........total
1. Walter Johnson.....1...........2........................3
2. Lefty Grove..........3...........3...................... ..6
3. Greg Maddux.........4..........4....................... .8
4. Roger Clemens.......8..........1........................ 9
5. Randy Johnson.......5..........8.......................1 3
6. Pedro Martinez.......2..........12...................... 14
7. Carl Hubbell...........6..........10................... ..16
7. Christy Mathewson 9...........7......................16
9. Tom Seaver...........12.........5..................... .17
10. Cy Young............7..........13.................... ..20
11. Warren Spahn......15.........6.......................21
12. Bob Gibson...........13.........9..................... .22
13. Sandy Koufax.......10.........14.....................24
14. Juan Marichal........14.........13..................... 27
--Although I understand Chancellors reasons for not including 19th century pitching years, I'd probably have to give Young at least 1/2 credit for that (probably more). Just half his points from before 1900 would vault him to 4th on the "rest of career list" and 5th overall. I suspect Pete Alexander would also fare well on the "rest of career" had his numbers been included and I'm guessing he would make the top 10. Chancellor, I'm sure that was just an oversight. I'f you could provide that I would be very interested.
--The only thing that would be more than a one or two spot shift on this list from my own is the presence of all 4 of the great active pitchers in the top 6. I have Clemens 3rd on my personal list, but the other three range from 12-15. Perhaps its just harder to recognize greatness this close up.

[The Commissioner]

Adjusted Pitching Runs (ie. "Adjusted Starter Runs") are available in The Baseball Encyclopedia (2004 edition). They do not incorporate a pitcher's batting, baserunning and fielding performance - only his pitching performance, valued in terms of runs and adjusted for a pitcher's home park and his league's level of offense in a given season.

Won't a pitcher with a dominating season then actually hurt his own cause on this scale? For example, if Walter Johnson pitched more innings in a league with fewer teams, wouldn't he then be more responsible for his home park value and league's offensive level to drop than would, for example, perhaps Pedro would in a season where he doesn't record as many innings? Therefore if the two posted an identical ERA, it is feasible that Johnson gets punished and Pedro rewarded for the Big Train actually being more dominating. The reason I mention this, is because while Dodger Stadium may be a pitcher's park, most everybody now seems to attribute Koufax's and Drysdale's success to that park factor and to their era. Yet, aren't they in large part responsible themselves for those adjusted/inflated pitching stats which have diminished them in many people's eyes. Has anybody attempted to calculate how great the park factor and factor for the era are that they were pitching in when you exclude their stats from the initial equation?

[leecemark]

--What you are saying is true enough. However, no one pitcher pitchs enough innings to tilt the scale more than a fraction by himself. It was slightly more true before expansion, although Koufax great seasons all came after the first expansion. With the number of teams and lower number of innings pitched today, the single pitcher factor is so small as to be totally insignificant.
--In any case, you can take Koufax and Drydale out of the equation simply by looking at the enormous difference in the offensive numbers of the Dodgers at home and on the road. Obviously they weren't facing Koufax or Drysdale and the gap between their home and road performance was huge. With a neutral park most teams hit better at home. Only at a select few do they hit noticably worse. And only at Dodger Stadium and the Astrodome were they dwarfed in this fashion.

[The Commissioner]

I'd question whether it really makes as little of a difference as you assert. As I pointed out earlier, in the '63 example, if you take Koufax's numbers alone out of the equationt hat season, the Dodgers no longer have the dominant pitching advantage. As a matter of fact, they jump up from being first in the league with a 2.85 club ERA to being fourth at 3.11. That's just from Koufax alone!!! Pretty much if you subtract Koufax's stats from that Dodgers staff in any given year (other than '66 when they realy do dominate as a whole), they are quite comparable to the Cards or Giants. The one factor which makes them standout appears to be Koufax much more than it is Dodger Stadium.

As for how much it affects the league as a whole, let's look at 1966 for example. That season, the one in which the members of Koufax's staff appear to finally be as assisted by Dodger Stadium as much as he was all that time, if you subtract Koufax's numbers, the NL's collective ERA goes up from 3.61 to 3.66. A jump of .05 from just Koufax!!!