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?

[Chadwick]

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?