Tweet
Koufax's '65 is real good and hard to top. But, it is just not up to par with Gooden in '85. Let me start with the obvious things. Koufax's ERA+ of 160 is just not in the same league as Gooden's 227. 67 points of ERA+ is HUGE. Both their teams did just about the same (the Dodgers in '65 won 97 games and the divsion, the '85 Mets won 98 games but lost the divsion), and Gooden has an .857 winning percentage compared to Sandy's .765. 92 points of winning percentage is pretty big too.
So, what can put Sandy over the top? Innings pitched? Maybe. Koufax did pitch 335 innings. Gooden pitched 276. But this difference is really insignificant, a product of their eras. Gooden's era was more of a hitter's environment. A hitter's environment makes is harder for a pitcher to last long because he needs to face more batters and throw more pitches. Koufax was still a workhorse in that environment, though, leading the league by 27 innings over the next best man. But, there were tons of pitchers in that league pitching lots of innings. Nine pitchers topped Gooden's 276 which was good enough to lead the league in 1985. It was much easier to pitch lots of innings. However, Gooden's 276 innings is certainly not as good as Koufax's performance still. He was only one and 2/3 innings ahead of the next best man, and 4 pitchers were within 5 innings of his mark. Gooden probably would have been able to pitch 290 or so innings in 1965.
Another factor is their home park. Koufax had a 1.38 ERA at home, a 2.72 ERA on the road. Huge difference. That's a 130 ERA+ on the road. Koufax's innings advantage is also somewhat a factor of the park. He averaged 8.5 innings per start at home and 7.87 on the road. Using that number in conjunction with his starts, he would have pitched about 322 innings if all his starts were on the road.
Gooden was basically the same pitcher at home and on the road. At home, he was 13-2, 1.50 ERA. On the road, he was 11-2, 1.56 ERA.
ERA+ isn't everything, I know. Let's look at some DIPS elements.
Gooden, 1985
HR/9-0.43
XB/9-3.48
K/9-8.72
BB/9-2.24
Koufax, 1965
HR/9-0.69
XB/9-4.91
K/9-11.38
BB/9-1.90
Even with no adjustment for era, Gooden is significantly better in HR/9 and XB/9. Koufax is slightly better in K/9 and BB/9. Overall Gooden probably wins this comparsion, EVEN WITH NO ERA ADJUSTMENT.
When putting all this together and adjusting for era, Gooden comes out with a 2.35 DIPS ERA, Koufax is at 3.39.
Greatness? No doubt Koufax was great, but Gooden's season, even if it wasn't clearly better, still has to be more amazing. The guy was 21 for crying out loud. No one, ever, probably in any sport, has had that kind of dominance right away. That was a truly great performance. Definitely more amazing than Koufax, simply because of the age differences, not to mention that it was clearly better as well.
So, how can you favor Koufax?
I figure rather than talk about it too much on the Member's Opinions Discussion, we give it its own thread and its own poll.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------Dwight Gooden, Mets' P, 1984-88.
--------------------------BB Reference Data
So, what can put Sandy over the top? Innings pitched? Maybe. Koufax did pitch 335 innings. Gooden pitched 276. But this difference is really insignificant, a product of their eras. Gooden's era was more of a hitter's environment. A hitter's environment makes is harder for a pitcher to last long because he needs to face more batters and throw more pitches. Koufax was still a workhorse in that environment, though, leading the league by 27 innings over the next best man. But, there were tons of pitchers in that league pitching lots of innings. Nine pitchers topped Gooden's 276 which was good enough to lead the league in 1985. It was much easier to pitch lots of innings. However, Gooden's 276 innings is certainly not as good as Koufax's performance still. He was only one and 2/3 innings ahead of the next best man, and 4 pitchers were within 5 innings of his mark. Gooden probably would have been able to pitch 290 or so innings in 1965.
Another factor is their home park. Koufax had a 1.38 ERA at home, a 2.72 ERA on the road. Huge difference. That's a 130 ERA+ on the road. Koufax's innings advantage is also somewhat a factor of the park. He averaged 8.5 innings per start at home and 7.87 on the road. Using that number in conjunction with his starts, he would have pitched about 322 innings if all his starts were on the road.
Gooden was basically the same pitcher at home and on the road. At home, he was 13-2, 1.50 ERA. On the road, he was 11-2, 1.56 ERA.
ERA+ isn't everything, I know. Let's look at some DIPS elements.
Gooden, 1985
HR/9-0.43
XB/9-3.48
K/9-8.72
BB/9-2.24
Koufax, 1965
HR/9-0.69
XB/9-4.91
K/9-11.38
BB/9-1.90
Even with no adjustment for era, Gooden is significantly better in HR/9 and XB/9. Koufax is slightly better in K/9 and BB/9. Overall Gooden probably wins this comparsion, EVEN WITH NO ERA ADJUSTMENT.
When putting all this together and adjusting for era, Gooden comes out with a 2.35 DIPS ERA, Koufax is at 3.39.
Greatness? No doubt Koufax was great, but Gooden's season, even if it wasn't clearly better, still has to be more amazing. The guy was 21 for crying out loud. No one, ever, probably in any sport, has had that kind of dominance right away. That was a truly great performance. Definitely more amazing than Koufax, simply because of the age differences, not to mention that it was clearly better as well.
So, how can you favor Koufax?
I figure rather than talk about it too much on the Member's Opinions Discussion, we give it its own thread and its own poll.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------Dwight Gooden, Mets' P, 1984-88.
--------------------------BB Reference Data
Comment