Sandy Koufax is my favorite old-time pitcher — old-time, of course, referring to those gray-haired men who played before I was born. It’s all about our own reference points, isn’t it? You know what Carlin said: The highway’s jammed, not with broken heroes on a last-chance power drive, but with idiots and maniacs — those who drive slower than you are idiots, those who drive faster, maniacs. Well, anyone who pitched the bulk of his career after 1967 will always be young, at least on this blog.
Sandy Koufax seems to be the favorite pitcher of a lot of people my age … that is, the age of people who just missed seeing him pitch. Just the other day, I heard a friend and sportswriter talk about how meeting Koufax in an elevator was the one time in his professional life that he lost his cool and acted like he was 5 years old again. A couple of years ago, I actually saw that very thing happen to a friend and sportswriter when he noticed Koufax in the crowd during the Final Four. He jabbered like a third grader. A third friend, who is among the bolder people I know, saw Koufax during spring training and just wanted to say hello. He chickened out.
What is it about Koufax? Well, I think it is a few things. He quit young. That’s first. Nobody ever saw Koufax as an old pitcher, struggling to get people out like Gibson or Bunning or Robin Roberts. Nobody ever saw Koufax pitching in some sacrilegious uniform at the end of his career, Marichal in a Dodgers cap, Carlton wearing Wahoo on his sleeve, Seaver in Boston. Koufax was, in memory, forever 30 years old, forever unhittable, forever a Dodger, forever resting on Yom Kippur, forever throwing the 2-2 pitch to Harvey Kuenn.
Then, he was brilliant in the World Series. He pitched in four of them, and the Dodgers won three, and Koufax had an 0.95 ERA in in his seven starts. Whenever talking about how much bigger things used to be, I always think of Burt Lancaster’s line in Atlantic City: “The Atlantic Ocean was something then. You should have seen the Atlantic Ocean in those days.” Still, it’s true, the World Series really was something then in those days before Monday Night Football and the baseball package on DirecTV. America stopped for the World Series, watched closely, and under the spotlight Koufax was almost unhittable.
Then, more than anything, there are the numbers, those preposterous four seasons, 1963-66. He won 97 games in four years, struck out more than 1,200, posted a 1.86 ERA. He also threw three no-hitters over those four years, one of those the perfect game against the Cubs, and for good measure he also threw a fourth no-hitter in ‘62. He was remarkable those years and, I suspect, even better in the retelling, even better in the late 1960s and early 1970s when we were being raised on his folklore and also the grainy black and white highlights of him they would occasionally show on television, on Saturdays, during rain delays.
I will always be in awe of the legend of Sandy Koufax. He will always have an aura about him that is utterly unique. But when it comes to Koufax the pitcher — well, there’s a harsh truth about Koufax’s brilliance that only seems to get glancing mention, and it’s only right to bring it up here. We have often talked here about how Jim Rice’s soon-to-be Hall of Fame career was probably made possible because he played his home games in Fenway Park when it was a preposterously good hitting stadium. The same point can be (and probably should be) made about Dale Murphy, who will fall short of the Hall. And it seems likely that because of his time and place, a guy like Frank Howard was probably better than anyone will remember.
Well, it’s unlikely that any player got more out of his time and place than Sandy Koufax. It really can be wrapped up in one sentence: Koufax had his four magical years in Dodger Stadium in the low-scoring 1960s in those years before baseball lowered the mound. Look at these numbers:
Pitcher A: 42-30, 2.49 ERA, 628 IPs, 4.4 to 1 strikeout to walk, 1.014 WHIP.
Pitcher B: 47-16, 2.43 ERA, 580 IPs, 4 to 1 strikeout to walk, 1.015 WHIP.
Pitcher C: 35-29, 2.53 ERA, 534 IPs, 2.2 to 1 strikeout to walk. 1.220 WHIP
Pitcher D: 43-23, 1.99 ERA, 596 IPs, 3.5 to 1 strikeout to walk. .980 WHIP
Pitcher E: 42-20, 1.96 ERA, 526 IPs, 2.8 to 1 strikeout to walk, 1.042 WHIP
Pitcher F: 43-15, 1.94 ERA, 493 IPs, 4 to 1 strikeout to walk, .977 WHIP.
Pitcher G: 42-9, 1.84 ERA, 495 IPs, 6.3 to 1 strikeout to walk, .872 WHIP.
Obviously all of those are really good numbers … no coincidence because all of them are really good pitchers. But obviously only one is Koufax — those are the road numbers for the pitchers over their best 500 or so inning span. I just want you to rank the alphabet pitcher in your mind … obviously, you don’t have enough information to do it fairly (you don’t know whether it was a hitting or pitching era) but put that away for a moment. Just rank them in your mind. Got it? I’ll wait. Really.
Now, here are the pitchers:
Pitcher A: Ferguson Jenkins.
Pitcher B: Sandy Koufax
Pitcher C: Sam McDowell
Pitcher D: Tom Seaver
Pitcher E: Bob Gibson
Pitcher F: Greg Maddux
Pitcher G: Pedro. Of course.
So what’s the point? Koufax was obviously great on the road those four years, but not singularly great. Others compare. Others pitched better. It was in Los Angeles, on that high mound, in that bad hitting time, in that hitters graveyard called Dodger Stadium that Koufax was KOUFAX, all capital letters.
Koufax at Dodger Stadium
1963: 11-1, 1.38 ERA, 144 Ks, 23 walks.
1964: 12-2, 0.85 ERA, 124 Ks, 18 walks.
1965: 14-3, 1.38 ERA, 208 Ks(!), 31 walks.
1966: 13-5, 1.52 ERA, 160 Ks, 45 walks.
Totals: 50-11, 1.31 ERA, 636 Ks, 117 walks.
Those numbers are really beyond belief. It’s no wonder that the legend grew. Imagine growing up in Los Angeles at that time and going to Dodger Stadium to see Koufax — he was ALWAYS dominant. Always. There is no way you could have watched him at Dodger Stadium at that time and not believed that you were watching the best who ever lived.
But now it’s 40-plus years later. And let’s not kid anybody: Those untouchable numbers are as inflated as anything Larry Walker or the U.S. Department of Commerce ever compiled. From 1963-66 the entire Dodgers pitching staff (admittedly, this does include Koufax, but still) had a TEAM ERA of 2.42 at Dodger Stadium. Of course, Don Drysdale was dominant at Dodger Stadium too, but for much of the time so was Ron Perranoski and Jim Brewer and Bob Miller. And more or less everyone else.
Sure, a lot of it was the park. A lot of it was the time. There’s no ignoring it. Go to Baseball Reference and translate Brandon Webb’s career numbers to Koufax’s time and place, and he has a career 2.12 ERA. Put Randy Johnson in Dodger Stadium half the time in 1963, and here are his translated numbers from 1999-2002:
Randy Johnson’s converted statistics
1999: 25-7, 1.59 ERA, 386 Ks in 288 innings.
2000: 22-7, 1.66 ERA, 371 Ks in 266 innings.
2001: 22-7, 1.63 ERA, 394 Ks in 264.66 innings.
2002: 24-6, 1.54 ERA, 353 Ks in 275 innings.
Do you think if people had grown up seeing THAT kind of pitching that Randy Johnson might have more than nine votes in the “Greatest Living Pitcher” poll? And, you don’t even want to convert the numbers of Maddux or Pedro … they look cartoonish.
OK, just for fun ..
Maddux in 1994 converted: 29-4, 1.15 ERA.
Maddux in 1995, converted: 24-3, 1.14 ERA.
Pedro’s season ERA’s converted to LA 1963:
1997: 1.36.
1998: 1.84
1999: 1.27
2000: 1.06 (!)
2001: 1.60
2002: 1.50
2003: 1.45
This shouldn’t take away at all from the legend — Koufax’s numbers are real, and they’re spectacular — he’s still my favorite old-time pitcher. But it might remind us again that so much of what we see in sports, in life, is contextual, that if Tom Brady had been drafted by Arizona he might not be Tom Brady, that if Tiger Woods had been born 50 years earlier he never would won a single PGA golf tournament, that if Dave Kingman had played his career in Boston, he might have hit 600 home runs, that if Abraham Lincoln was running for President today there would be commercials out blaming him for $4.50 gasoline.
Koufax gave everyone something to admire. In the end, that’s what matters most. Sandy Koufax was voted into the Hall of Fame first ballot in 1972 — 87% of the baseball writers voted for him even though Koufax only had won 165 games. They voted him in that quick because, no doubt, many thought Sandy Koufax was for a short time the most dominating pitcher in the long history of the game. The truth, as often is the case, may be be a little more complicated. But, if beauty is truth, truth beauty, Koufax sure has been beautiful thing to believe in.
* * *
OK, here is a list of all 32 pitchers who, like Koufax, had four GREAT seasons or more — this time I judge a GREAT season to be 33 Runs Saves Against Average or more. That would give the pitcher one of the 500 greatest seasons since 1900.
11 GREAT seasons
Roger Clemens
What a shame … in our time we may have seen the greatest hitter and the greatest pitcher of all time. And it seems like nobody even believes it.
10 GREAT seasons
Greg Maddux
Lefty Grove
Walter Johnson
I don’t think Maddux cares much … but I do wonder how the last six so-so years has affected the way people remember him. I really feel that hurt Seaver’s legacy a lot. As Bill James says, you can make a strong argument that Seaver is the greatest pitcher of them all. But I couldn’t make it. The only time I saw Tom Seaver live was when he won his 296th career game against the Cleveland Indians in 1985. I only recall two things from that game: 1. That Jerry Reed was the Indians starter and he wasn’t the country singer* 2. That Tom Seaver pitched like he was 227 years old. He was throwing a shutout going into the ninth, but from where I was sitting it was all slow stuff, curveballs, trickery — none of the power and force I had always associated with Seaver. Actually I remember a third thing (reminded by Baseball Reference) — Tony Bernazard hit a three-run homer in the ninth, and Seaver got pulled. And a fourth thing: Wow, the Indians stunk that year.
*I know this because Jerry Reed the country singer was a much better pitcher.
8 GREAT seasons
Christy Mathewson
Randy Johnson
I’ve often said that Pedro is the greatest pitcher I ever saw, Maddux is my favorite all-time pitcher, you cannot deny Clemens. And still, if someone wanted to say that Randy Johnson in 2001 and 2002 was better than any pitcher who ever lived, I think they’d have a case. I’d hear that case.
7 GREAT seasons
Bob Gibson
Hal Newhouser
Newhouser had sort of a twisted Koufax-like career. He too put up these ungodly numbers for a short period of time — three years, really — but unlike Koufax, nobody took him seriously because those were war years. He proved some people wrong in ‘46, after everyone had come back home, when he went 26-9 with a 1.94 ERA, though even so there were still those who said it was an adjustment year for the returning soldiers (this was confirmed, for many, by DiMaggio hitting only .290). There’s no doubt that he was at his best while the stars were at war, but on the other hand Newhouser had seven really exceptional years, and his 130 ERA+ is better than, among others, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer.
6 GREAT seasons
Curt Schilling
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Kevin Brown
Pedro Martinez
There is Kevin Brown again. You know, you could argue pretty persuasively that Brown was the better than Cy Young winner John Smoltz in 1996, better than Cy Young winner Tom Glavine in 1998, and maybe even better than Unit in 2000. What are we thinking about him if he had two or three Cy Young awards on his mantle? I am on record saying that I think Curt Schilling is a Hall of Famer, but all in all Kevin Brown was probably just as good except when the World Series going on.
5 GREAT seasons
Ed Walsh
Mike Mussina
Stan Coveleski
Steve Carlton
Tom Seaver
I’ll tell you what … with Mussina having a surprising renaissance, I think he has just about sewn up his Hall of Fame candidacy. He has 263 victories, which is a ton in today’s era. He has the 122 ERA+, which is plenty good. He has pitched a lot and effectively in the playoffs and World Series. And by the time he’s up for election, the whole “He never won 20 games” argument will probably be dead because, bluntly, nobody wins 20 games anymore.
4 GREAT seasons
Bert Blyleven (!!)
Bob Feller
Bret Saberhagen
Burleigh Grimes
Carl Hubbell
Cy Young
Dave Stieb
Dazzy Vance
Lefty Gomez
Phil Niekro
Sandy Koufax
Ted Lyons
Three Finger Brown
Tom Glavine
Tommy Bridges
Wes Ferrell
Look for an upcoming post on great hitting pitchers. Wes Ferrell figures to play prominently. In the meantime: Consider the career of Bret Saberhagen. At 25, he had two Cy Young awards, a World Series MVP award, a Gold Glove, an ERA title and 92 career victories. What would you have bet on him going to the Hall of Fame?
92 Comments, Comment or Ping
Zdebman
I don’t know whether it indicates a certain moral “flexibility” or just the ability to ignore public persona and focus on performance, but I voted for Bonds as the Greatest Hitter and Clemens as the Greatest Pitcher. For me, every era and every player can have a “yeah but” attached to it/him, whether it is segregation, high pitcher’s mound, Coors Field, greenies or steroids. Great (GREAT?) job Joe on quantifying GREAT-ness.
Jul 25th, 2008
Mike E
Ok, I understand that Pedro from 1997-2000 probably had the greatest peak of all time. However. Maddux, not Martinez should be winning that poll.You have to account for one’s entire career as well.
It’s a shame Feller only has four great seasons. If it wasn’t for WWII he’d probably have eght.
Jul 25th, 2008
drewfuss
i’m only 27 now with nary a recollection of the ‘85 series even happening, but Sabes was always my favorite Royal growing up… always irritated me to see him in that red sox uniform at the end of his career.
Jul 25th, 2008
odessa steps magazine
Maybe this is an anti-East Coast bias, but I’ve always thought, as great as Koufax was, his accomplishments and mystique was overblown by the New York-centric media.
Would there be an “aura” about Koufax without the New York connection and the whole “pitching on Yom Kippur” thing, which seemingly put him on a pedestal for an entire generation young Jewish kids?
Jul 25th, 2008
Bill
Depressing that a third of the voters have thought the greatest living pitcher was either Koufax or Gibson. And I just have to believe the 13 voters for Mo Rivera were joking. Or members of Mo’s family.
Jul 25th, 2008
Bob
Maddux really was something in his prime, and I’d agree that the last few years of less than amazing pitching have probably hurt his case when people start talking about the greatest living pitcher. He really was ridiculously good for quite a long time and I think people forget about him to an extent because Pedro was *so* good in ‘99 and ‘00, and Maddux started to decline somewhat at the same time, and then we had tremendous years from RJ, etc.
Maybe he just never had the same ‘mystique’ as some of these other guys. I dunno.
Jul 25th, 2008
Ricky
Clemens getting 8% of the vote in the poll is just totally irrational. Almost as irrational as Bonds finishing behind Musial and Mays in the hitter poll. Koufax won less than half as many games AND had a lower ERA+ for his career. Gibson is also overrated because of that one magical year.
Really. Eight percent for Roger Clemens. That’s absurd.
Jul 25th, 2008
Jerry
“Depressing that a third of the voters have thought the greatest living pitcher was either Koufax or Gibson. And I just have to believe the 13 voters for Mo Rivera were joking. Or members of Mo’s family.”
Bill - everyone is entitled to his/her opinion… there’s nothing ‘depressing’ about that..
Jul 25th, 2008
Ricky
This is really no objective measure by which one can reasonably conclude Koufax or Gibson is the best living pitcher. I’m with Bill.
Jul 25th, 2008
Thomas
“everyone is entitled to his/her opinion… there’s nothing ‘depressing’ about that…”
Of course people’s opinions can be depressing, Jerry. 10% of the country is of the opinion that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. You’re telling me that’s not depressing?
Jul 25th, 2008
Tbone
I’m surprised you didn’t bring WHIP into the equation. Koufax had a WHIP under 1.000 in each of his last four seasons. (Twice under .900) That’s a pretty incredible accomplishment, regardless of the era or park, especially when you consider that he threw over 300 innings in three of the four seasons.
Editor’s note: Edited WHIP into the road statistics. Koufax had a 1.015 road WHIP those four years, which is excellent. As you will see, though, others had better. And one guy in particular had A LOT better. Check it out … it’s amazing.
Jul 25th, 2008
B.E. Earl
This poll, like just about every poll that you do, had me scratching my head. Pedro…Maddux…Clemens…Koufax. Had to be one of them. Then I thought of Randy Johnson’s career and I decided it had to be him. Then I started to think about who the best pitcher I ever saw live was and the answer was Tom Seaver.
I grew up a Yankee fan on Long Island in the late 60’s/early 70’s when everyone in my family and all of my friends were Mets’ fans. I hated the Mets. I hated the fact that my father would never take me to Yankee Stadium because Shea was closer. I hated everything about that team and that stadium.
But Seaver pitched the first game I ever saw live in 1971. I think it was the last game of the season, and Seaver pitched a complete game and struck out 13. It was a night game and I was young…real young, but I pleaded with my father to take me instead of my older brother because I loved baseball more. He relented against the probably better advice of my mother.
Over the next 4 years I went to a bunch of more games at Shea and it always seemed like Seaver or Koosman was pitching. Koosman was always good. Real good. But Seaver was something else. He was great!
I used to imitate the way he pitched when I was a kid. A kid in a Yankee cap pretending to be Tom Seaver. Imagine that.
I ran into him at a mall out on Long Island a couple of years ago. He must have just finished a signing and he was sitting at a table with no one around. I blurted out “Hey…Tom Seaver!” just in case he forgot or something. He smiled and shook my hand and asked me if I wanted anything signed. I said no thanks (I’ve never been an autograph hound), but I thanked him for so many wonderful memories from my youth. He genuinely looked like he was appreciative of the comment.
Tom Seaver will always be my favorite pitcher and one of my favorite players of all time. Even if I couldn’t/can’t stand the team he played for when I was a kid.
Jul 25th, 2008
Shrike
My heart said vote for Pedro (I still rue the day he was sold off by my Expos). I listened to it.
My head said vote for Clemens (and he even put up a couple of GREAT seasons for my Blue Jays). I ignored it.
Jul 25th, 2008
Devon Young
You got me curious about how Koufax stands among his ‘63-’66 peers in road games (i went by 450 IP on road). Sandy still had the best road ERA, tied for most wins, had the best winning percentage, had the least losses, 3rd in CG, he struckout the most batters (2nd highest was 124 behind him), and 3rd LEAST amount of runs. No matter how much we talk about KOUFAX’s pitching numbers being tweaked by Dodger Stadium, he was clearly the most dominant road pitcher during the pre-1969 era too.
Jul 25th, 2008
McKingford
Those untouchable numbers are as inflated as anything Larry Walker
I think to be sabremetrically correct, the appropriate reference should be Dante Bichette here (or, in a pinch, Vinny Castilla). Larry Walker was actually a good ballplayer.
Jul 25th, 2008
Marcel
Pedro is easily my favorite baseball player and for 6 years was arguably the most dominant pitcher of all time. But I still had to vote for Clemens. In the same way that Bonds was on his way to being the second greatest hitter of all-time even before steroids, Clemens was well on his way to being the greatest pitcher of all time before he the time when he is accused of starting to take PEDs.
Jul 25th, 2008
Dan Pasquabilities
I think dominance, true dominance, is remembered more for lights-out strikeout pitchers. I also agree that hanging around well past one’s prime, even if the pitcher is still good, soils the legacy. That being said, and as much as it pains me to say, Pedro tops my list. Utter dominance and intimidation. Maddux may be the most cerebral pitcher ever and may finish with 375 wins, but it is a different type of dominance. The “here it is, hit it” mentality has a lasting resonance.
Jul 25th, 2008
Perry
This is completely irrational, and maybe it’s just that I’ve never paid much attention to the American League (or the Expos), where Pedro spent his peak, but… how to put this… Pedro never made much of an impression on me. I know his numbers are incredible (and I’m a sabermetric guy from way, way back). I get that. But subjectively, I find I can hardly bring up a vivid image of the guy pitching, his motion, the way his pitches moved, anything, even though I’ve seen him pitch a lot. Koufax, definitely. Gibson, definitely. Maddux, who I voted for in the poll, you bet. Clemens, of course. All those guys are larger than life in my memories. Pedro… no. I don’t claim to understand it, and I can’t defend it, but there it is.
Jul 25th, 2008
Alan
Seaver, in his prime, is the best I’ve ever seen.
Jul 25th, 2008
paul
perry? are you kidding me?
watching pedro pitch was what i planned my week around. he was more than dominant playing in the AL at a hitter’s park. if i had one game to pitch and i could take a guy from anytime in history, i’d go with pedro circa 98-02. did you see that .872 whip? even the great closers don’t get that low.
Jul 25th, 2008
McKingford
There must be some mistake - I don’t see Jack Morris anywhere on that list…
[ducking]
Jul 25th, 2008
BobDD
whips required . . . chains optional
Jul 25th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
“This is really no objective measure by which one can reasonably conclude Koufax or Gibson is the best living pitcher. I’m with Bill.”
Pedro in his best seasons, those scratch your head, “is he really doing this,” mind-blowing 1999 and 2000, pitched 213 and 217 innings respectively.
Koufax in his best pitched 335 and 323. Want to make a wager which had more value to their team?
There’s a lot of people who argue that Roy Halladay is a lot better than a guy like, say, Rich Harden, because Halladay almost never goes less than 6 or 7, throws a ton of CGs for this era, and puts minimal strain on the pen, whereas Harden rarely goes more than 6.
What’s that you say, it’s not fair to guys like Pedro because pitcher usage has changed and CGs are historically low? Too bad. Is it fair that Koufax ruined his arm in an era where nothing could be done about it, whereas nowadays he’d be back on a mound within a year or two?
May as well just crown Pedro as the greatest pitcher ever if ERA+ is all you’re going to care about. I mean, he beats Walter Johnson in ERA+, right? Those extra 3,000 innings didn’t really matter much….
Jul 25th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
McKingford -
So Sandy Koufax WASN’T a good pitcher? I mean, that’s the point of the Larry Walker comp. Walker was a very good player without Coors, he had a better road OPS than home OPS in his 1997 MVP campaign, but he nevertheless definitely benefitted from Coors.
Koufax was a great pitcher at his peak, his road numbers are still very, very good, but he undoubtedly benefitted from Chavez Ravine.
Jul 25th, 2008
BobDD
The phrase “greatest living pitcher” gives me the image of who has the best view off their back deck, who enjoys ice cream more, who has the sweetest wife, who laughs the most, who has the lowest handicap - who has the greatest life! The “greatest dead pitcher” sounds like a misnomer.
What’s next? The greatest boobs in cinema history? Those home/away splits on Sophia are just sick!
Jul 25th, 2008
JRM
As much as I believe Maddux was great in his prime, I also believe he was the benefactor of a strike zone that no other pitcher before or after has benefited from. Umpires always gave him to 4-5 inches outside the black. For that reason alone I can’t vote him number one in this poll. But I do believe he’s HOF without a doubt.
Jul 25th, 2008
Perry
Paul — what can I say? I know the numbers are great. He’s just never been a vivid guy to me, whereas Koufax, Gibson, Seaver, Maddux, Clemens are. It’s almost like he’s nothing but a line of stats, someone who pitched before I was born. I have trouble calling up an image, the way I can easily with the others (and also many others).
JRM — Bullshit. It’s nothing like 4-5 inches, and I’m not convinced it’s anything at all. But even if he did — you think that’s not a skill? If he got an extra inch, he EARNED it by consistently hitting the glove where it was placed.
Jul 25th, 2008
sanford sklansky
Warren Spahn didn’t have 4 great seasons? Any type of longevity stat that doesn’t include him is suspect.
Jul 25th, 2008
Ricky
Steve from Cleve-
I don’t think Pedro is the greatest living pitcher either. It’s Roger Clemens in my opinion.
Jul 25th, 2008
Blackadder
Koufax’s numbers are definitely inflated, but he was still so good, and such a workhorse, that his “three year peak” is still easily one of the top 10 in baseball history, and arguably top 5.
I agree that Kevin Brown was a truly fantastic pitcher. In fact, I would probably take him over the guy that a lot of people think is the best pitcher ever!
FWIW, Saberhagen did make the Hall of Merit.
Jul 25th, 2008
Shrike
Oy.
It’s not as if Pedro has had a short career. Yes, he didn’t have an iron constitution like Walter Johnson — but then, who did? — but I’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who gave his team more value than Pedro when you take the aggregate of his incomparable peak and his career marks.
Jul 25th, 2008
jjf3
I was long of the opinion that a) Grove and Johnson were the two best pitchers all-time, and b) the post-war era’s best were Clemens, Pedro, and Seaver, in that order. Clemens for his combined excellence and lengthy career, Pedro for his peak brilliance, and Seaver for his total resume.
The steroid issue has now convinced me that Clemens had an abnormal age-related “decline” period, which left me with my vote: Pedro. He was an absolute maestro at his peak, to the point that he could “play” with the batter with his pitches (what Maddux does mentally, Pedro did physically as well).
I can accept an argument that I underrate Maddux, but to me GREATness includes some sense of pure “domination”, and Pedro had both the physical and mental domination of his opponents, while Greg has always relied on his exceptional mental dominance. Just my 2 pennies…
Jul 25th, 2008
Dan
Watching Maddux pitch in his prime was like watching Picasso paint or Costanza lie. A true artist. I think 20 years from now people are going to look at his stats and just be shake their head. In the juiced era this guy, with a fastball that everyone of us is dead certain we could hit, won 350 games? And he did it clean? I saw more physically impressive pitchers with better stuff, but I never saw a better one.
On another note, is Gaylord Perry still alive?
Jul 25th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
Ricky -
And maybe some of that has to do with Clemens putting up a lot more innings in his best years?
Some people want a guy who they pretty much know will give them 7 or 8 innings.
Shrike -
For him to give more value in his peak than Koufax, who had roughly 40-50% more innings, he’d have to have been 40-50% better. Can you prove that he was?
Look, I won’t argue that Pedro has the better career. A lot of pitchers have better careers than Koufax because he was anywhere from horrid to average for a good part of his career. But at his PEAK, he combined dominance with a ton of innings.
Jul 25th, 2008
Smitty
Not only is Mussina a no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer, but he is on pace for 20 wins this year so might shut the door on that bit of nitpicking. Besides the never winning 20 games, he would have been a postseason legend if the Orioles could have just managed a run or two in his playoff starts in the late 90’s. He was brilliant.
Jul 25th, 2008
JRM
Dan,
Gaylord is still alive. There is a picture of him in the weeks’ Sports Illustrated.
Perry,
I call bullshit back. If you can’t hit a catcher’s mitt at this level, you never make it to the big leagues. The fact is, a strike is suppose to be between the black lines. Maddux was given both sides of the plate, up to 4 inches off the dish. And not just occasionally…every game he pitched in his prime. The rules were different for him, simply because everyone thought he was so good. Which he was, but it doesn’t excuse the calls he got.
Jul 25th, 2008
Brad
The guy not getting talked about nearly enough on here, and I’m surprised that Joe didn’t write about him (being from Cleveland and all), is Bob Feller. Give him the seasons he lost to WWII and he’d probably have 7 or 8 GREAT season and would be right up there with the best of them. Not to mention how simply dominating he was, and at such a young age. Do people realize that he pitched in the major leagues at the age of SEVENTEEN, between his junior and senior years of high school?!?! That’s quite the summer job. Imagine the media hype if that happened in this day.
Jul 25th, 2008
Brad
By the way….there is NO WAY that Mariano Rivera should have more votes than Randy Johnson. Absolutely not. Not even close.
Do (those 15) people not realize the difference in value between starting pitchers and relievers?
Jul 25th, 2008
Johnny
Seaver. I think it has been said before on this blog, but it bears repeating … the fact that Ryan was on the All-Century Team Presented by MasterCard® and Seaver was not made the whole thing a joke.
Jul 25th, 2008
Bob R.
I am not sure for whom I would vote, but for the one pitcher I want to watch, it is Pedro. At his peak, he combined the best qualities of Maddux and Clemens, but was better than both. He had the control and smarts of Maddux, as artful a pitcher as I ever saw. And the power of Clemens plus a more varied and exciting repertoire. It seemed that whenever there was a poll of which pitchers threw the best fastball, curve, slider and changeup, Pedro was number one or close to it for each pitch.
And strangely, one of the most remarkable games I ever saw him pitch came against the Indians in the post-season when Pedro was injured and could not get the fastball even to 90. But coming into a slugfest, he shut the Indians down, as I remember without a hit over 6 or 7 innings. Even the walks (4 I think) seemed to be semi-intentional. He was simply out-thinking them.
Jul 25th, 2008
Chris J.
In 1946, Hal Newhouser won his 20th in Detroit’s 96th game played. No one sense then has gotten to 20 so quickly, not even Denny McLain.
Jul 25th, 2008
Vincent
If Pedro Martinez had remained in the relative invisibility of Montreal, without the Boston/ESPN media machine to help him, would he be anywhere as renowned now? Tend to doubt it. Great pitcher, mind you, but a bit overrated compared to other elite hurlers.
I love Maddux — a true master of the pitching arts. So what if he’s not a fireballer or a big “K” guy?
And finally, regarding Koufax: his ‘62-’66 seasons were undeniably brilliant, and he certainly had matured by then…but what would his stats have been like had the Dodgers still been playing at the Coliseum?
Jul 25th, 2008
JOSH
“Clemens getting 8% of the vote in the poll is just totally irrational. Almost as irrational as Bonds finishing behind Musial and Mays in the hitter poll. Koufax won less than half as many games AND had a lower ERA+ for his career. Gibson is also overrated because of that one magical year.
Really. Eight percent for Roger Clemens. That’s absurd.”
-Ricky
Dear Ricky,
Hey! How are things out in space? Hope the year 2008 is treating you well! Back here in on Earth, in America, many things have changed since your mission to Neptune commenced late in the summer of 1998. Nobody does the Macarena anymore. Tamagachi pets are no longer the rage. The internet is still mostly used for downloading porn and absorbing baseball blogs. Also, Roger Clemens has been exposed as a PED user, habitual liar, and general dick. I understand you’ve been floating through the interstellar void for the last decade, so I can’t in good faith hold your asinine opinion against you. Still…I’m having an extremely difficult time not imagining you as a gaping asshole.
Best of luck to you,
Josh
Jul 25th, 2008
ajnrules
I think Mussina’s going to get to 300 wins, but he’ll probably be seen on the same level of guys like Niekro and Sutton, so it may take him a couple of years to get into the Hall.
Speaking of which, with Randy Johnson making a run at 300 and Mussina getting pretty close, wasn’t it a bit premature for all the writers to shut the door on 300 wins? With the advent of modern conditioning and the allure of milestones, there will always be pitchers that’ll last long enough to get 300 wins. 350 wins, however, is something that’s going to get a lot harder to get to. It’s like getting 300 wins, but while sustaining a higher standard for a longer period of time. That’s why I ended up deciding between Clemens and Maddux. Clemens had the more impressive peak, but the steroids cloud hanging over him is undeniable. Nevertheless, I was always a big fan of his, and even saw him strike out 10 Nationals in his 336th career win, so I voted for him.
Sabes was great. I was so disappointed when he couldn’t get 5% of the vote when he went up against the BBWAA. Now he has to join the infamous Denny McLain as the only two-time Cy Young award winners outside of the Hall. If he had his peak in the middle of his career rather than the beginning, he’d be getting some serious consideration.
Anyways, another name that jumped out at me: Stan Coveleski…the best Indians pitcher before Bob Feller.
Jul 25th, 2008
Jhohnny
The numbers should be better for guys that pitch 190-210 innings per season and go 6-7 innings a game.
Do we have a way to factor that in? Can we cherry pick Koufax and Gibson’s best 6 innings per start and see what we come up with?
Only half kidding.
I voted for Feller, as much as I can’t stand the crotchety old bastard. As long as you’re going to make up subjective, imaginary titles, I’m going to pull the lever for the old guys. When part of the title is “living,” I’m going to factor that in.
If that’s depressing, take a Prozac, Nancy. Chase it with a Midol.
Jul 25th, 2008
Alex
Let’s just be explicit here.
* What do we think about short peak, longer peak and career accomplishments?
* What do we think about decline phases?
* What do we think about steroids?
Me? Well, I don’t care about decline phases much at all. Adding to counting stats doesn’t mean a lot to me, and I prefer to cut out the extreme decline seasons when looking at a player.
I think that peak is important. Very important. But a 3 year peak had better be *damn* good (i.e. best in decades) to sway me. It’s gotta be longer than that. Even 4 years is a bit short. I prefer five, though they don’t *have* to consecutive.
And then we get to steroids. I don’t think that issues of being a good role model, spouse or parent really matter. Being a good teammate only matters a tiny bit. Playing the game that your competitors played is what matters to me. So, Koufax gets some points for innings, but not too many. I don’t hold it against contemporary players that they play the game the way it is played today. So, I recognize the impact of leading his league in innings and ERA in the same season matters a lot. Clemens did that twice, too.
What does that have to do with steroids? Well, in one era, players took greenies. Not all of them, but everyone who wanted to. In another era is was steroids. Does it bother me a little? Yeah. But at the end of the day, when judging a pitcher or hitter or fielder, I do it based on their performance within their era.
******************
Greatest pitcher?
Greatest peak pitcher? Obviously Pedro. The arguments for anyone else simply don’t care. There have been 36 adjusted ERA+ over 200 in baseball history. He’s got 5 of them in a 6 year stretch! 4 of those years, he was in the top ten in his league in innings. That’s peak! (Only Walter Johnson (4), Clemens (3) and Pedro have more than 2 such seasons.) Randy Johnson has a similar peak, but not as high.
But, as I said, simply the highest peak is not enough for me. I want to see a high peak, but also an imposing range of peaks (in the sense of mountain range, not the statistical sense), as well. And Joe’s method this week does a good job of capturing that. Let’s look at great — really great — seasons, and see who has got a ton of them. That leave the question of what were that bar should be? If it’s too high, you’re just talking peak. If it’s too low, you’re talking about merely being effective, rather than great.
You see, Koufax’s peak is not high enough. And his range of peaks is not big enough.
Which left me with Clemens and Maddux. I’ve got to admit, Maddux is my kind of guy. Brains and execution that resulted in real dominance. The biggest or fastest or strongest don’t do it for me.
So, I oughta pick Maddux, right?
But I was raised to be a Red Sox fan. I came to baseball a little late, but being a Red Sox is in my blood. And when I came to baseball, there was Roger. My heart picks Roger.
So, I sat and thought about it. And I couldn’t come up with an answer. Not a compelling answer. In the end, I think the Cy Young Awards did it for me, combined with the Red Sox connection. But I wish I could take my vote back, because as I look at it more closely today, I should have picked Maddux.
****************
I applied the same criteria to the hitters. And Bonds won in rout.
Jul 25th, 2008
Alex
Vincent,
If you think that Pedro was overrated, look at the numbers. Seriously.
Heck, just look at the number’s that Joe printed above for road stats over a 4 year stretch. Those are the best pitching stretches in baseball history, right? Or at least most of them. Look at this K:BB ratio and WHIP compared to the others!
Did you read Joe’s column before posting your comment? He amply addresses the Koufax home field advantage point, and the comparison sets of pitcher stats are all road stats. Koufax was great, even on the road. But he wasn’t as great as Pedro at his peak. No one was. Heck, if you weigh in innings pitched (i.e. total value), I don’t know that anyone catches Pedro for his peak.
Don’t think that the fact that Boston gets a lot of attention means that it can’t have truly great players. Just ’cause he played in New York, that doesn’t mean that Ruth was not actually the greatest baseball player of all time.
Jul 25th, 2008
Ricky
Josh,
Oh, no! I’ve been insulted by some insecure stranger on the internet. Your rapier wit has shamed me. Yawn.
354 wins, seven Cy Young Awards, an MVP, seven ERA titles, six 20-win seasons, five strikeout titles, 4.672 strikeouts.
Yeah, he was terrible. Thanks for straightening me out on that.
Jul 25th, 2008
Conrad
Let’s also not forget, that from ‘55-’61, Koufax was AVERAGE, if not worse, than other pitchers. Check out his ERA+ on baseball-reference.com. Average. Five excellent seasons. He’s actually like the Tony Oliva or Nomar of pitchers.
Jul 26th, 2008
Anthony
I think that there should be two categories of greatness for this poll. We need a “best in his peak” category and “best sustained” category. Obviously, Pedro, Koufax, and Johnson would be competing in the former and Maddux and Clemens would be dueling in the latter.
It seems to me that for sheer dominance and overall unhittability, nobody can touch Koufax and Pedro at their peak production. But it was kind of short. And brilliant.
Maddux and Clemens were producing all kinds of greatness for years. Clemens probably was the greatest pitcher ever in many measurements. But I prefer Maddux who made batters look foolish with BP stuff (and, by the way… saying that Maddux got four more inches off the plate than any other pitcher is probably a more than slight exaggeration). Plus, and I’ll be honest here, Clemens has just left a bad taste in my mouth post-career that clouds my judgement. I subtract major points from him for being an overall sleazeball and taking away from baseball after his career.
I voted for Maddux.
Jul 26th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
Conrad -
I think most of us remember that, which is why only his peak is considered among the greatest ever. No one who knows a lot about baseball ranks him as the overall greatest, really.
“Heck, if you weigh in innings pitched (i.e. total value), I don’t know that anyone catches Pedro for his peak.”
Walter Johnson and his top WARP3 years laugh at that: 18.3(!!), 16.6(!), 14.3, 14.5, 13.4, that would be in five consecutive years by the way.
Pedro’s best four year run was obviously 97-00, which encompasses all 3 of his Cy Youngs. His WARP3s: 10.9, 9.6, 13.2, 14.2. For his fifth year, I’ll even give him a break, skip his injury-plagued 2001 and give him his 2002 WARP3 of 9.8.
Pedro put up astounding numbers, but he simply didn’t combine it with the innings that The Big Train did.
Jul 26th, 2008
Mike
Bob R, you’re a little mistaken. He went 6 innings, walked 3, 0 hits. 8 K’s I think. I want to say he was as high as 93 mph, but I’m not sure. He hit 97 during the season, and 98 at the All-Star game (where he likely ruined the shoulder, in my opinion).
As for Mike E up at the top (”Pedro from 1997-2000 probably had the greatest peak of all time”), you’re forgetting about 2001 where he pitched a 2.39 ERA for 116 innings before being hurt. And 2002 where he pitched a 2.26. And 2003 where he put down a 2.22. The league average for those years was around a 4.57… so I would say his peak was considerably longer than 1997 to 2000.
Also, Joe… If you really want to hammer the point home in your post… compare the ERA and WHIP to league average. Remember, Pedro did this in the harder league, in the highest run scoring era ever.
Jul 26th, 2008
Paul White
Since no one else has pointed this put, I will. In 1948, these two pitchers were on the Hall of Fame ballot:
Pitcher A: 215-142 (.602), 2.89 ERA (127 ERA+), 1.251 WHIP
Pitcher B: 240-162, (.597), 3.60 ERA (106 ERA+), 1.348 WHIP
Pitcher A led his league in ERA twice, in shutouts twice, and in strikeouts once. He won 20 or more games 5 times, and had a 1.74 ERA in 5 World Series starts.
Pitcher B never led his league in any major pitching category except shutouts (once) and innings pitched (once). He won 20 or more games just twice. He was excellent in the World Series, with a 2.05 ERA in five career starts, just not quite as good as Pitcher A.
One final note: Pitcher A played most of his career in Cleveland and Washington, while Pitcher B played most of his career in Boston and New York.
Pitcher A got two votes and was never elected by the BBWAA.
Pitcher B (Herb Pennock) got 94 votes, more that anyone else on the ballot, good enough for election, with 77.7% of all votes cast.
Pitcher A was Stan Coveleski, who is prominently noted in Joe’s list above with the likes of Walsh, Mussina, Carlton and Seaver. He is the pitching counterpart to Arky Vaughan or Johnny Mize on the list of the BBWAA’s greatest screw ups, particularly in light of who they elected in his place.
Jul 26th, 2008
Mike
I should add, re: Clemens and Bonds… Most people here understand normalizing for league, year, and ballpark. I think I normalize for steroids too. Clemens was on track for a HoF career before Toronto and all the steroid stuff. But I don’t think he hangs on nearly as long without it. Bonds too, was on a HoF path without the juice, and certainly could have been considered alongside Frank Thomas and a few others as the best hitters of the 90’s.
But for pete’s sake, look at their aging curves. That just doesn’t happen to people. It would be like seeing a Jessica Biel movie and saying, “Yeah, just wait until she turns 38 and hits her prime!”
Jul 26th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
Paul White:
Could it have anything to do with Coveleski being one of the “legal” spitballers who was grandfathered in? Maybe a bias against him because of that? On face value, he had a much better raw ERA than Pennock and a better winning percentage, so even if they didn’t know that his ERA+ and WHIP were so good you’d think he would have gotten a lot of support anyway.
Jul 26th, 2008
JP
I’ve never been a huge fan of “if you’d seen him” arguments because, well, I’m 25…so chances are if he played before the mid 90’s, I didn’t. So it is with a bit of hypocrisy that I advocate for Pedro because I know that part of it is my own fanboyism, so there, I said it. He didn’t pitch nearly as many innings as Walter Johnson or some others, but when Johnson was leading the league in innings pitched, the others were up there at least way more than pitchers throw today as well. In 1914 he pitched 371 innings (!!!!), at least the next three were over 300 (barely, wow, Johnson was a horse). Pedro, though he never pitched near 300 innings, was always up there with the innings leaders during his prime, his highest innings total was in 1997, when he threw 241, the leader, Smoltz, threw 256, and the top five are all in the 240-250s range. He never led the league, he was never outlandishly outdone by anyone else. So it was something he was good in, not great, but if we use that as a dispositive standard we’re saying that no pitcher can ever be rated as highly as any of the good ones in the first half of the 20th century. (though this is about living pitchers anyway)
Pedro’s 1999 game against the Indians (10/12/1999) was probably the single greatest pitching performance I’ve ever seen (others have mentioned it). The 6ip relief performance, by box score, was of course dominant. But the way he did it, his shoulder hurting him forced him to drop his arm into a 3/4 slot, he cracked 90 but it wasn’t like he did during the season when his fastball when from 91-98. Throwing mostly changeups and breaking balls he still shut down that Cleveland offense which was absolutely, as someone said earlier, a juggernaut. I remember Jim Thome coming up late in the game, 7th or 8th inning, and the look on his face before he struck out was that of complete defeat. (The K I’m sure of, the look on his face, just thinking about Jim Thome generally, I dunno, that could be a creation of my memory).
The 17k game against NY a month earlier (99 yanks could hit a little too), and the 13k game a year later against TB, when after he hit Gerald Williams to lead off and brawled, he retaliated by not allowing another baserunner until a John Flaherty bloop single to right center in the ninth.
I can’t really understand what someone said earlier about not considering watching Pedro pitch special. I believe him, I’ve had pitchers that others loved watching that I simply didn’t, but for those years, I (and everyone I knew) were enthralled. When he was pitching on a Saturday night, my entire HS football team was at someone’s house watching. At 17, this skinny 5′10″ Dominican guy could make us forget about girls and beer because he was making these monsters with clubs (it was the height of the steroids era after all) look absolutely silly. Those of us that were Red Sox fans adored him, some of us were Yankees fans who despised him, but no one could take their eyes of the screen when he was throwing. That 157 career ERA+ and his 291 in 2000 (best ever in career, second best ever in a season to Keefe (?) in 1880) are pretty good reasons to vote for Pedro too. Admittedly though, if you equally value peak and career, Maddux is really hard to argue against, his peak was nearly Pedro-esque. Just looking at four of five best years does eliminate the problem of decline and very early years in a career though, and its also the life of an average pitcher’s free agency contract, which seems relevant to me somehow.
Jul 26th, 2008
Paul White
“Could it have anything to do with Coveleski being one of the “legal” spitballers who was grandfathered in? Maybe a bias against him because of that? On face value, he had a much better raw ERA than Pennock and a better winning percentage, so even if they didn’t know that his ERA+ and WHIP were so good you’d think he would have gotten a lot of support anyway.”
I’m sure that had something to do with it, but I think it had more to do with the fact that he never played for a team in a major media market during his prime. The history of players outside New York being underrated while those inside New York are overrated is long and storied.
Jul 26th, 2008
EABinSTL
Is it easier to rack up stats way above average in the seasons immediately after expansion? (Does the standard deviation for runs scored against change in these years?)
Jul 26th, 2008
Colin
You know, I’d like to just chime in with kudos for the “real, and they’re spectacular” line. I always love the stealthy Seinfeld reference.
Jul 26th, 2008
Cliff
“High mound”? The mound was the same height during Koufax’s peak as it had been since 1950. But the strike zone was bigger starting in 1963. Don’t you think that had more to do with his success?
Jul 26th, 2008
DJ Allan
Steve from Cleve:
“There’s a lot of people who argue that Roy Halladay is a lot better than a guy like, say, Rich Harden, because Halladay almost never goes less than 6 or 7, throws a ton of CGs for this era, and puts minimal strain on the pen, whereas Harden rarely goes more than 6.”
You’re really going out on a limb with that one.
If you polled 100 baseball people who they think is better, more valuable etc I would wager that 99 would practically shout Halladay. And it has absolutely nothing to do with his stamina. It’s the fact that he’s simply better at getting people out. Harden has proven nothing except that he has great stuff (and I’m from Victoria BC).
By the way, love the handle.
Jul 26th, 2008
Shrike
And I’m from Vancouver. I think you’re selling Harden short — he’s very effective when he’s healthy. That said, Halladay is obviously much more reliable, which means a lot when you are evaluating a pitcher.
Jul 26th, 2008
Adam
I don’t really know how to vote here. I think Pedro, at his peak, was easily the best pitcher in history, but I also think that either Maddux or Seaver (both of whom also had pretty spectacular peaks) had the best overall careers. Voting Maddux just because he was my personal favorite of the three, but I’m not totally sure it’s the right answer. Can’t really go wrong with any of them, I suppose.
Jul 26th, 2008
Greyson
It’s Maddux, never seen a person do so much with so little. As for getting pitches off of the plate called strikes? That is in fact the art of pitching, which is why Maddux is the best person alive at pitching.
Why no Smoltz or Eckersley? Neither is probably the answer, but they’re atleast as deserving of consideration as Mariano.
Nolan Ryan is also probably worthy of inclusion, though also likely not the answer.
If since we’re also talking about the old-timers don’t forget Satchel Paige, Smoky Joe Wood and Rube Waddell.
Jul 27th, 2008
Alex
I don’t know much about Walter Johnson, as Steve from Cleve rightly pointed out. So I just looked.
In 1914 — yeah, he pitched a LONG time ago — he three 68 more innings than anyone else. 68! Every year in the teens (i.e. 1910-1919) he was in thet top 4 in innings, WHIP, K/9, K/BB, ERA, ERA+. And half of those were #1, with only a handful #4. Quantity and quality.
He wasn’t quite as good at the beginning and end of his career, adding another 7 years of top 10 in every category rankings, except for 1924, when he won the MVP.
Plus, in 1913 he let the league in SAVES!!! (I’ve got no idea what that meant in 1913.)
Wow.
The stuff I don’t know about baseball…
Jul 27th, 2008
Thomas
What happened to Pedro’s lead? I knew Maddux was smart, but I didn’t think he knew how to program an army of computers to repeatedly vote for him…
Jul 27th, 2008
Steve
Pedro’s performance on September 10, 1999 against the Yankees was the greatest pitching performance I ever saw. And this is from a Yankees fan who saw David Wells’ perfect game on TV.
Jul 27th, 2008
Richard Aronson
I’m going to reprint those road numbers, because Joe missed something pretty darned important there:
Pitcher A: 42-30, 2.49 ERA, 628 IPs, 4.4 to 1 strikeout to walk, 1.014 WHIP.
Pitcher B: 47-16, 2.43 ERA, 580 IPs, 4 to 1 strikeout to walk, 1.015 WHIP.
Pitcher C: 35-29, 2.53 ERA, 534 IPs, 2.2 to 1 strikeout to walk. 1.220 WHIP
Pitcher D: 43-23, 1.99 ERA, 596 IPs, 3.5 to 1 strikeout to walk. .980 WHIP
Pitcher E: 42-20, 1.96 ERA, 526 IPs, 2.8 to 1 strikeout to walk, 1.042 WHIP
Pitcher F: 43-15, 1.94 ERA, 493 IPs, 4 to 1 strikeout to walk, .977 WHIP.
Pitcher G: 42-9, 1.84 ERA, 495 IPs, 6.3 to 1 strikeout to walk, .872 WHIP.
The important thing, the Koufax mystique? In his best four seasons, with a weak hitting team behind him, Koufax still won four more games than any of these other pitchers. The only pitcher who had a better winning percentage at his peak on the road was Pedro, and he had better bats behind him. In 1963-66, the Dodgers were 6th, 8th, 8th, and 8th in the National League in runs scored; in a ten team league, all those were below average. Koufax was only three wins better at home over those four years, and we all know that Koufax got more starts at home because the Dodgers kept more of the ticket money from home games than road games. So while Dodger Stadium helped his park dependent numbers, what Koufax was, more than any pitcher I’ve ever followed before or since, was a winner.
I know, wins are overrated for pitchers. But Koufax always faced the other team’s best pitcher. How many of Jenkins’ losses, or Marichal’s, were against Koufax? Jenkins had by far the most innings on that list above and a better K/W ratio and WHIP than Koufax, but he had five fewer wins, fourteen more losses. I assume for Jenkins you’re using 1968-71; in 68 the Cubs were second in the NL in runs scored (I didn’t bother looking at the other years). I assume for Pedro you are using 1999-2002; the Sox were 9th, 11th, 7th, and 2nd, in a 14 team league. So they were playing with better offenses than Koufax. It didn’t matter. If the other guy gave up two runs, Koufax gave up one. If the other guy gave up one run, Koufax gave up none. I know he lost some games and gave up some runs, but I don’t remember Koufax pitching while the team was losing, except in 1965 in Minnesota and 1966 against the Orioles. In his perfect game victory the Dodgers were one hit, and the hit didn’t figure in the scoring. What Koufax was, time and again, was an indomitable will to win. He was the guy who took insane amounts of treatment to his elbow to be able to keep on pitching despite incredible pain from arthritis. And he kept on pitching because he knew that without him, his team was going to be second rate at best. In 1967, the Dodgers finished 8th, and in 1968, despite Drysdale’s scoreless inning record, the Dodgers finished 7th. Yes, Koufax made that much of a difference.
It is also worth mentioning that in 1962, when Koufax missed much of the season with a blood vessel injury that almost cost him his career and required him to go on experimental drugs in order to save his finger, he still had an ERA+ of 141 and pitched his first no hitter. And in 1961, despite pitching in the *worst* possible park for him (the LA Coliseum, where the “Moon Shot” homer to the short porch in left was perhaps the shortest in major league history at 251 feet) he still had an ERA+ of 123 while setting the NL record for strikeouts in a season. I like that his SIXTH best season was the one where he set a fairly important NL record.
And nobody said bad things about Koufax. Oh, sure, they said bad things about having to bat against him. But team mates and opponents alike had nothing but praise for him. I’ve read comments that if Koufax had been willing to pitch inside a bit more (as Pedro was) then he’d have been even more dominant, because nobody wanted to stand in against Koufax’s fast ball. I recall one article in the L.A. Times in the 1960s where some opposing hitter said that getting hit by a Drysdale pitch was like being spanked by your mother; getting hit by a Koufax pitch was like being spanked by your father. Koufax only hit 18 batters in his entire career. Drysdale, 154. Pedro, 135 and counting. In Pedro’s best season (ERA+ 291) he hit 14 batters. In 1963-66, Koufax hit a total of 8, in a lot more innings.
And that’s another part of the Koufax mystique. Pedro and Drysdale and Marichal and Gibson all believed, and rightfully so, that they could make batters less effective by coming inside, maybe too far inside, deliberately avoiding the strike zone in order to force all the batters back off the plate or risk a nasty bruise. Koufax played by the rules, and the rules were to throw strikes, as much as possible. He didn’t play head games. Imagine how much better he might have been if he was willing to. Imagine how much better sooner Koufax might have become if Alston had used him 200 innings a year from the beginning instead of resenting having an inconsistent bonus baby forced onto his roster. Imagine how much longer Koufax might have pitched if they’d had arthroscopic surgery back then. Great as Koufax was, he could easily have been better.
I was one of those Jewish kids growing up in LA. My parents were at Koufax’s perfect game. I was at the 1965 World Series. Koufax was the only athlete I ever idolized. I would pick Koufax as the best human being on that list of greatest living pitchers, the same way I would pick Robinson as the best human being on Joe’s list for the new HOF. I’d want my daughter to marry Koufax, and he’s 50 years older and has a wife.
But as with Robinson not being on my list of five best ballplayers, I didn’t vote for Koufax as the greatest living pitcher. I picked Maddux. Nothing against Pedro, who had the highest peaks of any pitcher I know, but Maddux had the highest valleys over his career. I wish Maddux’d retire already because he will be one of the greatest pitching coaches and managers of all time and he is no longer one of the best pitchers of all time. Koufax was incredible, but it took him too long to become incredible, and it didn’t last long enough because of an arthritic left elbow. I never idolized Maddux or Pedro. But if I’m voting for something important, something that matters, what they did on the field, I think Koufax would be disappointed in me if I didn’t vote for the pitcher I honestly think was the best overall, idol or not.
Jul 28th, 2008
JR in Chatt
Maybe this stuff is completely irrelevant to the arguement, but shouldn’t someone (me, I guess) at least mention Maddux’s:
17 gold gloves
4 CONSECUTIVE cy youngs (almost 5 straight; thank you, Pedro)
back to back seasons with an ERA under 2.00 (’94-’95)
a stretch of 72 consecutive innings without walking a batter (2000)
17 consecutive years of 15+ wins
We have only grown complacent with Maddux’s dominance. If he had pitched his career in the NY or BOS markets, or if the braves had made better of their post season opportunities, he would be inarguably the living GOAT.
Jul 28th, 2008
JR in Chatt
correction, sorry.
Maddux finished 2nd to pedro in 1997. He finished 5th in the voting in ‘96. Could have been 5 Cy’s over a 6 year period, not consecutively.
Jul 28th, 2008
Drew
It’s odd to me that based on the criterion (33 RSAA or better), David Cone doesn’t even have one great season. Seemed to me like he ought to have been considered for a couple of great seasons. And Dwight Gooden only gets ONE great season (albeit with a ridiculous 65 RSAA). I realize this is just an arbitrary way of selecting guys, but I wonder if there’s some kind of bias in the selection that I don’t understand yet, or if Coney really wasn’t as good as I remember.
Jul 28th, 2008
Former Army Person
Some random factoids:
Koufax - 1960 away ERA 3.00, home 5.27
1961 away ERA 2.77, home 4.22
what a change to go to Dodger Stadium
Jim Palmer - only pitcher to win a World Series game in three different decades
Bob Gibson - 9 World Series starts, 81 IP. Think about it.
I lean towards Gibson as the best, despite although the stats that support other choices.
IMO, the greatest upset ever was Mickey Lolich outpitching Bob Gibson in game 7, 1968. I still can’t believe it happened 40 years later.
Jul 28th, 2008
Wally
Steve from cleve:
“Walter Johnson and his top WARP3 years laugh at that: 18.3(!!), 16.6(!), 14.3, 14.5, 13.4, that would be in five consecutive years by the way.
Pedro’s best four year run was obviously 97-00, which encompasses all 3 of his Cy Youngs. His WARP3s: 10.9, 9.6, 13.2, 14.2. For his fifth year, I’ll even give him a break, skip his injury-plagued 2001 and give him his 2002 WARP3 of 9.8.”
I find it extremely hard to use a stat, even one as good as WARP3, to compare a dead ball pitcher to a pitcher playing in one of the greatest offensive peroids in baseball. The differences are just SO great between the game that was being played in Johnson’s career and the game being played durning Pedro’s that stats simply start to lose meaning. Basically, the farther back you go, the more context needs to be mentioned along with the numbers. Pitchers simply can’t throw 300-350 innings anymore. What pitching is today is just WAY more stressful to the human body than it was in 1914. Not to mention the game was just so much easier to dominate back then for a host of other reasons (meaning replacement level was rediculusly low, basically to the point of pulling a random guy out of the stands). So I wouldn’t let one number, WARP3, lead you to believe what Johnson did was actually almost twice as valuable to his team.
Also, I would guess that conrads’ remark about anyone catching Pedro’s IP weighted value was made regarding living pitchers. Ie. no dead ball pitchers, since they are dead.
Jul 28th, 2008
David in NYC
Chris J –
In 1884, Charley Radbourn won his 59th game in his team’s 75th game. I think that beats Newhouser by quite a long shot.
And this nonsense about Maddux and the extra “4-5 inches” — PLEASE! First of all, it’s not remotely true (why on earth would ALL umpires give a wider strike zone to ONE pitcher?). Second, even if it were true, SO WHAT?! Maddux didn’t call the pitches, umpires did. If he took advantage of that, that just means he’s a very smart pitcher.
Maddux got my vote in the poll; the only other possible choice, logically, is Clemens; unfortunately, he is forever tainted with the steroids nonsense. Even if he weren’t, I would probably still go with Mad Dog.
As for single games, I have to vote for Seaver’s 19-K game against the Padres in 1970. I was in college at the time, and happened to catch it on TV (day game at Shea). Tom Terriffic struck out the last 10 Padres, the streak only ending because the game did. Trust me, if they had gone another 5 innings, his streak would have been 25, because he was in the most amazing groove I have ever seen a pitcher have. IIRC, Ralph Kiner said more or less the same thing in Kiner’s Korner after the game.
Jul 28th, 2008
DWD
Looking at this list, it’s apparent there’s something not quite right with the metric. Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina would typically not be in any Top 20 pitchers list.
The problem with RSAA is that a run saved in 1968 is not the same as a run saved in 1999 or 2000. That’s because a run saved in a low run scoring environment like 1968 has more value than a run prevented in a high scoring environment.
I think this also explains why pitchers like Warren Spahn aren’t showing up.
Don’t get me wrong, I think RSAA is a very useful metric, but not necessarily for comparing across era’s.
Jul 28th, 2008
JR in Chatt
can someone explain to me why Randy Johnson does not merit more attention? 5 cy youngs? 5 straight seasons with 300+ Ks?
what do you notice about these lines? (you know which one is RJ)
A: 372 K, 249 IP
B: 383 K, 326 IP
C: 382 K, 335 IP
Jul 28th, 2008
Shark
The whole “if you’d seen him” thing of course is for old men and is belittled by the Fire Joe Morgan stats crowd….and for a lot of good reasons. But I’ll tell ya….I saw Koufax and I saw Big Bob Gibson, not to mention Maddux and Pedro etc. I lived in the St. Louis market so I saw a LOT of Gibson and Koufax, but I was a Red Sox fan. Bob Gibson in the flesh absolutely would convince you he was the greatest most unhittable pitcher imaginable. Just a mean bastard with a motion that made that fastball look even more vicious, and he would come right upside your head. Koufax was so much smoother looking that he didn’t seem so intimidating, but of course he was just as unhittable. Personally if I had to pick the one man to pitch the World Series 7th Game that my life ALSO depended on…..I’d choose Gibby.
Jul 28th, 2008
Pete R
Try this game for anyone in Colorado, or Jim Rice, or Nomar, or almost anyone who the Hall of Fame have passed over: you won’t get numbers like this.
Let’s look at the years 1962-66, best ERA+ by a pitcher with at least 20 starts (which isn’t many). So that’s your park effect allowed for:
167 Koufax
143 Marichal
132 Jim Maloney
Then for 1997-2003:
213 Pedro
170 Johnson
154 Prior
Looks like Pedro has a big edge, and then it’s time to go back and forth: BUT Koufax pitched A LOT more innings each year, so he was worth more each season, YES BUT seven years is better than five, I KNOW BUT three World Series rings are better than one…
Jul 28th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
Wally:
I dunno. I mean, you can’t compare Old Hoss Radbourne and Iron Man Joe going out there and tossing underhand and piling up 600 innings to what guys do today, but I’m of the belief that if you took Walter Johnson and plopped him into the league today, he’d still dominate. I mean, Bob Feller was clocked at 98.6 IIRC, and anecdotally there are a lot of people who will tell you that Walter was either just as fast or faster than Rapid Robbie. You give me a guy who can sidearm it in at 98 MPH, and I’ll take him on my team any day of the week and twice for a Sunday doubleheader.
The fact that I had to drop the “Big Train” bomb to find anyone who trumps Pedro is in itself a testament to Pedro’s greatness. I mean, Walter Johnson isn’t the consensus best pitcher ever, but he’s pretty close; if he’s the only guy whose peak can beat Pedro, then Pedro has nothing to be ashamed of.
Oh, my favorite Big Train tidbit: his batting line in 1925. .433/.455/.577 with a 163 OPS+ in 107 PA. Micah Owings, eat your heart out.
Jul 28th, 2008
Ben
With regard to Clemens and Bonds being perhaps the best pitcher and hitter ever, I got to see them face each other in 2002 when the Giants visited Yankee Stadium. I’m a fan of neither team (Royals and Cubbies for me), but my brother was visiting, and it seemed too good to pass up. The two faced each other four times, and here were the results:
Walk, HBP, Intentional Walk, Intentional Walk.
In the 9th, Steve Karsay came in and gave Bonds another intentional pass for good measure. All told, pretty anti-climactic.
The box score is here if you care:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200206090.shtml
Jul 28th, 2008
Brent
Steve from Cleve:
I agree that the Big Train would be quite good, but . . . the Dead Ball Era was different in that you just didn’t have to throw your best pitches all the time. So you could save wear and tear on your arm by only powering up for the big time fastball when you really had to, maybe 20 pitches a game.
As for McGinnity, I always thought of him more like the Quiz and Tekulve in his under hand pitching (submarine-style), so maybe he really could have approached some of his Iron man numbers. (since that way of throwing puts very little stress on on arm, at least in comparison to over hand throwing) Radbourn, I agree, was throwing more like a softball pitcher pitches (I presume that the speed was much harder than slow pitch softball, but also slower than the way the girls pitch now in their softball)
Jul 29th, 2008
Incoming Message from Dr. Light
Dodgers road runs/game, 1962-68:
62: 5.28 (1st of 10)
63: 4.20 (2nd of 10)
64: 4.28 (2nd of 10)
65: 4.20 (4th of 10, and 0.02 r/g behind 2nd)
66: 3.95 (5th of 10)
67: 3.43 (9th of 10)
68: 3.19 (8th of 10)
In other words, the only season of Koufax’s reign in which the Dodgers couldn’t be described as a good-hitting team was 1966. The rest of the time, they did pretty well for themselves, although it’s hard to see it at first glance because of the era in general and playing half their games in a park with a four-foot-tall mound and foul territory bigger than several national forests in particular. And then they of course fall of the face of the earth completely in 1967, even after adjusting for context.
Jul 29th, 2008
Incoming Message from Dr. Light
(Afterthought to the above: Road runs/game is of course just one metric. The Dodgers of that era don’t perform all that well in OPS+; I’d try doing run differentials, but B-R doesn’t have those explicitly, and I was too pressed for time to do it myself.)
Jul 29th, 2008
Brent
Dr. Light:
What really brought home the concept of Dodgers Stadium as a pitcher’s park to me wasn’t pitching stats but actually the batting stats of Willie Davis. Bill James once translated Willie Davis’s rather pedestrian (seeming) offensive stats to a run neutral environment and they were suddenly transformed into HOF numbers.
Jul 29th, 2008
Wally
No one actually knows how fast the dead ball era pitchers threw. Primarily because there was no radar. However, it seems in 1917 a group measured the speed of certain pitchers’ fastballs, and Johnson came in at around 91. I have no idea how valid that is, it seems like it was not a game situation, but it has to be better than comparing Johnson to a pitcher that had his fastball record by radar roughly 20 years after Johnson retired (radar simply couldn’t have been used until after WWII, though I don’t know the exact date of its use).
Second, I don’t know how we can ignore the spitball factor here, among all the other differences. Yes, it was still over hand pitching, but that is about where the similarity ends. The ball was different, the rules where different, the mound was different, the quality of the batter was different….it was a different game.
And look at how well Johnson pitched after the spitball was banned. In 1918 (the year before the ban) he threw 326 innings at an ERA+ of 214. He never threw more than 280 innings after the ban, nor reached above an ERA+ of 149. Also, is it any surprise that in 1922 the two guys over 300 innings (Faber 352, Shocker 348) were allowed to throw spitballs still, while the 3rd best was a non-spitballer at *just* 299.2 innings. Yes I know cherry picking, but if you look through the leader boards in IP after 1920, you’d see about 1/2 of the players going over, or close to, 300 innings where still allowed to throw the spitball. And you’d also see the leaders dropping in IP from pre-1920 to post-1920.
So comparing counting stats, even ones as good as WARP3, between a modern pitcher (particularly a pitcher who’s peak was in the “steroid” era) to that of one in the dead ball era is a bit unfair.
Jul 29th, 2008
Steve from Cleve
The IP drop, you don’t think that had anything to do with him being in his mid-30s?
Even if you want to penalize the Big Train for pitching in the Dead Ball Era and knock something off of his WARP3, he’d still probably beat Pedro in peak value, and he obliterates him in career value. He was also a decent hitter for his career, don’t forget.
If you’re just going to say “it was a different game,” then why even have era-adjusted stats like WARP3? Are you in the camp that thinks that Babe Ruth would be a 4A player in today’s game?
Jul 29th, 2008
Wally
“The IP drop, you don’t think that had anything to do with him being in his mid-30s?”
Sure, some, but I cannot possibly forget about the banning of the spitball. This was a rule change that flipped the game on its head. I’m guessing it had something to do with Johnson’s drop.
“Are you in the camp that thinks that Babe Ruth would be a 4A player in today’s game?”
Yes, or at least he wouldn’t be posting anything near a 200 OPS+. He could have been average, he could have been good, or he could have been a wash out. But to assume he’d dominate the game in anything close to the same fashion that he did would be ridiculous.
“If you’re just going to say “it was a different game,” then why even have era-adjusted stats like WARP3?”
Well they are nice, but they cannot possibly account every factor, particularly when you are talking about 90 years of baseball. Yes, a guy throwing almost 400 innings, in a league where replacement level is basically to the point of a common softball player, is going to have a huge advantage in WARP3 over a guy throwing 200-250 innings where replacement level is so much closer to MLB quality.
Jul 30th, 2008
Jeff
With regards to your idiots/maniacs lead…I’ve always said that normal is defined as: “within one standard deviation of me.” I imagine that is pretty much everyone’s rule.
Aug 5th, 2008
Dave
One has to wonder just how accurate radar guns really are even today since they clocked a stationary tree at 45 mph with no wind.
Nov 13th, 2008
Reply to “Koufax and GREAT pitchers”