> > If we use your metrics - that is, just against the > other players of his time, ignoring park effects, > difficulty, everything - then why isn't Gibson the > best ever? His 1968 season was better than anything > Koufax ever did, phenomenal though Koufax was. It was the best season ever in my opinion
If Koufax had five seasons so much better than everyone > else that they automatically qualify him as the most > dominant pitcher ever - why didn't he win five Cy > Youngs? Randy Johnson has five. Clemens has six. > Maddux won _four in a row_. Pedro won three in a row, > and probably deserved more. > You mentioned postseason performance. The first > question, of course, is how many Division Series did > Koufax have to pitch his team through? How many > League Championship Series? So yes, he did very well > in the World Series. But in terms of pure postseason > performance, did he do anything as impressive as Randy > Johnson last year? Well I would consider the post season record of each pitcher not just world series record. Koufax might have benefitted from more opportunities to pitch. Would have had more wins. Lots of > people claimed that Barry Bonds couldn't "hit in the > clutch" because of his poor postseason performance. > Do you still think so after last year? Willy Mays, I > would point out, _sucked_ in the postseason. Does > anyone blame him for it? No, of course not. Players > who people like are clutch players, and players who > people don't like aren't, and that's as far as it > goes. > I would never blame a great player for not coming through in the clutch but I do > credit those that do. I think it useful in comparing the very best with each other. > In the end the goal is to win important games and those who achieve this deserve > more credit than those that do not. I am not suggesting that the success of an > athletes career is determined by championships. I think that is silly. I don't like > Patrick Ewing but he had a phenominally successful career as a Knick. The same thing with injuries. It's true that Maddux > has much better medical care available to him than > Koufax did - not that he's ever needed it, but > certainly it's true. But Koufax had better medical > care than Walter Johnson. Which one was more durable? > Koufax was legendarily fragile during his own era. He was fragile and not fragile. He was in pain and had all these odd treatments (the oil and the ice baths) that have only added to his legend but he almost never missed a turn. The guy pitched over 300 innings his last 3 years in the league. He would have been better taken care of now. > > Furthermore, Koufax had what Maddux and Pedro don't - > a high pitching mound, and the chance to take it easy > against at least half the batters in the other teams > lineup. Don't you think that decreased his chance of > injury? I don't think he ever took it easy. He threw a lot of pitches; however you slice it way more than guys do now. > > If statistics only told us what we "know" to be true, > then they would be useless anyways. It's only when > they tell us something that is contrary to our > perceptions that they are useful. In this case, the > statistics are saying something that you don't like, > Bob, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Now, if > they declared that Andy Pettite was the greatest > pitcher ever, then clearly we'd have to cook up some > new statistics. He is definitely second to Koufax. But by the way, I love Andy and would certainly over value him but I did not love Koufax. I hated him. That would be absurd. But it's > certainly reasonable to say that Pedro's 1999 season > was the most dominant ever. It's also reasonable to > say that Gibson's 1968 season was. Or one of Koufax's > great ones. It just so happens that Koufax's don't > seem to quite make the grade against Pedro's best, and > Koufax's career clearly doesn't quite make it against, > say, Seaver or Clemens. That doesn't make him > anything less than a phenomenal pitcher - one of the > best of all time. Just not _the_ best. > > My judgement remains that one must add in performance in the post season. When this > is added in I think Koufax is right there. But of course you have listed many ways > that one can judge a player. All are valid and none has priority. One last thing: In one post you talked about how Koufax would have been rated had he not been Jewish. I answered this but could not send the message. I agree that this has affected people's judgement of him. Many sports writers (especially in NY are or were jewish and this increased their admiration and affection for Koufax. But you must realize that being a jewish hurt rather than helped in his career. It was the 50s and anti-semitism was more open. He faced resentment from many of his team mates and opponents. Alston missed used Koufax horribly throughout his career almost certainly slowing his progress. Many think that he was an antisemite. At the very least he did not know how to deal with a smart urban jew. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
