Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/6/2003 10:08:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember seeing Ryan in his later Houston years. IIRC, he had one losing season (well maybe it was a 15-14 season) when he led the league in ERA. He would lose a number of 2-1 and 1-0 ballgames. It was amazing. Those were the games Koufax won. .mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
I did. I think that was ridiculous. If you think Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher of all time, you're simply wrong. There is no serious argument for this. If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. He did not have their longevity. He did not have the benefit of modern techniques and attitudes for protecting a pitcher's arm Note that Pedro is clearly not the best pitcher ever either. The most dominant on a per-game basis? Probably yes. But not the best ever. Too many injuries, too short a career. But as for all your post season arm waving, Bob. Tell me - how many pitches per game did Koufax throw? In a very tough game, probably 120. Are you sure about this? Koufax threw lots of complete games. In 61 he had a 200 pitch game. He pitched more than 9 innings on many occaisons. Even granting that he may have made fewer pitches per inning (but that would mean he simply got batters out more quickly - and this is somehow a bad thing?). He pitched over 250 innings in 61 and 184 in 62 (the year he almost lost a finger to gangrene after injury an artery in his left hand while batting early in the year). After that he pitched over 300 innings per year from 63-66. Now maybe Pedro has more pitches per batter but he still only throw about 200 innings per year. So clearly Koufax threw more pitches. So if Pedro were throwing off a 20 mound, in Dodger Stadium, with a strike zone twice the size of todays, against batters who couldn't hit the ball out of the park if you let them use golf balls - what do you think he would do? Who can tell. You have to put him back in that era. He won't have the same arsenal of pitches as he does now. He won't have the benefit of modern atttitudes towards pitches. You assume that ther relative futility of hitters in that era was a reflection of both pitchers advantage and lower skill level. Let me offer another reason. It wasn't that the pitchers were better. It was that all of the pitchers were good. After all there were only 16 teams and each team had a 4 man rototation. So hitters had to bat against only 64 pitchers. There were no patsies on the mound. No guys who could get no one out. Now there are 30 teams and each team has a 5 man rotation. That means there are 150 pitchers in rotations. The dilution of pitching talent is an important cause of the improved hitting in the current era. Great pitchers always have the advantage. That is why pitching trumps hitting in the World Series. Koufax and Pedro would have very similar stats if they were contemporaries. The difference would have been who won the important games. Koufax won them, Pedro and Maddux and until recently Clemens have not. Your argument, Bob, boils down to Koufax was better because those old time players played the exact same game players do today. That pitching in Dodger Stadium off a 20 mound and pitching in Fenway Park off a 10 mound are identical. That pitching to little guys who don't lift weights and think a double is a career highlight is the same as pitching to Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. Teams hit 200 HRs per season routinely nowadays. How many teams Koufax pitched to could do that? There is no doubt that the game has changed and that pitchers face different challenges. Current hitters can be fooled on pitches and still muscle them out of the park. But this only goes so far. A strike out is still a strike out whether the hitter is Barry Bonds or Bobby Richardson. Frankly, if this argument were about anyone except Koufax, _you_ wouldn't take you seriously. Particularly since by _your_ standards, Gibson was better than Koufax, so where's your argument? Uh - Gibson admitted (grudgingly) that Koufax was the best pitcher ever from 62-66. So who am I (or you) to disagree. __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Koufax, Bob, a pretty knowledgeable baseball guy, said that Pedro was better than he was. That's worth something too, don't you think? He's just being modest. But yes I would take that very seriously. Bob, I have some idea of what a phenomenally accomplished doctor you are. Don't believe everything you hear from impressionable young men. It is all smoke and mirrors. I'm just asking that you to apply the same sort of rigorous thinking to something that is much easier to analyze - if you put your emotions aside. Let's say I was a pharma rep for GSK trying to sell you on Zocor. If I came to you and told you how great Zocor was, I'm guessing that you would demand the clinical data. If I hemmed and hawed for a while, and then finally admitted that, well, the clinical data says that Lipitor is stronger, what would you say? If I told you about how these great doctors (from before Penicillin was invented, or the role of cholesterol in heart disease was discovered) all thought Zocor was stronger, that might impress you a little bit, I guess. And I could tell you stories about that time Lipitor didn't do anything for my friend's cholesterol problem, but Zocor cleared it right up. But if the MM data said that Lipitor has better life-extending results (which I think it does) and the clinical data said that it was stronger at lowering LDL and raising HDL (which I'm pretty sure it is) then would you prescribe Zocor to your patients just because I told you it was wonderful? I hope not. You raise an interesting point; one that goes beyond the fun of two bull headed people arguing for its own sake. What is the nature of proof? Now clearly anecdotal evidence is not as good as quantitative measure but the difficulty is in determining what you are trying to quantify. The drug analogy is edifying. It is the best case scenario for this sort of comparison. it is relatively easy to set up an experiment where the effects of a drug can be measured objectively. In your example we would use cholesterol level as our primary outcome. But this would actually be just a surrogate for our real outcome, reduction of heart attacks and strokes. Since measuring the true outcome is trickier more expensive and too time consuming we use surrogates. That is fine but this requires a judgement on what that surrogate should be. In this case in addition to primary outcome measure we would need to have secondary measures (e.g side effects). We would need to make some subjective judgements about which outcome is most important. Things are even more complex in my field where it is difficult if not impossilbe to measure some outcomes. Diagnostic efficacy sensitivity specificity positive and negative predictive value are all used to assess the value of diagnostic imaging tests. But I remain deeply skeptical that these tools tell us much that we don't know from daily clinical experience. Most of the science I have done might best be described as the art of medicine. I use statistics in my work but I know that sometimes they fail to provide clear information. Several years ago I reviewed a very complex paper on imaging of Multiple Sclerosis submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine. It concluded that MR was not all that useful in detecting and characerizing MS when compared to clinical evaluation. They had the stats to prove it. But my own experience told me this was simply wrong. I understood the data and knew why the authors had come to an erroneous conclusion but the fact of the matter was that the paper did not reflect clinical reality and subsequent experience showed this to be correct. I am no genius nor am I someone who automatically trusts my judgement above others but I knew that the conclusions of the paper were wrong because of my direct experience in interpretting studies and dealing with neurologists. You said that Pedro and Koufax both had the best ERA possible. But that's not really true, is it? Gibson had a better ERA than Koufax at least once - much better. Gibson had the single greatest season a pitcher can have (68). Is ERA was about one run difference from Koufax. So my point is I think correct. 1.5-2.0 is about the best you can do. Rarely you can do a bit better. Since I may time out on gd aol I'll continue in the next post There's one yardstick for you right there. No pitcher has put up numbers that even vaguely resemble Pedro's at his peak during the last few years. But there were pitchers who put up numbers that were comparable to (or better than) those of Koufax. Gibson, IIRC, won 26 games in 1968. Now, W-L for pitchers aren't particularly informative, but, well, how often did Koufax do that? Now, here is the player page for Koufax at the Baseball Prospectus Web Site: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/koufasa01.shtml And here is the player page for Pedro:
Re: Sandy Kofax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Koufax, Bob, a pretty knowledgeable baseball guy, said that Pedro was better than he was. That's worth something too, don't you think? He's just being modest. But yes I would take that very seriously. Bob, I have some idea of what a phenomenally accomplished doctor you are. Don't believe everything you hear from impressionable young men. It is all smoke and mirrors. I'm just asking that you to apply the same sort of rigorous thinking to something that is much easier to analyze - if you put your emotions aside. Let's say I was a pharma rep for GSK trying to sell you on Zocor. If I came to you and told you how great Zocor was, I'm guessing that you would demand the clinical data. If I hemmed and hawed for a while, and then finally admitted that, well, the clinical data says that Lipitor is stronger, what would you say? If I told you about how these great doctors (from before Penicillin was invented, or the role of cholesterol in heart disease was discovered) all thought Zocor was stronger, that might impress you a little bit, I guess. And I could tell you stories about that time Lipitor didn't do anything for my friend's cholesterol problem, but Zocor cleared it right up. But if the MM data said that Lipitor has better life-extending results (which I think it does) and the clinical data said that it was stronger at lowering LDL and raising HDL (which I'm pretty sure it is) then would you prescribe Zocor to your patients just because I told you it was wonderful? I hope not. You raise an interesting point; one that goes beyond the fun of two bull headed people arguing for its own sake. What is the nature of proof? Now clearly anecdotal evidence is not as good as quantitative measure but the difficulty is in determining what you are trying to quantify. The drug analogy is edifying. It is the best case scenario for this sort of comparison. it is relatively easy to set up an experiment where the effects of a drug can be measured objectively. In your example we would use cholesterol level as our primary outcome. But this would actually be just a surrogate for our real outcome, reduction of heart attacks and strokes. Since measuring the true outcome is trickier more expensive and too time consuming we use surrogates. That is fine but this requires a judgement on what that surrogate should be. In this case in addition to primary outcome measure we would need to have secondary measures (e.g side effects). We would need to make some subjective judgements about which outcome is most important. Things are even more complex in my field where it is difficult if not impossilbe to measure some outcomes. Diagnostic efficacy sensitivity specificity positive and negative predictive value are all used to assess the value of diagnostic imaging tests. But I remain deeply skeptical that these tools tell us much that we don't know from daily clinical experience. Most of the science I have done might best be described as the art of medicine. I use statistics in my work but I know that sometimes they fail to provide clear information. Several years ago I reviewed a very complex paper on imaging of Multiple Sclerosis submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine. It concluded that MR was not all that useful in detecting and characerizing MS when compared to clinical evaluation. They had the stats to prove it. But my own experience told me this was simply wrong. I understood the data and knew why the authors had come to an erroneous conclusion but the fact of the matter was that the paper did not reflect clinical reality and subsequent experience showed this to be correct. I am no genius nor am I someone who automatically trusts my judgement above others but I knew that the conclusions of the paper were wrong because of my direct experience in interpretting studies and dealing with neurologists. You said that Pedro and Koufax both had the best ERA possible. But that's not really true, is it? Gibson had a better ERA than Koufax at least once - much better. Gibson had the single greatest season a pitcher can have (68). Is ERA was about one run difference from Koufax. So my point is I think correct. 1.5-2.0 is about the best you can do. Rarely you can do a bit better. Since I may time out on gd aol I'll continue in the next post There's one yardstick for you right there. No pitcher has put up numbers that even vaguely resemble Pedro's at his peak during the last few years. But there were pitchers who put up numbers that were comparable to (or better than) those of Koufax. Gibson, IIRC, won 26 games in 1968. Now, W-L for pitchers aren't particularly informative, but, well, how often did Koufax do that? Now, here is the player page for Koufax at the Baseball Prospectus Web Site: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/koufasa01.shtml And here is the player page for Pedro:
Re: Sandy Kofax
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
Re: Sandy Kofax
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
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yo G, do you know WHY Koufax didn't win the Cy Young award four years in a row? Be honest now, I didn't until a few minutes ago. I really wish Bob would quit disagreeing with you. I mean, Pedro pitches against the best players, from the worst pitching mounds, in the best hitters stadiums, with the smallest strike zones and foul ground, in front of the best fans (at home) or worst fans (on the road), in the best decade of last century and the best one so far this century. With all those facts, it's obvious he's the bestest! Kevin T. - VRWC Kevin - not sure what you mean, other than the fact that only one Cy Young Award was awarded for all of MLB (instead of one for each league) for most of Koufax's career. If there was some other reason, I'm not aware of it. But if those five seasons were so astonishingly good that they qualify him as the best pitcher _ever_, surely it doesn't matter whether there was one award or two given out. I mean, if there was only one given out, don't you think Randy Johnson would still have won all four? And Maddux as well? Clemens might not have won all six, to be fair. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Questec (was Sandy Kofax)
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious as to peoples opinion on questec, the system baseball is now using to evaluate the umpire's strike calling. Info at http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0605/1563649.html Personally, I'm very happy to see them doing something about the inconsistency of the zone. I'm not completely sold on questec itself, but it's about time they're doing something. Doug Hi Doug. I can't find the article (maybe someone who is a paid subscriber/can afford to become one can?) but Baseball Prospectus published one suggesting (IIRC) that the system actually isn't having much of an impact. They suggested (again, IIRC) that despite what pitchers are claiming, in actual fact the evidence suggests that umpires are very slightly more likely to call a strike in Questec-equipped parks, but that this difference might not even be statistically significant. I don't know enough about it to assess the technical merits of the system, but that suggests that it isn't doing much either way. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Kevin Tarr wrote: Kevin T. - VRWC I'll take Walter Johnson for $800 Alex. Hey, on Jeopardy! yesterday, there was, in fact, a category Johnson. I knew a lot of them. I knew one or two that the contestants at least weren't confident enough to buzz in on But Walter wasn't one of them. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
At 07:17 AM 7/12/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yo G, do you know WHY Koufax didn't win the Cy Young award four years in a row? Be honest now, I didn't until a few minutes ago. I really wish Bob would quit disagreeing with you. I mean, Pedro pitches against the best players, from the worst pitching mounds, in the best hitters stadiums, with the smallest strike zones and foul ground, in front of the best fans (at home) or worst fans (on the road), in the best decade of last century and the best one so far this century. With all those facts, it's obvious he's the bestest! Kevin T. - VRWC Kevin - not sure what you mean, other than the fact that only one Cy Young Award was awarded for all of MLB (instead of one for each league) for most of Koufax's career. If there was some other reason, I'm not aware of it. But if those five seasons were so astonishingly good that they qualify him as the best pitcher _ever_, surely it doesn't matter whether there was one award or two given out. I mean, if there was only one given out, don't you think Randy Johnson would still have won all four? And Maddux as well? Clemens might not have won all six, to be fair. Gautam Mukunda Yes, I did mean that the Cy Young award was only awarded to one pitcher, from either league. You probably knew that, I didn't. If you think his 1964 numbers aren't as good as the American league winnerhe had one less win but four less losses, his ERA was 0.09 more. His innings were a lot less (than other years), was he injured that year? Do we know what went through the minds of the voters that year? Maybe they were trying to balance the award, giving it to the AL pitcher, who had one standout year. I never heard of Dean Chance until yesterday. In 1962 his teammate won it, with a higher ERA, but also a lot more innings pitched and games won or lost. Your best ever pitcher hasn't won the Cy Young award four times or three in a row. Not saying that as a dig, you may have said that you aren't using it as a measuring stick. He was second in the voting in 1998, but it was unanimous for Clemens. Koufax wasn't in the running in 1962, and was 3rd in 1964, but it still looks like it was given to the winner because he had more innings pitched and wins. In 1962 all the CY pitchers were from the NL, and it still looks like Koufax has just as good numbers. Where was Pedro in 1996? Leading the league in sacrifice hits. We can throw number at each other all day. You aren't going to change your mind, and neither am I or Bob Z.. I do think you are being shortsided as a modernist, but that's my opinion not a statement of fact. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Questec (was Sandy Kofax)
At 07:23 AM 7/12/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious as to peoples opinion on questec, the system baseball is now using to evaluate the umpire's strike calling. Info at http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0605/1563649.html Personally, I'm very happy to see them doing something about the inconsistency of the zone. I'm not completely sold on questec itself, but it's about time they're doing something. Doug Hi Doug. I can't find the article (maybe someone who is a paid subscriber/can afford to become one can?) but Baseball Prospectus published one suggesting (IIRC) that the system actually isn't having much of an impact. They suggested (again, IIRC) that despite what pitchers are claiming, in actual fact the evidence suggests that umpires are very slightly more likely to call a strike in Questec-equipped parks, but that this difference might not even be statistically significant. I don't know enough about it to assess the technical merits of the system, but that suggests that it isn't doing much either way. = Gautam Mukunda http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1563505.html Looks like there's a back door to BP, or at least a better achieve. I like the opening Paragraph about Schilling, and Doug Glanville(?!!?)(I know who he is, just didn't know that.) Did you ever read Jayson Stark? My brother always got the Philly Inquirer, so we've been reading him for years. It seems that now he is finally getting noticed. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your best ever pitcher hasn't won the Cy Young award four times or three in a row. Not saying that as a dig, you may have said that you aren't using it as a measuring stick. He was second in the voting in 1998, but it was unanimous for Clemens. Koufax wasn't in the running in 1962, and was 3rd in 1964, but it still looks like it was given to the winner because he had more innings pitched and wins. In 1962 all the CY pitchers were from the NL, and it still looks like Koufax has just as good numbers. Where was Pedro in 1996? Leading the league in sacrifice hits. We can throw number at each other all day. You aren't going to change your mind, and neither am I or Bob Z.. I do think you are being shortsided as a modernist, but that's my opinion not a statement of fact. Kevin T. - VRWC But, Kevin, as I've said several times, I don't think he's the best ever pitcher, except on a game-for-game basis. If I had to pick a pitcher to win _one game_, I'd pick him - more specifically, the 1999 version of him. If I had to pick a pitcher as greatest pitcher ever - that is, the pitcher who, over his career, contributed the most to the various teams for which he played - it's probably Tom Seaver, counting only pitchers after the Second World War (again, I think it's impossible to compare to pitchers before the Second World War. Walter Johnson never threw anything but a fastball and probably only rarely even 100 pitches in a game. Doesn't make him less than great, it just makes him completely impossible to judge against modern pitchers). But in this case, I don't think I'm actually making a modern's bias argument. Adjusted for era, Pedro's numbers at his peak are just flat-out better. A modern's bias would be if the two were roughly equal, and I was saying _that_ showed that Pedro was better. But that is not, in fact, my argument. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
On Saturday, July 12, 2003, at 08:27 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote: But, Kevin, as I've said several times, I don't think he's the best ever pitcher, except on a game-for-game basis. If I had to pick a pitcher to win _one game_, I'd pick him - more specifically, the 1999 version of him. If I had to pick a pitcher as greatest pitcher ever - that is, the pitcher who, over his career, contributed the most to the various teams for which he played - it's probably Tom Seaver, counting only pitchers after the Second World War (again, I think it's impossible to compare to pitchers before the Second World War. Walter Johnson never threw anything but a fastball and probably only rarely even 100 pitches in a game. Doesn't make him less than great, it just makes him completely impossible to judge against modern pitchers). But in this case, I don't think I'm actually making a modern's bias argument. Adjusted for era, Pedro's numbers at his peak are just flat-out better. A modern's bias would be if the two were roughly equal, and I was saying _that_ showed that Pedro was better. But that is not, in fact, my argument. Using mere facts and logical argument is never going to get you anywhere in the face of faith Gautam :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/12/2003 2:27:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adjusted for era, Pedro's numbers at his peak are just flat-out better. A modern's bias would be if the two were roughly equal, and I was saying _that_ showed that Pedro was better. But that is not, in fact, my argument The key is how the adjusted for era is made. Here is where subjective judgement mascarades as objective fact. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's no-hitters you want, Ryan is better. I'll admit that I don't know more than the first thing about Sandy Kofax, but I feel compelled to point out that the above argument is specious - in my eyes, anyways. If arguing that Pitcher X is the best pitcher of all-time, it is possible to argue that the best pitcher of all-time was the most well-rounded pitcher of all-time. As such, it is conceivable that this best well-rounded pitcher of all-time may not be the top pitcher in most categories, or even all categories. For example, a pitcher that was 2nd or 3rd in every metric of analysis might arguably be the best pitcher of all-time. Thus, the mere fact that Sandy Kofax isn't tops in strikeouts - (and the fact that you didn't really follow that up with other signgle-measures of greatness) tells me nothing about whether or not Kofax merits the title of greatest pitcher of all-time. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you think Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher of all time, you're simply wrong. There is no serious argument for this. If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. So, you are arguing that the greatest pitcher of all-time *must* have had longevity? I am surprised that you claim so confidently that it is foolish to disagree with this principle. In my mind, if one considers injuries to essentially be a random and rare function, I think that it would be very sensible to make discounts for careers cut-short by injury - even if one still wanted to devalue a pitcher (or player) whose career seemed to end early because of prematurely declining skills. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus, the mere fact that Sandy Kofax isn't tops in strikeouts - (and the fact that you didn't really follow that up with other signgle-measures of greatness) tells me nothing about whether or not Kofax merits the title of greatest pitcher of all-time. JDG John, that's my point. What is the purpose of a pitcher? It's to keep runs off the board. That's it. A pitcher has only one function on a team. No-hitters, strikeouts, stuff, they're all meaningless. The only thing that counts is keeping runs off the board. Bob was telling me about strikeouts and stuff and no-hitters. The first two of those are things that get you to a good pitcher. The third is just a fun statistic. It's impressive, but a no-hitter does no more for a team than a one-hitter. That's why we talk about ERA. Even more it's why we talk about ERA+ (that is, ERA adjusted for league and park context). As you get more sophisticated we can talk about Win Shares (Bill James's new invention) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) - all these wonderful tools that people have invented to measure exactly how good a pitcher is. They are designed to take into account all these varying factors that go into what makes a great pitcher. Bob, so far as I can tell, is arguing that we should just abandon all of these ideas in favor of I remember that guy, he was really great. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a running back ran for 2500 yards his rookie season and never played another game, would you say he was the greatest running back of all time, or one who had a really great season? Actually, a guy who somewhat matches that profile is Terrell Davis - who was one of three backs to ever run for 2000+ yards in a season, and had several very good years before getting injured. I think that Terrell Davis belongs in the pantheon of greatest NFL backs, even if I wouldn't rate him #1. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, a guy who somewhat matches that profile is Terrell Davis - who was one of three backs to ever run for 2000+ yards in a season, and had several very good years before getting injured. I think that Terrell Davis belongs in the pantheon of greatest NFL backs, even if I wouldn't rate him #1. JDG Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be the best ever. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 4:34:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best in the game. No one else can make that claim. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 9:19:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, that's my point. What is the purpose of a pitcher? It's to keep runs off the board. That's it. A pitcher has only one function on a team. No-hitters, strikeouts, stuff, they're all meaningless. The only thing that counts is keeping runs off the board. Bob was telling me about strikeouts and stuff and no-hitters. The first two of those are things that get you to a good pitcher. The third is just a fun statistic. It's impressive, but a no-hitter does no more for a team than a one-hitter. That's why we talk about ERA. Even more it's why we talk about ERA+ (that is, ERA adjusted for league and park context). As you get more sophisticated we can talk about Win Shares (Bill James's new invention) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) - all these wonderful tools that people have invented to measure exactly how good a pitcher is. They are designed to take into account all these varying factors that go into what makes a great pitcher. Bob, so far as I can tell, is arguing that we should just abandon all of these ideas in favor of I remember that guy, he was really great. Well its not that I remember him. I do of course he drove me crazy beating my beloved invincible Yankees. It is what others have said about him. Experts who have played with him or against him or who have broad experience. They all say he was the best for that 5 year period. As to the other stuff the key is not in fact keeping runs off the board. The key is winning games. Now it is true that it is often hard to measure the value of an individual in a team game so all sorts of statisitical surogates are devised. But that is all they are. Koufax's reputation is based on his performances in big games over that 5 year period. No comes close. Pedro and Maddux have had chances but they could not win on their own. Roger self destructed several times before his success in New York. Koufax won those games with very little support from his team. He did not need it. As to things like no hitters shutouts and complete games. They are indicators of dominance. They tell us that he was so good that he could put himself in position to have a sufficient number of times to have 4 in 5 years. Think about it this way. Suppose a pitcher has the stuff to pitch a no hitter on a given day. What are the odds he will succeed? 1 in 3, 1 in 6? So to get 4 in 5 years you have to pitch well enough to get the no hitter 15-25 times. I don't have the stats in frount of me but I remember that he had whole bunches of 1 and 2 hitters (almost no-hitters) in there. Back to ERA: My contention is that based on all that is know about Koufax; his skill his strength and his mental toughness he would have had the same ERA now as he did then. That he and Pedro both have the best ERA possible for pitchers. What the rest of the league did against each other was irrelevant. They were all overmatched. By the way I thing Tom Seaver a pretty knowledgable baseball guy who had some knowledge of Koufax growing up in California has said he thinks Koufax was the best pitcher ever. = ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 9:28:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Furthermore, injuries aren't a random or infrequent factor for pitchers. They are a non-random, frequent factor. Power pitchers are less likely to get injured that soft-tossers (Koufax, of course, was the quintessential power pitcher). Furthermore, pitchers get injured all the time (unless they play for the Oakland A's right now). The odds of a pitcher having a major injury in a season are (IIRC) over 10%. Being able to avoid getting injured is a talent just as surely as striking someone out - because if you're on the bench, you can't contribute to your team. Surely one part of Greg Maddux's remarkable ability is the fact that he is never, ever injured. That's not random - it's because he has flawless mechanics and is the most efficient pitcher in the history of the modern game But here you are being grossly unfair to compare Koufax to Maddux. The way pitchers are used and or allow themselves to be used today is completely different than it was then. Koufax's used an ice bucket and a rub they use on horses to protect his arm. He went out on 3 days rest regardless of how he felt. He played through major injuries that would have put pitchers on the DL for months. One year he damaged an artery in his pitching hand. Without modern tests who knew. What people did know was that his finger turned blue when he pitched, that it was cold as ice and numb. But he pitched through most of the year and almost lost the finger to gangrene. Now he was no fool. But it was a different era and pitchers did not sit out. Can you imagine management or the player allowing something like that to happen now? Guys go on the DL if their finger is blue from nail polish rather than ischemia. Koufax's career was short but during his five year reign he virtually never missed a turn to pitch. He was durable but did not have longevity. Things would have been different now. As to the value of a long career this is a tough one. Longevity is not enough. Don Sutton won over 300 games and pitched for ever; so did Phil Neikro. Are they in the same league with these guys? Clemens has done both and that makes him one of the greatest pitchers ever. Same with Maddux. But how long is long enough? Koufax did his stuff in 5 years. Not a flash in the pan. He went out on top (although not without pain). He could have pitched longer but he felt he would not be able to maintain his skill and would certainly damage his arm. He walked away. Now this choice certainly means that if one wants to measure longevity (certainly a reasonable thing to do) that he will lose points. But we value things other than longevity (or in addition to them). Cal Ripkin's consecutive game record is an example of a feet of longevity. In and of itself does this mean he was a great player? Including the record does than make him the greatest short stop of all time? By the way, sometimes when statistical tools fail to produce an answer that is obviously correct it becomes necessary to devise new tools. So have James go back to the drawing board. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 11:07:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be the best ever. Well how about Jim Brown. Walked away from football still in his prime after several dominant years. Some people say he was the best ever. Played in a different era so hard to compare to current players. But he was just that much better than everyone else. I think that is my point. In comparing eras lots of things change. But there will still be a mean of skill and a distribution. It seems to me that Koufax was several standard deviations above the mean, a few more than Pedro or anyone else. By the way by your criteria of greatness Newton and Einstein could not be considered amoung the greates physicist ever. Each had one breakout year and a few years of major productivity. Both kind of faded after that. It is accomplishment not longevity that makes one great (although longevity is in itself an accomplishment). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 11:07:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be the best ever. Well how about Jim Brown. Walked away from football still in his prime after several dominant years. Some people say he was the best ever. Played in a different era so hard to compare to current players. But he was just that much better than everyone else. I think that is my point. In comparing eras lots of things change. But there will still be a mean of skill and a distribution. It seems to me that Koufax was several standard deviations above the mean, a few more than Pedro or anyone else. By the way by your criteria of greatness Newton and Einstein could not be considered amoung the greates physicist ever. Each had one breakout year and a few years of major productivity. Both kind of faded after that. It is accomplishment not longevity that makes one great (although longevity is in itself an accomplishment). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way I thing Tom Seaver a pretty knowledgable baseball guy who had some knowledge of Koufax growing up in California has said he thinks Koufax was the best pitcher ever. Well Koufax, Bob, a pretty knowledgeable baseball guy, said that Pedro was better than he was. That's worth something too, don't you think? Bob, I have some idea of what a phenomenally accomplished doctor you are. I'm just asking that you to apply the same sort of rigorous thinking to something that is much easier to analyze - if you put your emotions aside. Let's say I was a pharma rep for GSK trying to sell you on Zocor. If I came to you and told you how great Zocor was, I'm guessing that you would demand the clinical data. If I hemmed and hawed for a while, and then finally admitted that, well, the clinical data says that Lipitor is stronger, what would you say? If I told you about how these great doctors (from before Penicillin was invented, or the role of cholesterol in heart disease was discovered) all thought Zocor was stronger, that might impress you a little bit, I guess. And I could tell you stories about that time Lipitor didn't do anything for my friend's cholesterol problem, but Zocor cleared it right up. But if the MM data said that Lipitor has better life-extending results (which I think it does) and the clinical data said that it was stronger at lowering LDL and raising HDL (which I'm pretty sure it is) then would you prescribe Zocor to your patients just because I told you it was wonderful? I hope not. You said that Pedro and Koufax both had the best ERA possible. But that's not really true, is it? Gibson had a better ERA than Koufax at least once - much better. So it was _possible_ to put up better numbers than Koufax did during his era - and Gibson wasn't in Dodger Stadium. There's one yardstick for you right there. No pitcher has put up numbers that even vaguely resemble Pedro's at his peak during the last few years. But there were pitchers who put up numbers that were comparable to (or better than) those of Koufax. Gibson, IIRC, won 26 games in 1968. Now, W-L for pitchers aren't particularly informative, but, well, how often did Koufax do that? Now, here is the player page for Koufax at the Baseball Prospectus Web Site: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/koufasa01.shtml And here is the player page for Pedro: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/martipe02.shtml You tell me what those numbers suggest. I'd point out that Stuff, which is a rough statistic that BP uses for dominance, has Pedro as considerably better than Koufax in his best seasons. 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. 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? Mike Mussina in 1997? 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. 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. If you're right, and we only count players against their contemporaries, what does that tell us? 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? 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.
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best in the game. No one else can make that claim. Are you sure? Maddux won four consecutive Cy Young Awards. Did Koufax do that? I know that he did not. Randy Johnson has now won four consecutive Cy Youngs as well, I believe. Same question. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
At 06:33 PM 7/11/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best in the game. No one else can make that claim. Are you sure? Maddux won four consecutive Cy Young Awards. Did Koufax do that? I know that he did not. Randy Johnson has now won four consecutive Cy Youngs as well, I believe. Same question. = Gautam Mukunda Yo G, do you know WHY Koufax didn't win the Cy Young award four years in a row? Be honest now, I didn't until a few minutes ago. I really wish Bob would quit disagreeing with you. I mean, Pedro pitches against the best players, from the worst pitching mounds, in the best hitters stadiums, with the smallest strike zones and foul ground, in front of the best fans (at home) or worst fans (on the road), in the best decade of last century and the best one so far this century. With all those facts, it's obvious he's the bestest! Kevin T. - VRWC I'll take Walter Johnson for $800 Alex. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Questec (was Sandy Kofax)
I'm curious as to peoples opinion on questec, the system baseball is now using to evaluate the umpire's strike calling. Info at http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0605/1563649.html Personally, I'm very happy to see them doing something about the inconsistency of the zone. I'm not completely sold on questec itself, but it's about time they're doing something. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond but I have been busy and twice a composed responses only to have aol log me out before I can send the response. Gautam - I would have thought you could have come up with something better than this response. Sure Koufax pitched in an era when pitchers had an advantage. The mound was a bit high at Dodgers Stadium (although it actually height is not known; had it been measured and found to be high the team would have had to lower it). But Koufax pitched half his games at other parks. Hitters weren't as successful but using a single league leading batting average which was anomalously low is unfair. There were a few people who could hit then. Mantle Mays Maris Museil (and I still in the M's). Yes Dodger Stadium was a pitcher's park but to attribute Koufaz's success to this is absurd. After all, other people pitched in Dodger stadium but they did not do what Koufax did. Before 61 Koufax was a disappointing pitcher. Leavy argues that it was Dodger mismanagement that messed Koufax up. Alston did not trust or like Koufax and stiffled him for the first 6 years of his career. Koufax started coming on in 61 and was the best pitcher ever from 62 to 66. In those 5 years he won 111 games (22 per year) had an ERA 1.97. He threw 33 shut outs and had 4 no hitters. 4 no hitters in 5 years. No one has approached this sort of dominance. He had 1444 strikeouts (290 per year for god's sake). (to insure that I will be able to continue to rant I am sending this now and will continue in the next post). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Koufax continued. Koufax pitched 397 games; he completed 137 and had 40 shut outs (11 in 63 got that 11 shutouts in one year, 7 in 64 and 8 in 65). Koufax pitched 7 ws games. He was 4 and 3 (4 and 2 from 63 on). His ERA was .97. In 63 the Dodgers swept the Yankess a team that won the AL by over 10 games. Kofax won two complete games. He gave up three runs. In 65 he was 2 and 1; his ERA was .37. These numbers demonstate absolute dominance. The counter arguement that he did this in a week hitting era does not prove that he would not have done it in any era. After all ERA is a statistic that has a lower theoretical limit (it cannot be less than 0) and a low practical limit (given the fact that this is a game played by at least 18 humans with a ball that can do peculiar things it seems reasonable to argue that an ERA of 1.00 is essentially perfect (remember WS ERA .97). So With truely outstanding pitchers (ERA around 2.0) ERA cannot be a good metric. So in comparing pitchers of different eras one has to rely on other tools. How about the opinion of other players (pitchers and hitters)? Koufax is almost unanimously rated as the best by players and baseball folks who saw him pitch. People like Bob Feller and Bob Gibson who do not give complements to other pitchers often both had stated he was the best. Hank Aaron another weak hitter from the era sadi the same. See next post ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
part 3 Koufax was big and strong. He had enormous powerful hands. He could hold 6 balls in one hand. He threw two pitches and never varied his release point. He threw fast ball that batters swore sped up. This is of course impossible but what it did not do is slow down (all others do). His speed was 95-100 miles per hour. He threw his curve with the motion but it just dropped at the plate. Gautam would take Pedro in a game against Sandy but would this be a reasonable choice based on actual success in big games. Pedro has won lets see no WS games. Of course that isn't his fault because the Sox didn't get to the Series. They might have. The made the playoffs but Pedro couldn't drag his team over the Yankess to get to the series. Sandy did that for his Dodgers. Pedro pitched against the Yankees on Monday and he was brilliant but not quite brilliant enough. He left the game with score tied 1-1 and the sox lost the game in the 9th. In fact in 20 games against the dreaded Yankees he has won 8 lost 7 and no decisioned 5. So he won 8 in 20. ERA was great but won only 8. Now surely you are saying how unfair this is. It wasn't Pedro's fault that his team failed to score for him that his relief failed. Uh except Koufax's team didn't score for him either. His relief wasn't so great but of course he did not need relief. He completed those games, always in pain often on fumes (in some of the 65 games against the twins he had no curve ball. He won on his fast ball). He won those games. Now based on past performance who would one choose in a game between the current Red Sox and the 65 Dodgers. Remember if the game goes 7 or 8 innings Pedro is out while Koufax is going to keep pitching (he and Gibson once went 12 innnings against each other - guess who won). The arguement about players from different eras usually goes like this. Athletes in the current era are in so much better shape and have so much better coaching that players from prior eras could not compete. Dave Debusscher heard this arguement about the Knicks. They couldn't win because current players were so much stronger. When asked what he and his team mates would have done, he sighed and said We would have worked out. We would have been just as strong and we would be better passers, better long range shooters and better defenders than current players. He was a bit wrong about the last part. People are always the products of their time and culture. So maybe that Knick team would not have been good at fundamental skills. So in comparing Koufax to Pedro it may not be fair to look at complete games. It may not be fair to point out that Koufax rarely missed a start despite serious elbow arthritis that has left him unable to straighten his left arm. Pitchers did that then. Now pitchers and the teams they work for protect their arms. They have MRI scans at the drop of a hat. They go on the DL. Pedro has been shut down for parts of the last few seasons. So Koufax pitching now would not have all those complete games. Like everyone else he would be pitching every 5th day not every 4th day (or on occaison on two days rest as he did in the WS in 65, you know the one where he had and era of .37). He would have lasted longer and almost certainly had more wins. But he might not have been so dominant for any 5 year period. As to Gautam's list. He lists Pedro, Maddux (who has really done well in post season) Clemons and Seaver. Thus the 4 greatest picthers have all pitched in the past 20 years and three are active simultaneously. What are the odds of that? Baseball has been around for over 100 years and its 3 greatest pitchers are active at the same time. Maybe we have a bit of selection bias here? Others have had lists. SI had a list of greatest athletes of the 20th century. There was one pitcher Koufax. No one seriously argued about this. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These numbers demonstate absolute dominance. The counter arguement that he did this in a week hitting era does not prove that he would not have done it in any era. After all ERA is a statistic that has a lower theoretical limit (it cannot be less than 0) and a low practical limit (given the fact that this is a game played by at least 18 humans with a ball that can do peculiar things it seems reasonable to argue that an ERA of 1.00 is essentially perfect (remember WS ERA .97). So With truely outstanding pitchers (ERA around 2.0) ERA cannot be a good metric. So in comparing pitchers of different eras one has to rely on other tools. How about the opinion of other players (pitchers and hitters)? Koufax is almost unanimously rated as the best by players and baseball folks who saw him pitch. People like Bob Feller and Bob Gibson who do not give complements to other pitchers often both had stated he was the best. Hank Aaron another weak hitter from the era sadi the same. Bob, the problem is that _we have other tools_. Win Shares. ERA+. And so on. And they all tell us the same thing. Yes, Koufax pitched half his games outside Doger Stadium. And when he did, he wasn't as good as he was _inside_ Dodger Stadium. Using evidence the way you do, I can prove that Mike Mussina is the best pitcher of all time. You have to have some sort of yardstick. Compared to his era, Pedro's statistics are considerably more dominant. Clemens put together that sort of dominance for 20 years - Koufax had _five_ great seasons. Clemens has more _Cy Youngs_ than Koufax had great seasons. He was never great until he moved to Dodger Stadium. He was great in the easiest era ever for a pitcher to be great. The unreliability of memory is one of the strongest findings from all of psychology - as you surely know far better than I. So I don't really _care_ what Bob Feller thinks about who the best pitcher ever was - if we listened to Feller about pitching we'd have every young pitcher throw 200 pitches a game and blow out their arms. How many times did Koufax face a hitter capable of 70 HRs? 60? 50? Not that many. How many times did he face Mantle in his entire career, actually? Even once? How many times did he face a lineup where every hitter - 1 through 9 - was capable of hitting at least 20 in a season? How many times did he throw off a 10 mound? How many times did he pitch with the modern strike zone, not the one from 1968? Against batters with thin-handled bats with cupped ends? Koufax was a phenomenal pitcher. If he had pitched somewhere other than Dodger Stadium, we'd still remember him as one of the best pitchers ever. But no one would even argue that he was the best pitcher ever. If it's no-hitters you want, Ryan is better. Strikeouts? Who was the first pitcher to strike out 20 batters in a game? The first to do it _twice_? Now, that's not necessarily the most amazing thing in the world, because batters are easier to strike out now than they used to be. But not as easy as they were in Koufax's day, probably. How tough do you think Randy Johnson would be off a 20 mound? Actually, that's your exact comparison right there. Sandy Koufax and Randy Johnson are basically the same pitcher - except Randy has been just as good as Koufax, for longer. I'll actually go a bit farther on one more point. If Koufax weren't Jewish, we wouldn't be having this argument either. There's a sort of halo that surrounds him because he was Jewish and a great athlete. He was. He was a phenomenal pitcher of extraordinary skill with great stuff. But that doesn't make him the best pitcher of all time (take your pick from Tom Seaver, Cy Young, Walter Johnson, and Roger Clemens). It doesn't make him the single most dominant pitcher of all time. Gibson had a better single season ERA than Koufax ever managed - why not argue for him? He was very, very great. But every piece of evidence for which I am aware argues that there have been other pitchers who were better. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to Gautam's list. He lists Pedro, Maddux (who has really done well in post season) Clemons and Seaver. Thus the 4 greatest picthers have all pitched in the past 20 years and three are active simultaneously. What are the odds of that? Baseball has been around for over 100 years and its 3 greatest pitchers are active at the same time. Maybe we have a bit of selection bias here? Others have had lists. SI had a list of greatest athletes of the 20th century. There was one pitcher Koufax. No one seriously argued about this. I did. I think that was ridiculous. If you think Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher of all time, you're simply wrong. There is no serious argument for this. If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. Now, I _don't know_ if Walter Johnson or Cy Young was better than Clemens or Seaver. My guess is that they weren't - I have a moderns bias, which puts me in a contentious, but respectable, position in the sabermetric community. I believe that the modern game is so much more difficult (particularly for pitchers, but true for everyone) than the older game that when there is a close call, the tie goes to the modern player. But even if you don't believe this, he still wasn't the best pitcher ever, or even (quite possibly) of his era. But it's just too hard to compare them. But if he isn't the best pitcher since the Second World War, he _certainly_ isn't the best pitcher ever, which is why I talked about post-war pitchers. Note that Pedro is clearly not the best pitcher ever either. The most dominant on a per-game basis? Probably yes. But not the best ever. Too many injuries, too short a career. But as for all your post season arm waving, Bob. Tell me - how many pitches per game did Koufax throw? In a very tough game, probably 120. Pitches per game has gone up year after year after year with the inevitability of the tides. So if Pedro were throwing off a 20 mound, in Dodger Stadium, with a strike zone twice the size of todays, against batters who couldn't hit the ball out of the park if you let them use golf balls - what do you think he would do? Did Koufax's teams really not score for him? I don't think that's the case. Take Dodger Stadium into account, and you will find out (IIRC) that those Dodgers teams hit pretty well, actually. Your argument, Bob, boils down to Koufax was better because those old time players played the exact same game players do today. That pitching in Dodger Stadium off a 20 mound and pitching in Fenway Park off a 10 mound are identical. That pitching to little guys who don't lift weights and think a double is a career highlight is the same as pitching to Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. Teams hit 200 HRs per season routinely nowadays. How many teams Koufax pitched to could do that? Frankly, if this argument were about anyone except Koufax, _you_ wouldn't take you seriously. Particularly since by _your_ standards, Gibson was better than Koufax, so where's your argument? In fact, though, it _isn't_ the same game. It's not even close. Pedro in his best season was farther ahead of his peers than Koufax was in his best season. So (I would argue) were several other pitchers, but let's leave that one be. For career value - well, it's close now, but I'd probably take Pedro at the moment. I'd take Clemens in a heartbeat over either, though. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
My point is that the biography does not idolize him as a person. The author idolizes him as an athlete and appreciates him as a man. But I would make the point that Kofax seems unique in his maintaining his dignity and his refusal to cash in on his celebrity. But rather then argue this I would suggest that you read the book to learn of his small kindnesses and his interactions with others. I have read the book. Again, I agree with you that it is not Koufax elevating himself. A lot of people are dignified and kind. I know it isn't Leavy who elevates him but rather many of his other admirers. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. What about Bob Gibson? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Sandy Kofax Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. What about Bob Gibson? Nolan Ryan? xponent Local Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
How about Juan Marichal? -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:31:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, TomFODW writes: There is an unfortunate tendency among some of Koufax's admirers, especially those who have known him, to elevate him into some kind of human paragon. Granted that he appears to be a highly decent, respectful, dignified person, the fact remains that he is, basically, someone who had an astounding God-given ability that he got the absolute most out of. He was a great baseball player; there's nothing wrong with being a great baseball player, but let's not make him out to be anything more than that. He's not Albert Schweitzer, he's not Martin King But your description of him is precisely one he would agree to. That is the person that comes through in the book. He disavows anything more. When he did not pitch on Yom Kippur this was not a political act and not really a religous one (Kofax is the prototypical non-observant Jew. And yet his act was in the modern parlance empowering to Jews. He accepted this and tried to be a role model ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
But your description of him is precisely one he would agree to. That is the person that comes through in the book. He disavows anything more. When he did not pitch on Yom Kippur this was not a political act and not really a religous one (Kofax is the prototypical non-observant Jew. And yet his act was in the modern parlance empowering to Jews. He accepted this and tried to be a role model I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Koufax himself would not go along with others' overestimation of him? I certainly agree with you on that, since that was my unstated point: that it was his admirers and not him who have the unfortunate tendency I noted. Koufax himself has been an extremely private person. An admirable one, but there are lots of admirable people who don't have their friends trying to glorify them. -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Sandy Kofax Gautam Mukunda wrote: Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. What about Bob Gibson? Nolan Ryan? xponent Local Maru rob You mean the guy who's at least part owner of that minor league team that plays not too far from my house? :) The one that's got a housing development near that local ballpark named after him, and a street, as well? And something about the minor league *team* being named after him, sorta (the Express)? Yeah, he was pretty good. Where does he fall in the ranking? Julia went to 1 game so far, and they lost, but since it was a Friday, there were fireworks after the game, and *that* was really cool, anyway ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/6/2003 8:15:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, TomFODW writes: I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Koufax himself would not go along with others' overestimation of him? I certainly agree with you on that, since that was my unstated point: that it was his admirers and not him who have the unfortunate tendency I noted. Koufax himself has been an extremely private person. An admirable one, but there are lots of admirable people who don't have their friends trying to glorify them. My point is that the biography does not idolize him as a person. The author idolizes him as an athlete and appreciates him as a man. But I would make the point that Kofax seems unique in his maintaining his dignity and his refusal to cash in on his celebrity. But rather then argue this I would suggest that you read the book to learn of his small kindnesses and his interactions with others. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Bob Gibson? Doug A good addition to the list. Not sure exactly where I would put him. Not as good as Clemens or Seaver, but up there with the others, definitely. Since I _know_ someone is going to mention Nolan Ryan - not a chance. Ryan struck out a lot of people, and he pitched _forever_. Definitely an inner circle Hall of Famer. But he also walked an enormous number of people. His career winning percentage (for example) isn't actually all that high. IIRC Nolan Ryan never won a _single_ Cy Young in his entire career. Clemens has, I believe, 6. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about Juan Marichal? Tom Beck An excellent pitcher, but I don't think you could really say that he was up there with Seaver or Clemens. I don't have a copy of the new Historical Baseball Abstract handy, but I'm fairly confident that James wouldn't even have put him in the top 10. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Sandy Kofax --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Bob Gibson? Doug A good addition to the list. Not sure exactly where I would put him. Not as good as Clemens or Seaver, but up there with the others, definitely. Since I _know_ someone is going to mention Nolan Ryan - not a chance. Ryan struck out a lot of people, and he pitched _forever_. Definitely an inner circle Hall of Famer. But he also walked an enormous number of people. His career winning percentage (for example) isn't actually all that high. IIRC Nolan Ryan never won a _single_ Cy Young in his entire career. Clemens has, I believe, 6. I remember seeing Ryan in his later Houston years. IIRC, he had one losing season (well maybe it was a 15-14 season) when he led the league in ERA. He would lose a number of 2-1 and 1-0 ballgames. It was amazing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember seeing Ryan in his later Houston years. IIRC, he had one losing season (well maybe it was a 15-14 season) when he led the league in ERA. He would lose a number of 2-1 and 1-0 ballgames. It was amazing. Dan M. I'm not denying he was a phenomenal pitcher. He was a phenomenal pitcher. He could pitch on my team any time :-) But his lack of control just made him a less phenomenal pitcher than someone like Seaver or Clemens. Although the common conception of Ryan is that he pitched for a number of bad teams, in fact the winning percentage of the teams he pitched for in his career when he did not pitch is actually pretty good. I'm not saying Nolan Ryan wasn't a great pitcher - I'm saying Nolan Ryan wasn't one of the top 5-10 pitchers of all time. He was an incredible pticher - I'd just rather have Clemens or Seaver for career value, or Pedro for peak value. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sandy Kofax
No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. There is an unfortunate tendency among some of Koufax's admirers, especially those who have known him, to elevate him into some kind of human paragon. Granted that he appears to be a highly decent, respectful, dignified person, the fact remains that he is, basically, someone who had an astounding God-given ability that he got the absolute most out of. He was a great baseball player; there's nothing wrong with being a great baseball player, but let's not make him out to be anything more than that. He's not Albert Schweitzer, he's not Martin Luther King Jr. And he doesn't have to be. -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
