The K's

[Rog]

Koufax begins with "K".  Kershaw begins with "K".  Unfortunately for the Giants, that two great pitchers -- likely the best in franchise history -- that the Dodgers have had since both teams came to California.

Do we realize how good Clayton Kershaw has been?  One could argue that through age 27, no pitcher has ever been better than Kershaw.

How good has he been?  His career ERA is 2.44.  And that's during seasons when the average major league ERA has been just a few ticks below 4.00.

So how good has he been the past five season?  Oh, only about the same as Sandy Koufax during Sandy's best years.  Sandy's ERA over that span was 1.88.  Clayton's has been 2.13.  That's a quarter of a run difference.  But the average ERA during Sandy's run was a fifth of a run lower than during Clayton's.  And Sandy had an even bigger home field advantage than Clayton did -- and Clayton's advantage has been clear. The fence as Dodger Stadium was 10 feet deeper then.  My guess is that Clayton's road ERA hasn't been all that much higher than Sandy's was during those five seasons.

Sandy's great five year run came when he was in his prime (ages 26 through 30).  Clayton's have come as he was approaching and just entering his prime (ages 23 through 27).

Oh, and by the way, after calculating it, Clayton's away ERA has been lower than Sandy's was -- by the tiniest bit (2.55 vs. 2.57).

Many will tell us Sandy was the greatest pitcher they ever saw.  In reality, that's probably not true.  As I told my son before last night's game, we would quite possibly be watching two future Hall of Famers, one of whom may well go down as one of the top five pitchers of all time.  In fact, if we take Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Kershaw, all from this century, there may never have been such a great group of pitchers in a 25-year-or-so period.  Throw in Mariano Rivera, by far the best reliever ever, and we can see that there has been no lack of superstar pitching power over the last quarter century.

Rivera is by far the #1 in his category, and the other five are or likely will be in the top 20 in theirs.  One could make an argument that all of them are pretty close to being in the top 10.  One could even make an argument that all of them were the best we've ever seen.  Unless Don saw Lefty Grove, the same goes for him.

And speaking of Grove, Kershaw may not be too many years away from challenging Lefty as the greatest southpaw ever.  And maybe not too many years after that from challenging even the great Walter Johnson.

I should mention that the one stain on Kershaw's otherwise almost unblemished cloth has been his poor postseason performances.  But let's not forget that Barry Bonds once had that reputation, as well.

Meanwhile, it's K for Koufax and K for Kershaw.  Hard to strike out with either of them.

[sfgdood]

Roger the Dodger is back

[donk33]

I'll take Hubbell and you can have the rest.......I would be very reluctant to compare Hubbell to modern pitchers....in Hub's time pitchers completed games, pitched with 3 days "rest", and pitched in relief when needed....Hubbell's career stats were hurt by Ty Cobb not allowing him to throw a screw ball....butt they are still pretty good....

[klaiggeb]

Don:Cobb played for Detroit and Philtheydelphia. How did Cobb prevent him from throwing the screwba

[Rog]

Roger the Dodger is back


Rog -- I don't know about the rest of you, but considering the source I am REALLY surprised at that comment! Isn't name-calling just a kick? It's worth a try when nothing else works.

[Rog]

I'll take Hubbell and you can have the rest..


Rog -- Again, what a surprise! By the way, King Carl is a good choice. I can't think of any other southpaw aside from Kershaw, Koufax, Grove (my first thought), Johnson, Spahn, Ford and Carlton who would even enter the conversation. I could be forgetting someone.

As for comparing pitchers of different eras, I think the best way if ERA+, which adjusts not only for a player's peers, but for his home park. Here is how those guys rank on that basis:

Kershaw 154

Grove 148

Johnson 135

Ford 133

Koufax 131

Hubbell 130

Spahn 119

Carlton 115


We can see that based on this evaluation, Kershaw and Grove are in a class by themselves, with Johnson, Ford, Koufax and Hubbell making up the next tier. Spahn and Carlton follow.

Kershaw hasn't yet experienced his decline phase, so it's hard to rank him ahead of Grove. Spahn gets extra credit for having such a long career after circumstances kept him from the majors until age 25. Surprisingly, considering how good they were, Grove and Hubbell didn't pitch in the majors until a similar age.

An argument for Kershaw would be that at the ages (25, 26 and 27) where Grove was putting up ERA's of 98, 165 and 132, Kershaw was at 194, 197 and 171. In other words, one could argue that Kershaw's WORST season of the three was slightly better than Grove's BEST.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3064/ks?page=1#ixzz3nGI0Z2HF

[Rog]

Regarding league-average ERA, in the old days it was raised by relievers, who were for the most part failed starters. Today, it is lowered by specialists who often pitch just an inning and therefore are able to post ERA's better than that of most starters.

[klaiggeb]

Rog: Re do you evaluation on Koufax's prime years, 1961-1966.

In fact, pick everyone's prime years, and none can match what Sandy did.


Don can have Carl... he saw him, and all the rest, I didn't.

If he says he'd take Hubbell, he has good reason.

I saw Kershaw, Sphan, Carlton, Ford and Koufax.

Gimme Sandy. And HE was a frickin' Dodger!



boly

[Rog]

Rog: Re do you evaluation on Koufax's prime years, 1961-1966.

In fact, pick everyone's prime years, and none can match what Sandy did.


Rog -- Actually a few can, overall. No one had exactly the same numbers he had, but a small number have done so. I use his 1962-1965 seasons, since 1961 wasn't really all that good. 1962 through 1965 were his Dodger Stadium years, and in part because of his maturity and in part because he was going from hitters' parks (Ebbetts and the Coliseum), those years were different than any during his career.

I believe you said he put it together in the 2nd half of 1961,but his 3.74 ERA in the 2nd half was actually higher than his 3.32 in the 1st. His full-year ERA was 3.52, so I don't consider that to be part of his peak. It could be included certainly, as perhaps could be his 3.91 in 1960 and his 4.05 in 1959. All three of those seasons came in the LA Coliseum, a pronounced hitters' park.

I have pointed out before that as great as Sandy was, he likely wasn't quite as great as he seemed in his Dodger Stadium years, and he wasn't as bad as he seemed in his Ebbetts and Coliseum days. His home parks skewed his numbers to the positive (Dodger Stadium) and the negative (Ebbetts and the Coliseum).

To get an idea of the effect of Dodger Stadium on Sandy, it might be wise to note that his ROAD ERA was actually HIGHER (3.53) in 1962 than in 1961 (2.77). The reason his overall ERA dropped by a run from 3.52 to 2.54 was because his HOME ERA dropped from 4.22 in the Coliseum to 1.75 in Dodger Stadium. While he was a great pitcher on the road in his Dodger Stadium years, he was surreal (the Koufax we remember) only in Dodger Stadium.

Here is the difference. On the road from 1961 through 1966, Sandy was a Hall of Famer. At home, beginning only in 1962 with the move to Dodger Stadium, he was unbelievable. One can argue that in Dodger Stadium he was the greatest the game has ever seen. But they can't come anywhere CLOSE to making that statement with regard to his pitching outside Dodger Stadium.

Clayton Kershaw has enjoyed a similar advantage in Dodger Stadium, but it hasn't been to the same extent.

If we want the greatest prime compared to the other pitchers in his league, Pedro Martinez is our man. Pedro's seven seasons from 1997 through 2003 included a 2000 season in which his ERA was over THREE RUNS BELOW the American League average. And that was while pitching in a strong hitters field in Fenway Park.

If we want the longest great prime, that would easily be Walter Johnson, generally considered to be the greatest ever. The Big Train never posted an ERA higher than 2.22 in the 13 seasons from 1907 through 1919, and he was at or below 1.90 in all but two of those. Yes, Walter benefited from a lower run-scoring environment than Sandy, but think how much lower run scoring was in Sandy's prime than in Pedro's.

Sandy's lowest ERA was 1.73 in 1966. That was nearly two runs lower than the league average of 3.61. Pedro's lowest was 1.74 in 2000, when the American League average was 4.92. Pedro's ERA was indeed more than THREE runs below the league average. Sandy's ERA was 0.01 lower than Pedro's, but Sandy's league average was 1.31 runs lower.

One can make an argument that Sandy pitched a lot more innings (in part because the game was different back then, just as it was different from Sandy's game back when Walter Johnson's day when Walter threw about two and a half times more innings innings in his career than did Sandy. But how can we truly convince anyone that Sandy's ERA in a strong pitchers' park being only 0.01 lower than Pedro's in a hitters' park, when the league average was 1.31 lower for Sandy than Pedro, was better than Pedro's.

Oh, and just for fun, Sandy's WHIP in a pitchers' park in a pitchers' year was an excellent 0.98. Until you compare it to Pedro's major league record 0.74 in a pitchers' park in the highest run-scoring year in the 2nd-highest run-scoring season in history. It might be important to note that when Bob Gibson posted his record 1.12 ERA in 1968 (The Year of the Pitcher, where the average NL ERA was 2.99), Bob's WHIP was 0.85.

Gibson's 1.12 ERA is the live-ball record, but it actually falls more than a quarter of a run below the best ERA EVER, which was Tim O'Keefe's 0.86 in 1980. Martinez's 0.74 IS the best WHIP ever, by 0.03 better than Guy Hecker's 0.77 in 1882.

In other words, WHEN HE WAS IN THE GAME, Pedro was probably better that 2000 season than any pitcher had been before or has been since. And Pedro's 7-year prime was even better than Sandy's 5-year tops. Walter Johnson's 13-year prime was probably better than either of them.

Others such as Lefty Grove, Clayton Kershaw, Greg Maddux and others have also had primes that should be in the discussion.

As for Kershaw, even Buster Posey is now asking if anyone has ever had a better first 7 or 8 years than Clayton. Maybe Walter Johnson. Maybe. I'm not aware of anyone else who has been so good through his age 27 season. And perhaps even Walter wasn't.

As great as he was, Sandy Koufax wasn't even close, something no one who followed Sandy's career would argue. Sandy must have had the best FINAL five years ever though. Having his career end as his prime was ending helped in that regard, but his accomplishment was phenomenal nevertheless.

Just not QUITE as good as it looked to those who watched him in LA. He wasn't nearly as good on the road. He was more than good on the road. He was GREAT. But not superhuman as he looked only in Dodger Stadium.

As an old sportscaster used to say, you could look it up.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3064/ks#ixzz3nLvGuKzl

[donk33]

It's too bad that stats guys don't know enough about the game of baseball so they could tell the difference between players and eras.....we have gone over this before, there is a big difference between pitching with 3 days "rest" and 4...especially when the "rest" might include some relief.....there is a major difference between pitching complete games and "going as long as you can"... the modern fan gets all appreciative of a pitcher actually completing a game....in the 30's and 40's it was taken for granted....relief pitchers weren't failed starters, they were guys not in the 4 man rotation...however, they started games when doubleheaders piled up...and in critical games, it wasn't unusual for a starter to come out of the pen to pitch....

In comparing Koufax to Kershaw lets evaluate what it meant to have some minor league experience versus sitting around waiting for a chance as a bonus boy forced to be in the majors.... what was the difference in having a manager that hated your guts because of your religion and an organization that babies their stars.....as I showed you a couple of times, even in his prime, Koufax was forced to stay in games when he was injured and ran up some big numbers ...and then placed on the DL...how about the confidence factor when Koufax started his pitching in terrible ball parks for LH throwers....what was the run support that Koufax had versus Kershaw....Sandy was good in LA, but didn't have to be as strong on the road because the Dodgers had a chance to score more on the road....and what the heck does it matter, Koufax won almost the same as he won at home...ERA doesn't take your team to the Series...wins do....

[Rog]

By the way, Boly, I HAVE done an evaluation of Sandy's 1962 through 1966 seasons (and also included his 1961 season, although that detracts from the overall). He was great. But those five or six years weren't as good as Pedro's seven or especially Walter's 13.

ERA+ helps to compare eras, since it adjusts for both league average and park tendencies. Here are Sandy's six seasons of ERA+, along with Pedro's 7 and Walter's 13:

Sandy -- 122 143 159 186 160 190

Pedro -- 219 163 243 291 188 202 211

Walter -- 129 138 111 183 173 240 259 164 191 147 120 214 215


Those numbers show a clear advantage to Pedro and Walter. To help put this into perspective, Walter lead his league in ERA+ in five of those 13 seasons. Pedro was the league leader in five of his seven. Sandy was the league leader in only two of his six. Remember now, ERA+ is park adjusted.

Walter won the ERA+ award one other time (outside his 13-year prime) for a total of six. Pedro had the five. Tom Seaver had three. Clayton Kershaw has three. Bob Gibson had two. Juan Marichal had two.

Lefty Grove won the award nine times. Cy Young won twice. Christy Mathewson won six. Pete Alexander won four.

Greg Maddux won five. Roger Clemens won seven. Randy Johnson won six.


There are many ways of looking at this. I think ERA+ is the best, since it does what is a very tough job -- comparing eras. It's not perfect, but then what is? What I do think is that it's pretty good at partially solving a very difficult problem.

I'm not trying to put down Sandy here. Like you, I thought he was the best pitcher I had ever seen. I greatly admired his stance on religious holidays. He was a true gentleman, which isn't the norm in baseball.

I believe he was better than he was given credit for when he pitched in Ebbetts Field and the LA Coliseum. I don't think he was as unbelievable as he appeared when he pitched in Dodger Stadium. (Remember, his ROAD ERA actually went UP by three-quarters of a run in 1962 even though his overall ERA went down by a run.) Overall, I think he is about as good as his 2.76 career ERA suggests -- and that's pretty darn good. Very few live ball ERA's have been lower, although it should also be noted that he didn't have a decline phase as almost all pitchers do.

But is he CLEARLY better than someone like Kershaw, Martinez or especially Johnson? Probably not. I believe Walter is still the best there has been, and I believe Pedro is the best there has been over a seven-year period. Pedro didn't pitch a huge number of innings in 2000, but when he did pitch, he likely pitched better than any other season by any starter in baseball history.

So I'm going Pedro for short-term and Walter for long-term. There are many other pitchers for whom a strong argument can be made, as well. But it's hard to argue against a pitcher whose ERA in one season was more than THREE RUNS below league average. And it's tough argue against a 13-year prime.

I can't do so in good faith.

[klaiggeb]

You take Pedro, I'll take Sandy, and let's leave it at that, rog.

boly

[sfgdood]

This argument has been going on for what...13 years? Sheesh!

[donk33]

Sept 30, 2015 14:00:13 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

Don:Cobb played for Detroit and Philtheydelphia. How did Cobb prevent him from throwing the screwba

dk...Hubbell was originally in the Tigers organization and Ty Cobb was the Manager of the Tigers...   I wrote to the Giants and asked them to have days for the guys whose numbers have been retired and give the SF fans a brief education on the careers and characters of these guys....they wrote back last year and said they were going to do that, but I never heard anything else about the subject....