whos a better lefty? Koufax or The Big Unit?

[Carnac]

I wasn't trying to point out the importance of K's, just saying the mound doesn't make that much difference in pitching.

Just responding to the statement that it diminishes Koufax's achievements.

[LBJackal]

Koufax was awesome, no doubt, but a higher mound is clearly beneficial. Still, he was one of the best of anybody who used the same mound as him (although the other guys didn't have Dodger Stadium) so he's one of the best. I wonder how he would have done on another team, though. He was usually mediocre on the road (3+ ERA) and lights out in Dodger Stadium (1 something ERA).

[Carnac]

[quote="LBJackal"]Koufax was awesome, no doubt, but a higher mound is clearly beneficial. Still, he was one of the best of anybody who used the same mound as him (although the other guys didn't have Dodger Stadium) so he's one of the best. I wonder how he would have done on another team, though. He was usually mediocre on the road (3+ ERA) and lights out in Dodger Stadium (1 something ERA).[/quote]

63 World Series

18 innings
2 wins
0 loss
23 K's
1.50 ERA
0.83 WHIP

65 World Series

24 innings
2 wins
1 loss
29 K's
0.38 ERA
0.75 WHIP

During those 2 world series he was dominant at home and away.
Pitched game 7 of the '65 series on 2 days rest. All he did was pitch a 2 hit shutout with 10 K's. Amazing. How many pitchers could do that on two days rest?

Give me Sandy Koufax, in his prime, in a world series with everything on the line and he will dominate.

Maybe cannot be considered the best of all-time because of shortened career. But, in his prime there was not a better pitcher when everything was on the line than Sandy.

Do some reading and find out what all the experts and his peers say about him.

[slomo007]

Maybe cannot be considered the best of all-time because of shortened career. But, in his prime there was not a better pitcher when everything was on the line than Sandy.

Exactly, you solved the debate right there. If you want to look at who was better in their prime, a case could be made for Koufax...but if you look at their overall careers, I'd take Johnson in a second.

[HOOTIE]

I wasn't trying to point out the importance of K's, just saying the mound doesn't make that much difference in pitching.

Just responding to the statement that it diminishes Koufax's achievements.

The height does make a difference, just like parks make a difference.

In 68, the last year of the high mound, runs per games was a paltry 3.42 per game. In 69, it jump started it to 4.07 runs per game.

RJ has a 1.04 era in WS play, although both guys are dealing with small sample sizes.

[LCBOY]

I agree with LCBoy.

Grove was the best lefty ever.
9 era titles don't lie

Koufax
5 era titles don't lie
only knock is shortened career and it is a fair knock

Someone will surely look up Johnson's era titles

Hey, at least one person agrees with me!

[LCBOY]

I'd definately say RJ, for pretty much the same reasons as HOOTIE just mentioned. He was better than Koufax in pretty much every important category, and pitched much longer. Can't really see why Koufax would be said to be better. What did he do better? As for Lefty Grove, he was awesome. But it was such a long time ago, so it's tough to tell for sure. He was also not only a starter, but a reliever, and had a relatively low IP/game. If Grove was an SP for his whole career, I might pick him, but I'm going with RJ as the best lefty of all time.

Up through the 1940s pitchers were used differently. There wasn't such a solid separation between relievers and starters as there is today. It was quite common for SPs, even superstars, to be asked to pitch in relief to close out the other team. It wasn't until the 1970s that the wall separation between starters and relievers became prevalent. That's why Grove pitched so much relief. He didn't really pitch that much relief but compared to a modern SP it is quite a bit more. But Grove was a SP. He won 300 games and he didn't get his first win until age 25.

[nmarq8]

This argument is getting kind of ridiculous, I mean all of the pitchers mentioned are awesome in their own right and era, so that's why arguments can be made for all of them. I think Koufax isn't necessarily better because that's strictly opinion, but I'd rather have him in his prime pitching the 7th game of the world series over the others. Koufax was successful if anything. I've grown up watching johnson over the years (I'm 21) and was quite a fan of his from when he was at usc to when he played for seattle. but you can't ignore the fact that as much as baseball is a team sport, there's perhaps more pressure on the individual than in almost all other team sports. I mean, no one says "those damn mets blew their chance at a ring." They say, "damn buckner ruined the mets' chance at a ring." And if your pitcher's not pitching well, you're not going to win a big game unlike in, say football, where if your quarterback's not doing too hot you can still manage a win through running the ball or whatever.

[LBJackal]

no one says "those damn mets blew their chance at a ring." They say, "damn buckner ruined the mets' chance at a ring."

I don't think they say that either. They say "damn Buckner ruined the Red Sox chance at a ring." I assume that's a typo, since it's fairly well known which MLB is cursed

[nmarq8]

no one says "those damn mets blew their chance at a ring." They say, "damn buckner ruined the mets' chance at a ring."

I don't think they say that either. They say "damn Buckner ruined the Red Sox chance at a ring." I assume that's a typo, since it's fairly well known which MLB is cursed

WOW , whoops, can't believe i wrote that. thanks for catching it. I feel like the village (cafe) idiot for mis-typing that.