Thanks for the insightful and detailed analysis, OnWI.

"If Sandy Koufax isn't worthy of the Hall of Merit, then I'm a lug nut."

Good ol' Harvey. If Dick Allen's ever elected to the HoM, imagine the riot!

Brent
When I talk about peak I'm talking about how good a player was during his best 3 or 4 seasons.
. . .
But I find it very frustrating to think I'm talking about peak and have others keep bringing up issues that relate to prime or career value.

Someone who thinks that any two successive years constitute a "point of time" for the purpose of establishing a player quality constitute a peak would be frustrated by the recurring shifts of ground to "3 or 4 seasons" not to mention that eon Bill James has made conventional (ok, i'll mention it, 5 years).

And so on.
One thousand batters is enough to demonstrate a pitcher's quality, someone might say . . .

Johnny boy:

I volunteer something when I think it provides a new angle. But the Koufax has been looked at with greater intensity then the hair club for men goofs trolling through the Jordan Capri website.

All I can say is that by both the stat book and anecdotal evidence it seems from 1961-1966 the Dodgers were the fave to win the NL as long as Koufax could wake up each morning and pitch.

And he was the "quiet hero" type. And meant it. So he had women AND men getting all silly for different reasons.

Guy buried the needle on "Cool Factor".

Does that count?

Later,

H3

I volunteer something when I think it provides a new angle. But the Koufax has been looked at with greater intensity then the hair club for men goofs trolling through the Jordan Capri website.

Have these other "researchers" examined the park he was playing in during the 1960s (there was a big difference between his home and away ERA)? Have they examined the bigger parks that came into the leagues during the same era? Have they examined the strike zone adjustment that occurred after '61 which "mysteriously" lowered ERA overnight? Have they examined the fact that pitchers were also able to throw more IP during this time because of the reduced offense?

I seriously doubt it to all of the above questions.

Basically, many fans of that era have had their perception of Koufax's greatness shaped by his environment. Not that he was as great as Sandy was at his peak, but a fan of the '90s proclaiming Larry Walker's greatness based on his stats without putting them into context would be just as incorrect.

My grandfather used to tell me about all about the great hitting giants of the 1920s and 1930s. But when I explained to him what was helping to create those numbers, he was surprised and slowly accepted my answer. Hell, until the early 1980s, I accepted all of the stats throughout baseball history at face value!

Look, Koufax was a great pitcher and a nice guy. He just wasn't as dominating as some claim. That's still not bad.

Question: "Guy buried the needle on "Cool Factor." Does that count?"

Answer: No.
And this from a guy who voted him 2nd.

Walker/Coors Field/hitting era is a nice complement to Koufax/DodgerStadium/pitching era, actually.

Yet few modern fans are uninformed enough not to know what huge discrepancies Rockies batter have had.

People in the early 1960s did not make the psychological adjustment to the incredible deflation of offense, particularly in certain parks. If Koufax's ERA was below 2.00, well, then he must be better than anyone who ever pitched with an ERA above 2!

Ironically, it was 1968 - when the entire American League hit .230, the Yankees' team batting average was .214, and Yaz won a batting title at .301 - that finally woke up some people (the NL hit .243, but with a .300 OBP to .297 OBP for the AL).

But by then, Koufax - fortuitously, as it turns out, in this one respect - already was gone for a couple of years.
So few fans made the connection of nonexistent offense and his stats.

J-Mo:

Dude, Pop is a quant guy from way back. I can't speak to any specific reasearch he may have done on his own, but I know he reads everything under the sun devoted to the analysis of baseball from Earnshaw Cook, to James, to BP, and of course the work you guys do.

So I'm just spitballing here but I'm guessing he knows of what you speak.

Old-timer still says the guy rocks. But I will pass on your comments and encourage him to speak for himself.

Are you absolutely SURE you aren't just taking the opposing view for sh*t's sake?

I don't see this being a case where the Emperor has no clothes.

Later,

H3

Dude, Pop is a quant guy from way back. I can't speak to any specific reasearch he may have done on his own, but I know he reads everything under the sun devoted to the analysis of baseball from Earnshaw Cook, to James, to BP, and of course the work you guys do.

Well, that's far more than my grandfather ever did. Sounds like he's pretty hip

Are you absolutely SURE you aren't just taking the opposing view for sh*t's sake?

Nope. I take the project too seriously just to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

I don't see this being a case where the Emperor has no clothes.

I think it's more like the Emperor is wearing a nice suit instead of the tuxedo he thinks he has on. ;-)

BTW, do you go by OnWI or H3?

Are you absolutely SURE you aren't just taking the opposing view for sh*t's sake?

I don't see this being a case where the Emperor has no clothes.

Are you sure you've read the whole thread? Everyone agrees that he was great from 1963-66, just not that -- sorry to pick on the new guy -- "His peak was almost unmatched in the history of the game". Stretches like that have happened every decade or two. Now, its been difficult for posters here to try and downgrade the number of exclamation points after Koufax's peak without getting reactions like yours above. *Yes*, he was a great player, but not quite as great as previously thought and his career was very short. That's the sole source of the reservations here.

In the end, he was not anywhere close to not being inducted. His non-unanimity might offend some people, but I think its good that we took a hard look at the guy and haven't turned him into a precedent for future short career guys.

In the end, he was not anywhere close to not being inducted. His non-unanimity might offend some people, but I think its good that we took a hard look at the guy and haven't turned him into a precedent for future short career guys.

I think that was the thing that was bothering me, David. I totally understand voters who value peak more than others to place Koufax high on their ballots. What disturbed me, though, was the idea that he was a no-brainer candidate. A no-brainer, IMO, is a guy who has a great peak and career. Koufax wasn't that.

Good ol' Harvey. If Dick Allen's ever elected to the HoM, imagine the riot!

Is OnWI's grandfather Harveys Wallbangers? If that's the case, he definitely isn't an old fogie. However, I agree that Dick Allen in the HoM wont go down to well with him. :-)

J-Murph:

I thought you knew. Pop goes by the handle of Harvey's Wallbangers. He is on hiatus taking care of my grandmother who took ill a few months back.

I shoot him an e-mail every so often to keep him in the loop about what is going on around here. I think with Gran perking up he is gearing toward an Opening Day return.

But anyway, just wanted to clear that up.

And like I wrote earlier, I never saw the guy pitch. But knowing Pop and his passion for both the game and being objective if he says the guy stands tall I gotta support that view.

Appreciate the feedback.

Later,

H3

In a low-scoring environment, it's easier to throw shutouts, and shutouts really move that ERA+.

The high ERA+'s of the 1990's happened not because of the high-run environment, but in spite of it. They were enabled by a different cause - the sharp reduction in IP per game and per season for top starting pitchers.

OCF, I agree with you. And I think somewhere along the line the group has had the discussion before that in low-run environments it's mathematically easier to post a lower ERA+ in part because there are fewer integers/intervals to choose land on leading to the league-average performance and each of them is more valuable.

I thought you knew. Pop goes by the handle of Harvey's Wallbangers. He is on hiatus taking care of my grandmother who took ill a few months back.

I'm glad that you cleared that up. Your grandfather is a good guy who I greatly respect and who is very knowledgeable about the game and about other things. Fortunately, I think I agree with him more than not. :-)

Sorry to hear about your grandmother, but I'm glad that she is doing better and that Harvey will be back soon.

OCF, I agree with you. And I think somewhere along the line the group has had the discussion before that in low-run environments it's mathematically easier to post a lower ERA+ in part because there are fewer integers/intervals to choose land on leading to the league-average performance and each of them is more valuable.

I should point out that, as I have explained in the past, since I compare each player to his peers, the effect taking place is under control, regardless of who is right about this subject.

So Dick Allen is on Pop's sh*t list? Didn't know. I know he has said the guy could really hit. And that folks look at his stat line and get stiff but don't look at the whole picture. So is it Allen who Pop rails on or folks who think Allen belongs in the Hall of Fame?

He has gone off on Sheffield for trashing Milwaukee publicly. What REALLY gets him hot is that Sheffield (according to Pop) branded Yount and Molitor as racist. He gets to fever pitch the spit is flying. Bring your raingear!

The guy who REALLY drives Pop nuts is Pete Rose. Just eviscerates the guy. Pop insists Rose has been a con artist and fraud from Day One.

Later,

H3

The guy who REALLY drives Pop nuts is Pete Rose. Just eviscerates the guy. Pop insists Rose has been a con artist and fraud from Day One.

Pop and I are of like mind on this one.

John,

I have watched this thread, but not really entered into it. I think you (and most others) are dead wrong about Koufax. I think his prime is as good as anyone who has ever lived (although not any better than Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove). I think he is an absolute no brainer for the Hall of Merit, and I'm glad he was elected.

There are many things that can reasonably be argued in this exercize. Whether Jake Beckley deserves to be in the Hall, or Bobby Doerr, or any of a number of Negro Leaguers. Some I disagree with, some I agree, but I certainly see the other side. Koufax is different - I do not believe that there can be any reasonable doubt that Koufax deserved it.

As has been explained, but ignored by most, Koufax was a good deal better than his ERA suggests (or ERA+), given context. Bill James did the work on this 20 years ago, and still people pretend it doesn't exist. There is nothing about pitching in Dodger Stadium in the 1960's that can explain his won-loss records.

As has been explained, but ignored by most, Koufax was a good deal better than his ERA suggests (or ERA+), given context. Bill James did the work on this 20 years ago, and still people pretend it doesn't exist. There is nothing about pitching in Dodger Stadium in the 1960's that can explain his won-loss records.

Read the thread. The high WPct's are indeed explained by those ERA+'s. (Page 1, #99 and Page 2 #5)

Read the thread. The high WPct's are indeed explained by those ERA+'s. (Page 1, #99 and Page 2 #5)

Thanks, David. That saved me time looking for it. :-)

There are many things that can reasonably be argued in this exercize. Whether Jake Beckley deserves to be in the Hall, or Bobby Doerr, or any of a number of Negro Leaguers. Some I disagree with, some I agree, but I certainly see the other side. Koufax is different - I do not believe that there can be any reasonable doubt that Koufax deserved it.

Your absolutely right, Paco. My twenty-something years trying to grapple with his greatness was a waste of time. I should have rubber stamped the opinions of the majority when I cast my ballot, because 50,0000 Koufax Fans Can't Be Wrong!*

* posted with good cheer, not anger. :-)

Paul Wendt wrote:

Someone who thinks that any two successive years constitute a "point of time" for the purpose of establishing a player quality constitute a peak would be frustrated by the recurring shifts of ground to "3 or 4 seasons" not to mention that eon Bill James has made conventional (ok, i'll mention it, 5 years).

And so on.
One thousand batters is enough to demonstrate a pitcher's quality, someone might say . . .


I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how many years to look at in determining a player's peak, keeping in mind that a lot of things vary from year to year and can make a pitcher's record erratic (run support, bullpen support, batting average on balls in play,...). If all the peripheral stats, expecially the one's that are independent of defense (SO, BB, HR) align with the pitcher's overall record, however, then I'm willing to judge a pitcher's quality based on just a season or two of data. For example, based on 1911-12, Smokey Joe Wood was clearly a top-quality pitcher for a short while. On the other hand, Chesbro (1904) and Ellsworth (1963) each just had a lucky year.

This discussion is astonishing.

As I said before even if you adjust everything against Koufax you still end up with one of the greatest peak pitchers of all time. If you expand the notion of peak to its utmost bounds (250 starts) and use a method that disadvantages pitchers from the sixties (comparing to an average peer) Koufax still comes in as one of the top 20 peak (prime, whatever) pitchers of all time. These are facts that can't really be disputed.

Now if you want to say that peak performance isn't enough or that top 20 is not really that great well then I don't really have an argument with you. Those are value judgements which will vary from person to person.

But the notion that Koufax wasn't one of the greatest pitchers ever during his prime is pure, unadultered, falsehood.

Who has disagreed with you Gaelan (it's possible I missed it)?

No one (that I remember) has said that Koufax didn't have a great peak.

No one has said he wasn't one of the greatest pitchers ever at his peak.

What we have said is that Koufax probably wasn't the single greatest pitcher ever at his peak - pick your duration 1-year, 2-years, 3-years, 5-years; whatever.

What some of us have said is that his hitting was so historicaly God-awful, even for a pitcher, that it knocks his overall peak value down just a little bit.

"As has been explained, but ignored by most, Koufax was a good deal better than his ERA suggests (or ERA+), given context."

I find that there are compelling cases both for and against the argument that it is easier to post a great ERA+ in a low-scoring era.
I am skeptical of anyone, including you, who does not acknowledge the weight of both sides. From there, you can pick a preference if you like. But sounds like you're the one who is ignoring the alternatives.
And once again, this from a guy who had Koufax No. 2 last year.

No one (that I remember) has said that Koufax didn't have a great peak.

No one has said he wasn't one of the greatest pitchers ever at his peak.

Not me, Joe.

If I posted any of that, I would appreciate someone showing me where.

I'm talking about comments like this:

People in the early 1960s did not make the psychological adjustment to the incredible deflation of offense, particularly in certain parks. If Koufax's ERA was below 2.00, well, then he must be better than anyone who ever pitched with an ERA above 2!

Ironically, it was 1968 - when the entire American League hit .230, the Yankees' team batting average was .214, and Yaz won a batting title at .301 - that finally woke up some people (the NL hit .243, but with a .300 OBP to .297 OBP for the AL).

But by then, Koufax - fortuitously, as it turns out, in this one respect - already was gone for a couple of years.
So few fans made the connection of nonexistent offense and his stats.

When you adjust for era Koufax is still lights out. Though I have to admit that in rereading the thread they were was less hyperbole than I remembered.

I find that there are compelling cases both for and against the argument that it is easier to post a great ERA+ in a low-scoring era.
I am skeptical of anyone, including you, who does not acknowledge the weight of both sides. From there, you can pick a preference if you like. But sounds like you're the one who is ignoring the alternatives.
And once again, this from a guy who had Koufax No. 2 last year.

My point was that if you do the adjustment and assume no advantage either way, Koufax still looks great. I think its pretty clear that it is harder to be better than average on the more extreme portion of a non-linear curve but I don't think the case for Koufax relies upon that kind fo reasoning.

But still taking era adjustments as neutral here is the average of the best 7 consecutive seasons (using Davenport's translated statistics) of three no brainer out of their mind great pitchers and Koufax. See if you can pick out which one is Koufax.

Player A: 244 IP, 2.48 ERA,
Player B: 234 IP, 2.15 ERA
Player C: 256 IP, 2.41 ERA
Player D: 269 IP, 2.43 ERA

I now realize that the Davenport translations probably have a timeline adjustment because the only deadball pitchers I could find in the same ballpark as the guys above was Walter Johnson. Nonetheless the point still holds since that doesn't affect the guys I chose very much.

Why are we still debating Koufax's greatness?
The voters have spoken; he's an HoMer!
is he the greatest of all-time? I wouldn't say so.
is he one of the greatest of all-time? I'd say of course; didn't the vast majority of HoM voters say the same thing?

So, lets get on with re-analyzing Pierce, Waddell, Joss, Walters, etc.

Great job guys; you are making us lurker/posters proud!

What jingoist said. :-)

is he one of the greatest of all-time? I'd say of course; didn't the vast majority of HoM voters say the same thing?

With only 18 "elect me" votes against a weak backlog, the majority didn't say he was one of the greatest of all-time, they said he was borderline. That decision we made will remain a lightning rod of criticism by lurkers for the duration of our project.

With only 18 "elect me" votes against a weak backlog, the majority didn't say he was one of the greatest of all-time, they said he was borderline. That decision we made will remain a lightning rod of criticism by lurkers for the duration of our project.

They'd have to actually look at the results and make that determination for it to be a problem. Wouldn't most people just be interested in who's in and who's out?

Why are we still debating Koufax's greatness?
The voters have spoken; he's an HoMer!
is he the greatest of all-time? I wouldn't say so.
is he one of the greatest of all-time? I'd say of course; didn't the vast majority of HoM voters say the same thing?

So, lets get on with re-analyzing Pierce, Waddell, Joss, Walters, etc.

It's important going forward, because voters who have used Win Shares, WARP, etc. to justify past votes almost totally threw those measurements out the window in voting for Koufax, as he did not do well in either metric.

Not this voter! I used WS before Koufax, on Koufax, and will after Koufax. Had him just off the ballot and very close to the end of the queue of HOMable pitchers, but in all the same.

In fact, if Koufax had not been elected last year, I'd likely have formed part of what's been called a candidate's "hidden support" (I think by DanG???). The ones who as the backlog moves up the ballot end up boosting a candidate with down-ballot support by suddenly having them move up far enough to hop onto the ballot, overcoming the off-the-ballot "penalty."

Actually, I'm almost a pure WARP voter, but Koufax did well (not great, but well) in my system. He got a moderate boost for his postseason performance to get to around 10 (give or take a couple slots, I forget where he ended up) on my ballot. I worked (and will continue to work) to make sure I give boosts for postseason performance for all those meritorious, not just those like Koufax and Rivera who have (deserved) fame for them. He'd have been around 18-20 pre-postseason boost, and got about 8-10 slots out of the very mild postseason bonus, because my ballot sees about everyone from 5-25 as packed tight.

It's important going forward, because voters who have used Win Shares, WARP, etc. to justify past votes almost totally threw those measurements out the window in voting for Koufax, as he did not do well in either metric.

I respectfully disagree. My peak/prime-oriented system uses elements of both metrics, and Koufax did quite well. According to win shares, Koufax had three seasons that were among the best of the 1960s:

Best seasons by starting pitchers, 1960-69, according to win shares:

Rank WS Pitcher (Season)
1. 36 Gibson (68)
2. 35 Koufax (66)
3T. 33 Gibson (69)
3T. 33 Koufax (65)
3T. 33 Marichal (66)
3T. 33 McLain (68)
7T. 32 Chance (64)
7T. 32 Ellsworth (63)
7T. 32 Koufax (63)
7T. 32 Seaver (69)
11T. 30 Bunning (66)
11T. 30 Marichal (65)

Koufax also had two more seasons among the league leaders in WS. In 1961 he was tied for 3rd among NL starting pitchers, and in 1964 he was tied for 4th.

Although I didn't do a similar ranking under WARP, my impression is that the results would be fairly similar, though perhaps slightly lower--WARP seems to charge a larger penalty for his hitting.

Well, we're getting closer to the same page, Gaelan, although my concerns about Koufax's context remain. As you can tell, I was one of those who had him No. 2, but mainly because it was a weak year. Others who had him No. 2 likely had him a "strong 2."

He was indeed outstanding for that unfortunately brief stretch, regardless of context. Part of the problem is that almost all of the pitchers who had similarly outstanding stretches have SO much more career than Koufax. Even if one prefers the Koufax peak, it can't be by a huge margin. And then the bonus portion of the other pitchers' careers makes it seem a bit absurd to rank Koufax ahead of any of the all-time greats.
Reasonable minds can differ, but that view is almost unanimous here, I think.