Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick
Henry, that's a much more convincing argument than "I saw both and I know what I saw." There are a lot of problems, not the least of which are:
a. We (all of us, not just you, not just MD, all of us) tend to remember things that happened when we were younger as being more grandiose and washed away of exceptions than things that just happened a couple years ago. You know as well as I that the "player X from a prior generation was better than anything you kids have ever seen" is not a new argument; it's been used pretty much since baseball was old enough to have a history. That's not because the players were actually better; it's because of that phenomenon.
b. Given that this is the case, many of us prefer performance analysis to straight human perception. Saying that Koufax had more endurance than Pedro and as such didn't leave it to the bullpen to finish what he started is something that can be quantified by the data. I still think you need to adjust for what the league as a whole was doing in order to properly make those comparisons (it's entirely possible that Pedro's 33 CGs were more valuable to the teams he played for than Koufax's 100 because holding a team to 2 runs over 9 innings was far more valuable in Fenway in 1998 than in Dodger Stadium in 1963). Still, it's a better start.
|
OK, agreed. I tend to get a bit "nerved", however, when those of us who are older are dismissed because we're relying on our so-called "faltering" memories. I'll agree that something I saw 35 years ago can be easily exagerated, but I think in this case it's fair to say that both these players have comparable statistics - and thus it is valid if the "analyzers" find themselves split on their opinions.
The other side of the "old-timers perception phenomenon" is the the fact that the younger crowd tends to discount the older players once a new set of stats hits the record books. This is a tendency to want to be able to say you saw the "best players" of all time (in your own lifetime) as well - the same thing we, the older crowd, either believe or want to believe. If BOTH of us realize that we want the same thing, then we should be able to look at the players, the times, and the stats fairly without discounting the other for reasons of seeing things through "rose-coloured glasses".
Koufax and Pedro are certainly close in those 5 year periods - almost identical. Adjustments could shed some additional light, but probably not enough to result in a clear winner. From my standpoint, I think I'm leaning toward Koufax because I remember the general opinion of him at the time. It wasn't just the fans that made him into a God, it was the media AND his piers. When I compare that memory with my experience with Pedro, I tend to think Koufax had a slight edge. Personally I think it was because a dominent pitcher in the 60s was simply feared more than a dominent pitcher today.
In any case, the stats say they were close - awful close - thus some of us will side with Koufax and some with Martinez. As long as we do that on the basis of true analysis - and not because of the "age phenomenons", then our discussions are valid as well.