Was Koufax deserving of the Hall?

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by BleacherBum
We're not talking about a borderline candidate here.

His career was awfully short. I think that makes him borderline, even though I think he deserves to be there.

[BleacherBum]

"Awfully short" is stretching it. Yes, it was shorter than many. However, he still ranks in the top 35 for all-time strikeouts.

Remember, the Hall sets the minimum requirement at 10 years. If the player can prove his greatness in that amount of time, then he deserves the recognition.

For those of you discounting Koufax's career, think about how few others in the Hall were as outstanding after 11 or 12 years (and at age 30). Then you might realize what he accomplished was truly exceptional.

[hamonrye]

a couple of things about koufax...in 1966, he went 27-9, 323 innings, 77 walks, 317 strikeouts, 1.73 era, 0 hit by pitch. 0 hbp's!!! i think it's unbelievable that a guy can pitch 323 innings, effectively pitch inside and have good enough control to hit no one. i mean, the guy wasn't throwing salad, you would think the guy would have had one pitch get away from him.

koufax is helped by two things-1)he had brilliant moments on the biggest stage. this was a guy who threw a 3-hitter on 2 days rest in game seven of a world series with an arthritic arm. he lost his ability to throw strikes with his curve around the 3rd inning and essentially shut out one of the best hitting teams from 1965, the minnesota twins, with one pitch, the fastball. that's amazing. this was back when baseball was the most popular sport and television in every home was fairly new. moments like this had to help.
2)he retired at his peak (like jim brown). america didn't get to watch him decline or struggle. as much as his short career hurts his numbers, his legacy was fresh in the mind of the baseball writers when it came time to vote. sportswriters are in love with the spectacular, and koufax was spectacular.

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by hamonrye
2)he retired at his peak (like jim brown). america didn't get to watch him decline or struggle. as much as his short career hurts his numbers, his legacy was fresh in the mind of the baseball writers when it came time to vote. sportswriters are in love with the spectacular, and koufax was spectacular.

Unlike Jim Brown, Koufax wasn't great for every season of his career. Brown retired as the NFL's leading rusher. He was the best player to ever play the game when he called it a day. Koufax didn't have that distinction either. Koufax did have a 6 year run of greatness for a strong team in a media center.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Koufax peak value yes. Career value no.

4 no hitters.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Since we don't yank players out of the Hall,

That would be a cool new idea. Let's have votes to yank players out of the Hall. Get rid of some of the crap and mistakes that way.

[BleacherBum]

Some other opinions...

Robert Creamer (Sports Illustrated Writer for 50 years): "I've seen some awfully goods pitchers, I saw Lefty Grove, Dean, Bobby Feller, later on Warren Spahn, Whitey Ford, Steve Carlton, Seaver, Clemens, I've seen all these great pitchers since the 1930's, and yet when I think of GREAT pitchers, Koufax is like MOUNT EVEREST.

Vin Sculley: "Perhaps the ONLY pitcher that i've ever seen or broadcasted, that after ONE pitch, I would say to myself 'He Might Pitch a No Hitter Tonight ... he's the ONLY pitcher that made me feel that way."

Al Michaels: "When Sandy was pitching, you just KNEW you could be looking at history".

Peter Gammons: "If you take all the different categories, strikeouts, wins, earned run average, and then performances in big games, I don't think anybody has dominated his era like Sandy Koufax".

Don Sutton: "In my 33 years around major league baseball, i've seen some remarkable pitchers. Greg Maddux is a remarkable artist, Bob Gibson was a dominator, Tom Seaver was outstanding, Carlton was magnificent. But the man who stands alone as the most DOMINATING pitcher i've ever seen, without a doubt, and with NO equal, was Sandy Koufax".

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

The day I take the opinions of paid blowhards, even good ones, to decide who is Hall-worthy, is the day I pack it in and decide to start watching the shuffleboard games at the old folks' home.

Koufax benefits from the "James Dean" factor - he was briefly spectacular, and flamed out really young, so there's always an element of "what might have been." I submit that if you were starting a franchise with any one pitcher from ML history, knowing exactly what path their career would take, there are many guys you'd pick before Koufax. Great pitcher? Yeah. Hall of Famer? Yeah, but borderline. Best ever? Sorry, it takes more than a five-year run to reach that level.

[darkhorse]

I'll take Lefty Grove over Koufax on Peak Value. On Career Value, they aren't in the same universe.

[CMH]

this argument is really irrelevant (I'm still talkin Koufax and his 165 wins...I didn't read anythin after the initial post)

I look at this argument as being very similar to say an argument in the year 2040 about Eddie Matthews and his 511 Homeruns being the most obvious stat (just talkin stats here, not anythin else) to push him into the Hall Of Fame.

I'm sure by 2040 many will complain that 511 homeruns is not HOF material compared to the many 550+ homerun hitters in the hall.

The other half will argue that Eddie was one of the best players during his time and you can not compare his numbers to today's (2040) numbers b/c it is a different era.

Koufax was a dominating pitcher in his time. Perhaps the most dominant during his time. There is no question that he is a HOF, despite the amount of year he pitched. No one came close when he played.

Comparin him to today or Kevin Brown is unfair. Brown may have posted 6 better years than Koufax' 6 better years, but did the HOF Committee know that there would be a pitcher by the name of Kevin Brown that will post 6 better years than Koufax and therefore claim that Koufax is not a HOF b/c players in the future will perform better than he? No.


(if anyone hasn't noticed, this argument also relates to Rafael Palmeiro )

Koufax's peak is a little overrated in my opinion. It seems people seem to agree that Koufax has had the greatest peak of any pitcher in history, and that is FAR from the truth. Koufax won 3 Cy Youngs in his 6 year run. Maddux won 4 Cy Youngs STRAIGHT! Koufax's career ERA is 2.76. Pedro Martinez's is 2.62. It is lower and in a era where hitting is MUCH much more stronger. If Martinez retired today (he is around virtually the same age Koufax retired at) and I had only one pick to put either Martinez or Koufax in the Hall, I would pick Martinez over Koufax any time of the day.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by darkhorse
I'll take Lefty Grove over Koufax on Peak Value. On Career Value, they aren't in the same universe.

Just curious on this one - I know the main difference we have on Koufax is that I think his peak value puts him barely in the Hall, while you think his career value keeps him out (barely, I assume).

Given the fact that there are about 200 players in the Hall, about 60-65 of them should logically be pitchers. Is your argument that Koufax is not in the top 60-65 pitchers, or that the Hall has too many guys, and the cutoff point should be somewhere higher (say, 40 or so)? To me, the second argument seems a much better rationale for keeping Koufax out, but it also means that there are probably many players who are in the Hall that you'd say shouldn't be there - not just the obvious, George Kelly, Tommy McCarthy, Rube Marquard mistakes, but many other borderline guys. I think it's a lot more difficult to make the argument that Koufax isn't in the top 60 or so pitchers.

Originally posted by YankeePride
this argument is really irrelevant (I'm still talkin Koufax and his 165 wins...I didn't read anythin after the initial post)

I look at this argument as being very similar to say an argument in the year 2040 about Eddie Matthews and his 511 Homeruns being the most obvious stat (just talkin stats here, not anythin else) to push him into the Hall Of Fame.

I'm sure by 2040 many will complain that 511 homeruns is not HOF material compared to the many 550+ homerun hitters in the hall.

The other half will argue that Eddie was one of the best players during his time and you can not compare his numbers to today's (2040) numbers b/c it is a different era.

Koufax was a dominating pitcher in his time. Perhaps the most dominant during his time. There is no question that he is a HOF, despite the amount of year he pitched. No one came close when he played.

Comparin him to today or Kevin Brown is unfair. Brown may have posted 6 better years than Koufax' 6 better years, but did the HOF Committee know that there would be a pitcher by the name of Kevin Brown that will post 6 better years than Koufax and therefore claim that Koufax is not a HOF b/c players in the future will perform better than he? No.


(if anyone hasn't noticed, this argument also relates to Rafael Palmeiro )

Hmm, that is a good point, but we are arguing in the present and not in that time period, so we have the benefit of retrospect, so why not use it? Still, that was certainly an excellent point and one worth considering.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by Yyzlin
Koufax's peak is a little overrated in my opinion. It seems people seem to agree that Koufax has had the greatest peak of any pitcher in history, and that is FAR from the truth. Koufax won 3 Cy Youngs in his 6 year run.

If you're saying it wasn't the greatest run of any pitcher ever, I agree with you. I think dh is right that Lefty Grove's run was better, and I think you also have a really good argument that Pedro's run has been too. It was still a really great run - one of the best ever - but I won't argue with the assessment that it was a little overrated.

However, your Cy Young argument is just waiting to be shot down. They only gave one award for the whole major leagues when Koufax pitched, so it's not really comparable to anything Maddux or any current pitcher has done.

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
Just curious on this one - I know the main difference we have on Koufax is that I think his peak value puts him barely in the Hall, while you think his career value keeps him out (barely, I assume).

Is Koufax one of the top 60-65 pitchers in MLB History in WinShares? It's not a definitive stat, I'm just curious.

[CMH]

While Koufax peak may be overrated, I think someone brought up the point of how his peak was the most dominant (or at least one of the most dominant) during his time of play.

Pedro may have had a higher peak than Koufax, but once again we are comparing different time lines which is impossible to do when someone is elected into the Hall. Well, not entirely impossible b/c Pedro can be compared to Koufax, but Koufax could not be compared to Pedro...that would be an impossibility.

Using the argument that Pedro is a better pitcher than Koufax really holds no foundation because I'm sure that in 40 years we'll find a pitcher that has better career numbers/higher peak than Pedro. (I continue to use 40 years b/c that is the difference between Koufax and Pedro/Brown).

We can compare pitchers of today to pitchers of yesterday...I think it's fun, but we shouldn't get too carried away by questioning the logic behind the HOFC in selecting a pitcher from the past that is clearly not as great as the pitchers of today.

It can't be questioned.

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
If you're saying it wasn't the greatest run of any pitcher ever, I agree with you. I think dh is right that Lefty Grove's run was better, and I think you also have a really good argument that Pedro's run has been too. It was still a really great run - one of the best ever - but I won't argue with the assessment that it was a little overrated.

However, your Cy Young argument is just waiting to be shot down. They only gave one award for the whole major leagues when Koufax pitched, so it's not really comparable to anything Maddux or any current pitcher has done.

Allright, but just for kicks, lets compare the AL Cy Youngs and Maddux during his run.

1992
AL- Dennis Eckersley (7-1, 1.91 ERA, 51 saves)
Maddux- 20-11, 2.18 ERA

1993
AL- Jack McDowell (22-10, 3.37 ERA)
Maddux- 20-10, 2.36 ERA

1994
AL- Cone (16-5, 2.94 ERA)
Maddux- 16-6, 1.56 ERA

1995
AL- Randy Johnson (18-2 2.48 ERA)
Maddux- 19-2 1.63 ERA

So it is certainly not a stretch to say that Maddux would have won 4 straight ML Cy Youngs. Thats just speculation though. I still think Maddux's 4 straight NL Cy Young awards is just as impressive if not more than Koufax's 3 ML Cy Youngs.

[CMH]

^hmmmm, agreed.

I give Maddux one point for Cy Youngs over Koufax.

[BleacherBum]

Eck: I submit that if you were starting a franchise with any one pitcher from ML history, knowing exactly what path their career would take, there are many guys you'd pick before Koufax.

Your point is a good one for the "best ever" argument, but for the "is he deserving?" argument, consider that if we're starting say 30 franchises, is Koufax the #1 pitcher for one of those teams? I think so.

Just for fun, let me add, if I'm starting that franchise today, I want guys who are going to excel for me, not for the Yankees/Mets/Red Sox/Dodgers once they hit free agency. Koufax suddenly looks a lot better, with his performance from age 25-30, cause its likely going to be for my team

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally posted by darkhorse
Is Koufax one of the top 60-65 pitchers in MLB History in WinShares? It's not a definitive stat, I'm just curious.

Warning: I think Bill James is dead wrong on Koufax.

He rates Koufax as the #10 pitcher of all time. That's ahead of Clemens (#11) and Maddux (#14), although in the two years since he made those ratings, presumably they've both passed Koufax. He also has Feller (#12), Hubbell (#13) and Carlton (#15) behind Koufax, all of which I think are absolutely indefensible.

It gets even weirder when you look at his top 100 players of all-time. He has Clemens at #49, Koufax at #51, despite the fact that Koufax is apparently the better pitcher. (Must be those intangibles. )

Anyway, his career win shares are 194, which puts him tied with such non-luminaries as Ron Gant and Claudell Washington. I don't know where that ranks among pitchers, but there are 583 players with more win shares. Tim Raines has more than twice as many, and Tom Seaver has exactly twice as many.

His top three seasons (another element James uses to rank the players) were 35, 33 and 32. Those numbers are just flat-out amazing for a postwar pitcher. Seaver's best were 33-29-26, Gibson's 36-33-29, Clemens 32-29-28, Maddux 30-27-26, Carlton 40-29-26, and everyone's favorite guy Nolan Ryan was 28-24-22. From what I can tell, only Gibson is within a couple win shares.

His five best consecutive seasons (another element) were 139 win shares, which is solidly in HOF territory, but not staggering like his top three numbers. Seaver had 142, Gibson 143, Clemens 125, Maddux 130, Carlton 111, Jim Palmer 126, Gaylord Perry 134, Marichal 134, Ferguson Jenkins 135, and Ryan 102.

His win shares per season (per 43 starts, precisely) are 31.85. That's better than Seaver (31.49), Gibson (31.07), Carlton (27.19), Palmer (30.34), Perry (26.49), Marichal (28.69), Jenkins (27.32), and, of course, Mr. Ryan (23.84). However, the top three guys of the five-man rotation era, Clemens (34.88), Maddux (34.52) and Pedro (37.59), have him buried. In fact, Pedro's numbers for this are the highest ever, although we're only seeing part of his career arc.

The bottom line is - he has a bunch of contradictory win shares numbers. Personally, I think James gives much too little weight to longevity in these ratings, but it all depends on how you choose to interpret the numbers. When I applied to law schools, there were two main things schools considered - undergrad GPA and LSAT score. For every single school to which I applied, my GPA was below the 25th percentile for their accepted students, and my LSAT score was above the 75th percentile. Let me tell you - that threw all the schools into confusion. I was getting recruited from really elite schools and at the same time getting turned down by schools much worse than the one I ended up choosing. Koufax's numbers are like that - some of them are historically good, others (career win shares) are unquestionably not Hall-worthy.