A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
The decade total is a constraint for someone that was good from x5 to (x+1)4.
Koufax did pretty well despite retiring in 1966(?) and missing a chunk of one year. I (and the Cy Young voters, only one award then) had him at the top in his golden years. decades later his career would have been much longer and less interrupted. My interest in the game declined when he retired.
26mi235 wrote:The decade total is a constraint for someone that was good from x5 to (x+1)4.
Koufax did pretty well despite retiring in 1966(?) and missing a chunk of one year. I (and the Cy Young voters, only one award then) had him at the top in his golden years. decades later his career would have been much longer and less interrupted. My interest in the game declined when he retired.
Yeah, not sure there has ever been a greater pitcher than the Koufax of 1962-1966 or so
26mi235 wrote:The decade total is a constraint for someone that was good from x5 to (x+1)4.
Koufax did pretty well despite retiring in 1966(?) and missing a chunk of one year. I (and the Cy Young voters, only one award then) had him at the top in his golden years. decades later his career would have been much longer and less interrupted. My interest in the game declined when he retired.
Yeah, not sure there has ever been a greater pitcher than the Koufax of 1962-1966 or so
26mi235 wrote:The decade total is a constraint for someone that was good from x5 to (x+1)4.
Koufax did pretty well despite retiring in 1966(?) and missing a chunk of one year. I (and the Cy Young voters, only one award then) had him at the top in his golden years. decades later his career would have been much longer and less interrupted. My interest in the game declined when he retired.
Yeah, not sure there has ever been a greater pitcher than the Koufax of 1962-1966 or so
I go with that. 4 nohitters, including a perfect game against our hapless Cubs in 1965. One of my favorite players of all time.
Conor, on an earlier posting you mentioned that Major League Baseball expanded in 1969. I recall it was 8 and 7 years earlier, with the American League going to 10 teams in 1961, and the National League the same in 1962. I have not double checked this, so will the true experts please chip in... Was it Mets and Colt 45's( nee Astros) in 1962, Angels and (new) Senators in 1961 ??
dukehjsteve wrote:Conor, on an earlier posting you mentioned that Major League Baseball expanded in 1969. I recall it was 8 and 7 years earlier, with the American League going to 10 teams in 1961, and the National League the same in 1962. I have not double checked this, so will the true experts please chip in... Was it Mets and Colt 45's( nee Astros) in 1962, Angels and (new) Senators in 1961 ??
Yea, you are right. I forgot about those early teams. I was thinking about the 2 divisions in each league starting in 1969.
dukehjsteve wrote:Conor, on an earlier posting you mentioned that Major League Baseball expanded in 1969. I recall it was 8 and 7 years earlier, with the American League going to 10 teams in 1961, and the National League the same in 1962. I have not double checked this, so will the true experts please chip in... Was it Mets and Colt 45's( nee Astros) in 1962, Angels and (new) Senators in 1961 ??
Yea, you are right. I forgot about those early teams. I was thinking about the 2 divisions in each league starting in 1969.
And 1969 became the year that "Winning the Pennant" lost a lot of its mystique. And then all of its remaining mystique disappeared when 3 divisions in each league were started... mid 90's sometime I think. Someone else might know the exact year, I don't. And won't it get even worse next year, with an additional WC in each league ? Shades of the NBA and NHL.
And 1969 became the year that "Winning the Pennant" lost a lot of its mystique. And then all of its remaining mystique disappeared when 3 divisions in each league were started... mid 90's sometime I think. Someone else might know the exact year, I don't. And won't it get even worse next year, with an additional WC in each league ? Shades of the NBA and NHL.
The pennant races were what make baseball unique with memorable years. For example, 1951, 1964, 1967. The divisional races were not too bad with only 2 but, now it is just the same year in and year out. I dislike the wild cards immensely.
26mi235 wrote:The decade total is a constraint for someone that was good from x5 to (x+1)4.
Koufax did pretty well despite retiring in 1966(?) and missing a chunk of one year. I (and the Cy Young voters, only one award then) had him at the top in his golden years. decades later his career would have been much longer and less interrupted. My interest in the game declined when he retired.
Yeah, not sure there has ever been a greater pitcher than the Koufax of 1962-1966 or so
pedro martinez from around '97 through '03
Actually not a bad choice, but I think I lean towards Koufax 62-66
Somewhat of a toss-up - Koufax has more wins but that's due to the era he pitched in. His ERA was a little better, but hard to argue with Martinez's ERA for those years. I'd take either one as a first starter.
Comparing Martinez and Koufax to their eras, and I would tend towards Martinez. For instance, look at the seasons where they had ERAs of 1.73 or 1.74.
1964: Koufax ERA of 1.74 is 2nd in the league (Chance 1.65). 10th in ERA that year was 2.63 (Bunning). 1966: Koufax ERA of 1.73 is 1st in the league, with 2nd being at 1.98 (Peters). 10th in ERA that year was 2.54 (Perry). 2000: Martinez ERA of 1.74 is 1st in the league, with 2nd being at 2.58 (Brown). 10th in ERA that year was 3.50 (Ankiel).
Looking at a stat like Adjusted ERA+ is interesting as it compares the pitchers ERA to the league ERA. An ERA+ of 100 means that the pitcher has an ERA equal to the league average. An ERA+ of 200 means that the pitcher has an ERA equal to half the league average. For Martinez's 2000 season, his ERA+ was a boggling 291. Koufax's best ERA+ was 190 for his 1964 season. For reference, Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA of 1.12 only had an ERA+ of 258. Since 1920, only 18 times has someone had an ERA+ of 200 or more. Martinez has 5 of those, Clemens 3, and Maddux 2.
And 1969 became the year that "Winning the Pennant" lost a lot of its mystique. And then all of its remaining mystique disappeared when 3 divisions in each league were started... mid 90's sometime I think. Someone else might know the exact year, I don't. And won't it get even worse next year, with an additional WC in each league ? Shades of the NBA and NHL.
The pennant races were what make baseball unique with memorable years. For example, 1951, 1964, 1967. The divisional races were not too bad with only 2 but, now it is just the same year in and year out. I dislike the wild cards immensely.
Were you taking a nap on the last day of the regular season last year? I don't mean to be overly flip however that was about as good as it gets.
Somewhat of a toss-up - Koufax has more wins but that's due to the era he pitched in. His ERA was a little better, but hard to argue with Martinez's ERA for those years. I'd take either one as a first starter.
Pedro's comparative ERA (ERA+) was better than Sandy's.
I understand comparative ERA, but where does the number of innings pitched come in to consideration? Could Pedro have maintained that ERA if he had to start every fourth day and match Sandy's pitch counts? Maybe yes maybe no- but I'd still take Koufax. When he was on he was untouchable, and that was against a less dilluted pool of hitters.
JayIsMe wrote:I understand comparative ERA, but where does the number of innings pitched come in to consideration? Could Pedro have maintained that ERA if he had to start every fourth day and match Sandy's pitch counts? Maybe yes maybe no- but I'd still take Koufax. When he was on he was untouchable, and that was against a less dilluted pool of hitters.
The innings pitch point is legit. The less diluted pool is not IMHO.
