Sandy
Koufax: What Could Have Been
By Asher B.
Chancey, BaseballEvolution.com
Let’s play a game. I give you a certain Hall of Fame
pitcher’s numbers over the course of a four season period early in his career,
and you tell me who he is. Ready? Good.
Wins |
Losses |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
ERA |
ERA+ |
11 |
11 |
158.7 |
105 |
131 |
4.48 |
92 |
8 |
6 |
153.3 |
92 |
173 |
4.05 |
104 |
8 |
13 |
175 |
100 |
197 |
3.91 |
102 |
18 |
13 |
255.7 |
96 |
269 |
3.52 |
124 |
14 |
7 |
184.3 |
57 |
216 |
2.54 |
143 |
Hmmm. That’s a tough one, no? Starts
mediocrely, moves on to be rather solid. Need a hint? Okay, here is the
mystery player’s next four seasons:
Wins |
Losses |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
ERA |
ERA+ |
25 |
5 |
311 |
58 |
306 |
1.88 |
161 |
19 |
5 |
223 |
53 |
223 |
1.72 |
187 |
26 |
8 |
335.7 |
71 |
382 |
2.04 |
160 |
27 |
9 |
323 |
77 |
317 |
1.73 |
190 |
Ahhh. Now you get it! Those numbers belong to Sandy Koufax.
Of course.
And
He had none.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am the king of “what could
have been.” Look where I have Hank Greenberg ranked. Look at Addie Joss. I
personally would have loved to have seen
However, he did not pitch that season. He did not
pitch any more seasons. In short,
-
despite his
dominance from 1962 through 1966, Sandy’s career relative ERA is 131, which
puts him right between Whitey Ford and Carl Hubbell, two pitchers who pitched
significantly longer than Sandy, and ties him with Curt Schilling, a player who
is not currently being considered for Top 100 status.
-
In truth, the comparison to Joss is the most apt,
because Joss and Koufax both pitched in eras, unlike Pedro’s, in which pitchers
accumulated very high inning totals. Further, both pitcher’s careers ended at
the age of 30, though Joss actually died while Koufax voluntarily left the game.
Let’s have a look at their career totals:
Pitchers |
Wins |
Losses |
Win% |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
K/BB |
ERA |
ERA+ |
Addie
Joss |
160 |
97 |
.623 |
2327 |
364 |
920 |
2.527 |
1.89 |
142 |
Sandy
Koufax |
165 |
87 |
.655 |
2324.3 |
817 |
2396 |
2.93 |
2.76 |
131 |
Koufax has the obvious advantage in K/BB and WIN%,
while Joss has the advantage in ERA and ERA+, but the two pitchers have
remarkably similar careers. On my Top 100, I have Joss ranked about 20 points
ahead of Koufax, which is not very drastic (I only have four pitchers ranked
between them). I explain the gap between them in two ways. First, in Addie Joss’
worst year, his rookie year, he went 17-13 with a 2.77 ERA (124 ERA+) and
75/106 BB/K. In Koufax’s worst year, he 8-13 with a 3.91 ERA (102 ERA+) and
100/197 BB/K. In short, I value consistent greatness over 9 seasons over 4
dominant seasons and 4 mediocre seasons. Second, and this is a more subjective
element, but Addie Joss died, while Koufax chose to retire. The subtext here is
that Joss died of tubercular meningitus, a freak sort of thing that, in my
opinion, would probably not occur today, or at least is preventable. There are
actually several players whose careers were shortened because of routine
injuries or illnesses which would have been treatable or preventable in the last
20 years (see George Sisler, Mickey Mantle, and any player to need ligament
replacement surgery). Koufax, on the other hand, retired because he had grown
tired of the daily routine through which he had to go in order to preserve an
abused arm. Sure, the same argument could be made (that surgery would have
fixed Koufax’s problem), but Koufax none the less chose to retire at his peak.
Had he played on and suffered through a decline like most major leaguers, we
would probably comapre him more to Ed “who’s Ed Walsh” Walsh. There is
something to be said for chosing to retire versus being forced to retire. But
again, this is a subjective element which could be argued forever.
Another point with respect to Koufax is one which
Keith Olbermann made in his book with Dan Patrick The Big Show. His theory goes like this: what if Greg Maddux had
retired after the 1995 season? If you recall, in 1995, Greg Maddux won his
fourth straight Cy Young and was on a torrid run:
Wins |
Losses |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
ERA |
ERA+ |
20 |
11 |
268 |
70 |
199 |
2.18 |
166 |
20 |
10 |
267 |
52 |
197 |
2.36 |
171 |
16 |
6 |
202 |
31 |
156 |
1.56 |
273 |
19 |
2 |
209.7 |
23 |
181 |
1.63 |
259 |
The idea is that it would not be a
stretch to consider Greg Maddux the greatest pitcher of all time because of “what
could have been.” Now, as it turned out, Maddux stayed pretty solid, winning 19
games in 3 of the next five seasons, and keeping his ERA in the twos for the
next three years. Maddux as it turned out was in the middle of a pretty torrid
seven year run. No one is arguing that Maddux is the greatest of all time, but
he is one of the all time greats, which kinds of pokes a hole or two in
Olbermann’s theory.
But
the theory is still a relevant one which may be better demonstrated by the
following player’s stats:
Wins |
Losses |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
ERA |
ERA+ |
11 |
12 |
176.3 |
46 |
120 |
3.88 |
106 |
15 |
7 |
219.3 |
50 |
127 |
3.08 |
111 |
14 |
12 |
244.3 |
69 |
123 |
2.80 |
120 |
22 |
6 |
232.3 |
56 |
131 |
2.76 |
131 |
Give up? Those are the numbers of the 1990 Cy Young Award
winner Doug Drabek, who after winning the award with a 22-6 record at the age
of 27 would go on to win exactly 15 games in a season twice, and end up with a career
mark of 155-134, with an ERA+ of 101. But if he had retired after his 22-6
season, we would be arguing forever about what could have been for years. Not
that Drabek was Koufax, but you get the point. Here’s another:
Wins |
Losses |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
ERA |
ERA+ |
13 |
12 |
199.3 |
78 |
200 |
3.43 |
102 |
14 |
13 |
247.3 |
54 |
191 |
3.53 |
112 |
20 |
8 |
268.3 |
71 |
162 |
2.99 |
138 |
17 |
10 |
246.7 |
59 |
150 |
2.99 |
148 |
Again, not Koufaxian, but the numbers do paint a
picture of a pitcher who, at the tender age of 24, was figuring out how to
pitch and was on his way to a brilliant career. After all, this pitcher was off
to a fabulous start, winning 77 games by the age of 24, which would seem to have
him on pace to annihilate 300 by the end of his career. If this guy would have retired after his 17-10
season, arguments would still rage today about how many wins he would have
amassed. As it was, Dennis Eckersley would go on to win just 74 more games over the next 7 seasons,
going 4 games under .500, before the A’s converted him into the dominant
reliever of our generation.
Here’s the best example:
Wins |
Losses |
IP |
BB |
SO
|
ERA |
ERA+ |
23 |
11 |
323 |
80 |
193 |
2.09 |
169 |
22 |
13 |
315 |
84 |
159 |
2.51 |
130 |
20 |
11 |
319 |
99 |
193 |
2.91 |
130 |
21 |
12 |
296 |
97 |
137 |
2.46 |
143 |
At the age of 32, this pitcher had 215
wins, needing just 85 more wins to reach the 300 mark. He was coming off of a
stretch in which he had won 20 games in eight of the last nine seasons, with the
middle season being plagued by injury. Just two years older than Koufax was
when Koufax threw in the towel, this player had already had 9 really good
seasons, compared to Koufax 5 or 6. If he had retired at age 32, there would be
nary a soul who would not at least consider
Jim Palmer to be the greatest pitcher of all time. But, as you can see from the
BaseballEvolution.com
Composite Top 100 list, Bill James did not feel it necessary to put Palmer
in his Top 100, (nor did I for that matter, though I hate being compared with
Bill James), while the other five lists place him in a range from 57 to 97.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement. And with good reason: everyone got to see
Palmer’s decline, as he would win 53 more games over his last six seasons,
playing his last full season in 1982 at the age of 36.
None of this is to say that Koufax was
not something special. He was. And none of this is to say that “what could have
been” should never be considered when ranking players. Otherwise Roy Campanella
and Addie Joss would not be on my list. In fact, Koufax himself would not be on
the list if not for “what could have been.” Remember, Koufax had four dominant
seasons, and a fifth really good one. If four dominant seasons were enough to
place a player on the Top 100 list, without some
element of “what could have been,” a couple of guys named Suzuki and Pujols
would already be on the list.
Over the next few seasons, we will
probably get to see the decline of Greg Maddux and, more dramatically, Pedro
Martinez. It is the nature of sports to think about “what could have been” with
respect to players who make early departures from their games. But as Pedro
will no doubt show over the next four or five years, "what could have been" is
not necessarily always “all that” and Sandy Koufax’s ranking amongst the all
time great pitchers should really be based more on what he actually was, and
less on what he might have been. More importantly,
when we consider what he might have been, we must always keep in mind that it would not necessarily have been "more of the
same." The fact is, had Koufax been able to play out his career for 6, 7, or 8 more years, he would have, like all pitchers, experienced the decline phase of his career, and that would have affected his overall ranking.