part 3 Koufax was big and strong. He had enormous powerful hands. He could hold 6 balls in one hand. He threw two pitches and never varied his release point. He threw fast ball that batters swore sped up. This is of course impossible but what it did not do is slow down (all others do). His speed was 95-100 miles per hour. He threw his curve with the motion but it just dropped at the plate.
Gautam would take Pedro in a game against Sandy but would this be a reasonable choice based on actual success in big games. Pedro has won lets see no WS games. Of course that isn't his fault because the Sox didn't get to the Series. They might have. The made the playoffs but Pedro couldn't drag his team over the Yankess to get to the series. Sandy did that for his Dodgers. Pedro pitched against the Yankees on Monday and he was brilliant but not quite brilliant enough. He left the game with score tied 1-1 and the sox lost the game in the 9th. In fact in 20 games against the dreaded Yankees he has won 8 lost 7 and no decisioned 5. So he won 8 in 20. ERA was great but won only 8. Now surely you are saying how unfair this is. It wasn't Pedro's fault that his team failed to score for him that his relief failed. Uh except Koufax's team didn't score for him either. His relief wasn't so great but of course he did not need relief. He completed those games, always in pain often on fumes (in some of the 65 games against the twins he had no curve ball. He won on his fast ball). He won those games. Now based on past performance who would one choose in a game between the current Red Sox and the 65 Dodgers. Remember if the game goes 7 or 8 innings Pedro is out while Koufax is going to keep pitching (he and Gibson once went 12 innnings against each other - guess who won). The arguement about players from different eras usually goes like this. Athletes in the current era are in so much better shape and have so much better coaching that players from prior eras could not compete. Dave Debusscher heard this arguement about the Knicks. They couldn't win because current players were so much stronger. When asked what he and his team mates would have done, he sighed and said "We would have worked out. We would have been just as strong and we would be better passers, better long range shooters and better defenders than current players". He was a bit wrong about the last part. People are always the products of their time and culture. So maybe that Knick team would not have been good at fundamental skills. So in comparing Koufax to Pedro it may not be fair to look at complete games. It may not be fair to point out that Koufax rarely missed a start despite serious elbow arthritis that has left him unable to straighten his left arm. Pitchers did that then. Now pitchers and the teams they work for protect their arms. They have MRI scans at the drop of a hat. They go on the DL. Pedro has been shut down for parts of the last few seasons. So Koufax pitching now would not have all those complete games. Like everyone else he would be pitching every 5th day not every 4th day (or on occaison on two days rest as he did in the WS in 65, you know the one where he had and era of .37). He would have lasted longer and almost certainly had more wins. But he might not have been so dominant for any 5 year period. As to Gautam's list. He lists Pedro, Maddux (who has really done well in post season) Clemons and Seaver. Thus the 4 greatest picthers have all pitched in the past 20 years and three are active simultaneously. What are the odds of that? Baseball has been around for over 100 years and its 3 greatest pitchers are active at the same time. Maybe we have a bit of selection bias here? Others have had lists. SI had a list of greatest athletes of the 20th century. There was one pitcher Koufax. No one seriously argued about this.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
