I love everything about your writing Joe, but sometimes the little things make me gasp out loud. "...where the mound was built just a little bit closer to the sun..." Man. That's golden.
I mean, the disparate perception is pretty easy to understand, really. Max has been consistently fantastic, which is great, I love Scherzer. But Koufax compiled his career stats by being frankly mediocre for years before becoming transcendent and burning out before anyone could see his twilight years. And nobody remembers the mediocre years, just the few where he was the best pitcher in human history. That's what made him a legend, not his career value accumulation.
Others, including I think Joe, have made a different comparison - Johann Santana. He was basically reverse-Koufax, having multiple legendary years as a young pitcher, but then a loooonnngg coda where he was average at best and basically became forgettable, one magical night in Queens aside.
I guess what I'm saying is that Koufax's career was so unique that there's basically no way you can compare him to another pitcher and stay sane.
You left out innings pitched (which I feel no need to look up). I think that in this idea of mythology, heroes and icons, innings pitched matters.
When pitchers threw more innings, went further into games, and even were expected to complete them, the power of the starting pitching to impact the game was greater. The influence of that one player over the game's outcome was greater. Yes, Koufax shows us the cost of those innings, but it doesn't change the fact of them.
Koufax burned brighter. Not just in our memory or mythology. In fact. In the second half of his career (1961-1966) he completed 15, 11, 20, 15, 27, 27 completed games. That an (by modern standards) unbelievable 115 complete games in six years. That's averaging 19 complete games a year!!!! When we (they, actually) watched a Koufax game, they likely we're watching him through every inning.
Modern pitchers simply can't have that kind of dominance on the game, not even starters. We are too worried about health and injuries -- and rightly so.
Their career numbers to date ARE remarkably similar, yes. But Scherzer was better and pitched more in the first half of his career, and we remember Koufax really for the second half of his career. In his most dominant stretch, Scherzer did not pitch quite as well and certainly not nearly as much.
Which means....we are talking about career value vs peak value. Scherzer has equal career value, to date. Where where do we get the mythological figures of the game? From career value? I think not. We get that from their peak value. The icons get that status from their peak value.
Is that unfair? I don't know. But we can't tell the history of this game without talking about Roger Maris, and I think we could do so pretty easily without Fred McGriff (Tom Emanski, aside).
So, here's the question for the audience: If you could have either, guaranteed, would you rather your team had that second half of Koufax's career, or the whole Scherzer career (to date)?
Where do we play our home games? In 1960s Dodger Stadium, The Greatest Pitchers Park during The Greatest Pitching Era since deadball? What if we play in pre-humidor Denver? Does Sandy complete dozens of high altitude high scoring games? Does it not matter because of all the strikeouts? If that's the case... Scherer strikes out batters at a higher rate. (Context: he pitches in the most K-happy era ever) What if we play in Detroit/DC in the 10s? Or how about the 280 ft right field 1930 Baker Bowl? 1978 Fenway Park?
Not to take away from Koufax, but he was so fortunate to create his legend when nobody really cared about context. It would be like saying and believing that 1999-2004 Bonds is the holy grail of hitting, discussion over. (Umm there was a little more to it than "73".)
That's a really tough one, Koufax had the two best seasons if you combine both careers, but after that, you can order the rest of them in a lot of different ways and Scherzer has more quality seasons than Koufax does cumulatively. It's very difficult to compare them since they pitched in far different eras; but I think that you can definitely have a winning team with either fronting your staff.
Or as JoeP pointed out earlier... Scherzer, Verlander, Price, Porcello, Nathan, Miggy, Kinsler, Castellanos, Torii Hunter, J.D. Martinez, and Victor Martinez. Also Rajai Davis, a young Eugenio Suarez, and a young Robbie Ray. Davis, Hunter, and especially Castellanos were terrible in the field though... bad positioning by Ausmus? Anyway, what a loaded team!
I love everything about your writing Joe, but sometimes the little things make me gasp out loud. "...where the mound was built just a little bit closer to the sun..." Man. That's golden.
I mean, the disparate perception is pretty easy to understand, really. Max has been consistently fantastic, which is great, I love Scherzer. But Koufax compiled his career stats by being frankly mediocre for years before becoming transcendent and burning out before anyone could see his twilight years. And nobody remembers the mediocre years, just the few where he was the best pitcher in human history. That's what made him a legend, not his career value accumulation.
Others, including I think Joe, have made a different comparison - Johann Santana. He was basically reverse-Koufax, having multiple legendary years as a young pitcher, but then a loooonnngg coda where he was average at best and basically became forgettable, one magical night in Queens aside.
I guess what I'm saying is that Koufax's career was so unique that there's basically no way you can compare him to another pitcher and stay sane.
You left out innings pitched (which I feel no need to look up). I think that in this idea of mythology, heroes and icons, innings pitched matters.
When pitchers threw more innings, went further into games, and even were expected to complete them, the power of the starting pitching to impact the game was greater. The influence of that one player over the game's outcome was greater. Yes, Koufax shows us the cost of those innings, but it doesn't change the fact of them.
Koufax burned brighter. Not just in our memory or mythology. In fact. In the second half of his career (1961-1966) he completed 15, 11, 20, 15, 27, 27 completed games. That an (by modern standards) unbelievable 115 complete games in six years. That's averaging 19 complete games a year!!!! When we (they, actually) watched a Koufax game, they likely we're watching him through every inning.
Modern pitchers simply can't have that kind of dominance on the game, not even starters. We are too worried about health and injuries -- and rightly so.
Their career numbers to date ARE remarkably similar, yes. But Scherzer was better and pitched more in the first half of his career, and we remember Koufax really for the second half of his career. In his most dominant stretch, Scherzer did not pitch quite as well and certainly not nearly as much.
Which means....we are talking about career value vs peak value. Scherzer has equal career value, to date. Where where do we get the mythological figures of the game? From career value? I think not. We get that from their peak value. The icons get that status from their peak value.
Is that unfair? I don't know. But we can't tell the history of this game without talking about Roger Maris, and I think we could do so pretty easily without Fred McGriff (Tom Emanski, aside).
So, here's the question for the audience: If you could have either, guaranteed, would you rather your team had that second half of Koufax's career, or the whole Scherzer career (to date)?
Where do we play our home games? In 1960s Dodger Stadium, The Greatest Pitchers Park during The Greatest Pitching Era since deadball? What if we play in pre-humidor Denver? Does Sandy complete dozens of high altitude high scoring games? Does it not matter because of all the strikeouts? If that's the case... Scherer strikes out batters at a higher rate. (Context: he pitches in the most K-happy era ever) What if we play in Detroit/DC in the 10s? Or how about the 280 ft right field 1930 Baker Bowl? 1978 Fenway Park?
Not to take away from Koufax, but he was so fortunate to create his legend when nobody really cared about context. It would be like saying and believing that 1999-2004 Bonds is the holy grail of hitting, discussion over. (Umm there was a little more to it than "73".)
That's a really tough one, Koufax had the two best seasons if you combine both careers, but after that, you can order the rest of them in a lot of different ways and Scherzer has more quality seasons than Koufax does cumulatively. It's very difficult to compare them since they pitched in far different eras; but I think that you can definitely have a winning team with either fronting your staff.
If I already had a good team, I'd take Koufax, but limit him to 7 IP in most games. If I had a bad team, I'd probably take Scherzer.
Scherzer, Verlander, Price and Porcello - ahhh, what should have been.....
Or as JoeP pointed out earlier... Scherzer, Verlander, Price, Porcello, Nathan, Miggy, Kinsler, Castellanos, Torii Hunter, J.D. Martinez, and Victor Martinez. Also Rajai Davis, a young Eugenio Suarez, and a young Robbie Ray. Davis, Hunter, and especially Castellanos were terrible in the field though... bad positioning by Ausmus? Anyway, what a loaded team!