Tim Kurkjian said Tom Glavine is a better pitcher because of his longevity. I guess that makes Julio Franco a better hitter than Ted Williams.
2007-08-10 10:17:57 · 23 answers · asked by Dodgerblue 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I'd say Koufax off the top of my head!
Stats!
Koufax 165-87 win/loss 2396 k's 2.76 era
(and oh ya 4 no hitters!)
Glavine 300-197 w/L 2544k's 3.49era
The only thing I see that edges Glavine is the longevity... Given modern medical technology Koufax would most likely have crushed Glavine in every measurable stat! Glavine has been very good for a long time but Koufax was rediculously good (dominant!) for a shorter time! I think people remember domination longer than longevity!
2007-08-10 10:42:51 · answer #1 · answered by JimBob 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Koufax was better in his prime; those who point to the Franco/Williams argument are right.....to a point. Having a limited career means that Koufax only was able to contribute a limited amount of seasons to his franchise, it depends on what you mean by better. Being solid for a long time will contribute many more wins to a franchise then some give credit for....so I think a better argument would be Winfield vs Williams.
Also basing the argument on pure stats from the 60s vs 90s is not always fair. From 1962-1968 MLB raised the mound deadend the ball and had a bigger strike zone, note that Sandy's prime came here.
That being said Koufax for a 5 year span was the best pitcher in the league Glavine was never better than the 4th best pitcher in the league for a span that large (Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, and Johnson)
2007-08-10 18:49:48 · answer #2 · answered by D Money 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sandy Koufax was easily the better pitcher. Tom Glavine is an amazing player but for 5 years Koufax was so dominating that it makes up for not playing 20 years.
Longevity has nothing to do with skill. For example Julio Franco could play for twice as many years as he has now rack up thousands of hits and still not come close to being a better player than Williams.
2007-08-10 17:38:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There IS a point there. No doubt that Koufax was better for the 6 years he was good, but who'd you rather have for a franchise player? Glavine's longevity, coupled with his skill, IS a good point. He is also a 5 skill player who can field his position, run, and hit. Koufax was awful as a hitter.
To illustrate, Bob Gibson had a year in 1968 that was better than any year Koufax had, yet no one calls him a better pitcher (though he was awful dang CLOSE). Your Franco/Williams comparison isn't comparable. You could say that Andre Dawson was a better hitter than Lyman Bostock because Dawson played 17 or 18 years and Bostock only 5 or 6 before he was killed.
I'm not saying Glavine is better than Koufax, but Kurkjian does have a point.
2007-08-10 17:37:23 · answer #4 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In his prime, I'd go with Sandy, who left the game early because he suffered from arthritis. In a full career, Sandy would have probably surpassed Glavine's win mark and strikeout mark. Glavine has been an average-plus pitcher on several very, very good teams which run support led to many, many extra victories. Glavine is crafty when he pitches, because he's got no mustard, so his WHIP remains kind of high, but with all his breaking stuff he gets hitters to ground into a lot of DPs. Sandy just overpowered, and pitched against more talented players; not a bunch of guys in the majors due to overexpansion (10 teams have been added since Sandy last threw a pitch).
2007-08-10 17:37:15 · answer #5 · answered by CNuxoll 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who saw Sandy Koufax pitch and has half a brain would never say Tom Glavine is better.
2007-08-10 20:38:09 · answer #6 · answered by ihateeverybodyexceptyou 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tom Glavine is not close to Sandy Koufax. Glavine survives on command and an entire career of playing on winning teams. Sandy Koufax was so good that he got bored with it. I rate him better than Bob Gibson or Nolan Ryan. He was "Powder River" and had a tremendous overhand curve ball.
2007-08-10 17:39:26 · answer #7 · answered by William R 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have to go with Tom Glavine. Koufax was better in his prime, but baseball has a lot of what ifs. Herb Score and Joe Wood would have been two of the all-time great pitchers put they got hurt.
Personally, I think Steve Carlton, Lefty Grove and Warren Spahn were better leftys than these three anyways. I've always liked Mickey Lolich, but alas, they do top him.
2007-08-11 02:13:44 · answer #8 · answered by voteforwalker 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sandy Koufax, hands down..his career was cut short due to an arm injury, or he would ahve won 300 games. He Dominated!! There is even a story that he pitched BP to the Dodgers before a game in the '81 series against the Yankee's and baffled the batters. Then they asked who that was....could be an urban legend...I would like to believe it is true.
2007-08-10 17:25:16 · answer #9 · answered by Bugsy_Siegel 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i would take Koufax over Glavine...but could you imagine 2 real good lefty's of that calibure on the same team??
Koufax would of had a longer career if they had the Doctors of today back then and probabaly be would of been real close to 400 wins
2007-08-10 17:55:58 · answer #10 · answered by nas88car300 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋