Clayton Kershaw - Will a dominant postseason do much to his hobby value?

[Boredlawyer]

Verlander and Kershaw have nearly identical WHIPs (1.069 vs 1.066) in the post season in a comparable amount of innings. Verlander is 0-6 with a 5.68 ERA in the World Series, while Kershaw is 2-2 in the World Series.

The narrative is entirely overblown because Kershaw has had some incredibly flukey (Matt Adams in a lefty/lefty matchup) hit off him.

If Kershaw came out and pulled a Rick Ankiel and was spiking balls all over the place in the postseason, it would be different. Once they win this World Series, the monkey will be off his back and we will never hear about this again.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Verlander and Kershaw have nearly identical WHIPs (1.069 vs 1.066) in the post season in a comparable amount of innings. Verlander is 0-6 with a 5.68 ERA in the World Series, while Kershaw is 2-2 in the World Series.

The narrative is entirely overblown because Kershaw has had some incredibly flukey (Matt Adams in a lefty/lefty matchup) hit off him.

If Kershaw came out and pulled a Rick Ankiel and was spiking balls all over the place in the postseason, it would be different. Once they win this World Series, the monkey will be off his back and we will never hear about this again.

And where would that leave him on the alltime greatest pitchers list?

top 20? top 10? top 5?

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

And where would that leave him on the alltime greatest pitchers list?

top 20? top 10? top 5?

I guess that depends on how much weight you put on guys like Bob Gibson throwing 25+ complete games in a season, or Christy Mathewsons consistently throwing 300+ innings per season.

Compared to his peers, Kershaw won three Cy Youngs (assuming he doesn't win more) and had seven seasons of consecutive top five finishes. I'd say that puts him ~Top 10 of all time, and a solid ~Top 3 lefty of all time.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Verlander and Kershaw have nearly identical WHIPs (1.069 vs 1.066) in the post season in a comparable amount of innings. Verlander is 0-6 with a 5.68 ERA in the World Series, while Kershaw is 2-2 in the World Series.

The narrative is entirely overblown because Kershaw has had some incredibly flukey (Matt Adams in a lefty/lefty matchup) hit off him.

If Kershaw came out and pulled a Rick Ankiel and was spiking balls all over the place in the postseason, it would be different. Once they win this World Series, the monkey will be off his back and we will never hear about this again.

Home runs aren't fluky.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

I guess that depends on how much weight you put on guys like Bob Gibson throwing 25+ complete games in a season, or Christy Mathewsons consistently throwing 300+ innings per season.

Compared to his peers, Kershaw won three Cy Youngs (assuming he doesn't win more) and had seven seasons of consecutive top five finishes. I'd say that puts him ~Top 10 of all time, and a solid ~Top 3 lefty of all time.

Lefty:

Carlton
Johnson
Grove
Kershaw

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

Home runs aren't fluky.

Home runs are extremely fluky in small sample sizes.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Home runs are extremely fluky in small sample sizes.

Lol. You could reduce every great home run in the history of the game to 'fluky' then.

Kershaw's HR rate in the regular season is 0.7

Kershaw's HR rate in the postseason is exactly double that .. 1.4.

[Thor34]

Originally Posted by Nostalgia

Lefty:

Carlton
Johnson
Grove
Kershaw

Spahn?

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by Thor34

Spahn?

Ahead of who?

There's also Koufax. His career is so strange. Until he turned 25 he was pretty awful. Than from age 25-30 he may have put together the best 6 years stretch ever. And then he retired after his age 30 season with a 27-9 1.73 era 307 strikeouts and 27 complete games.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

Lol. You could reduce every great home run in the history of the game to 'fluky' then.

Kershaw's HR rate in the regular season is 0.7

Kershaw's HR rate in the postseason is exactly double that .. 1.4.

Isn't that what makes them great? He's also facing WAAAY better lineups in the postseason than the regular season. Not carving up the Marlins for 14 K's because they're trotting out Gaby Sanchez as their cleanup hitter.

The underlying peripherals indicate that he's still a good (not amazing) pitcher in the postseason. 1.069 WHIP is an extremely solid indicator of sustained success in the postseason. His FIP is significantly lower than his ERA in the postseason. These tend to balance out over greater sample size

I think we are approaching this from opposite sides; His underlying peripherals indicate that he's due for a ton of positive regression in terms of ERA and home runs allowed. If his WHIP was 1.5 in the post season, then I wouldn't call these home runs fluky.

If he's truly twice as hittable in the postseason (1.4 vs 0.7 HR rates) why don't the underlying metrics or FIP reflect it? He doesn't give up a significantly higher number of walks or doubles compared to the regular season when he's in the postseason. If he's a BAD postseason pitcher, why is it featured exclusively in home runs given up?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Isn't that what makes them great? He's also facing WAAAY better lineups in the postseason than the regular season. Not carving up the Marlins for 14 K's because they're trotting out Gaby Sanchez as their cleanup hitter.

The underlying peripherals indicate that he's still a good (not amazing) pitcher in the postseason. 1.069 WHIP is an extremely solid indicator of sustained success in the postseason. His FIP is significantly lower than his ERA in the postseason. These tend to balance out over greater sample size

I think we are approaching this from opposite sides; His underlying peripherals indicate that he's due for a ton of positive regression in terms of ERA and home runs allowed.

If he's truly twice as hittable in the postseason (1.4 vs 0.7 HR rates) why don't the underlying metrics or FIP reflect it? He doesn't give up a significantly higher number of walks or doubles compared to the regular season when he's in the postseason. If he's a BAD postseason pitcher, why is it featured exclusively in home runs given up?

Mazeroski? Fluke.
Carter? Fluke.
Thomson? Fluke.
Dent? Fluke.
Fisk? Fluke.
Gibson? Fluke.
Adams? Definite fluke.

If you want to talk about secondary things like FIP and WHIP (and sustained success? He's 7th all-time in postseason innings...), OK. But it's all about the runs, and the real runs that pitchers give up - so ERA.

I find it amazing that we're talking about sample size for a pitcher with 183 innings thrown in the playoffs.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

Mazeroski? Fluke.
Carter? Fluke.
Thomson? Fluke.
Dent? Fluke.
Fisk? Fluke.
Gibson? Fluke.
Adams? Definite fluke.

If you want to talk about secondary things like FIP and WHIP (and sustained success? He's 7th all-time in postseason innings...), OK. But it's all about the runs, and the real runs that pitchers give up - so ERA.

I find it amazing that we're talking about sample size for a pitcher with 183 innings thrown in the playoffs.

They were all flukes to some degree. If Gibson hits off Eckersley 500 times with no knees, how many hits does he get? 50? 75? Less than 10 home runs? That's why we love those moments. Totally unexpected.

Pro Draftkings players that use algos are not using ERA as a predictor of future success. There is industry-wide assumption that FIP is a superior statistic of predicting future success; ERA is a surface level statistic that doesn't factor in significant variables (park factors and fielders being the main ones). If Verlander was pitching at Coors, his ERA would obviously be significantly higher; he's still an identical pitcher on talent on a neutral field. If Verlander goes out and gives up three bombs at Coors, but only one would have been a home run at any other stadium, he's not a "bad" pitcher.

183 innings isn't a small sample size (although it's not huge) on the basis of FIP and WHIP, but it IS a small sample size on the basis of HRs allowed.

183 innings; 28 HRs given up = 1.377 HR/9
If he give's up just 5 less solo shots, you're down to 1.13 HR/9

At his current 183 innings, he's given up 200 combined hits/BB/HBP = 1.09 WHIP
However, if he gives up just 5 less overall walks, you're only dropping him to a 1.064 WHIP. There's so much statistical variance.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

They were all flukes to some degree. If Gibson hits off Eckersley 500 times with no knees, how many hits does he get? 50? 75? Less than 10 home runs? That's why we love those moments. Totally unexpected.

Pro Draftkings players that use algos are not using ERA as a predictor of future success. There is industry-wide assumption that FIP is a superior statistic of predicting future success; ERA is a surface level statistic that doesn't factor in significant variables (park factors and fielders being the main ones). If Verlander was pitching at Coors, his ERA would obviously be significantly higher; he's still an identical pitcher on talent on a neutral field. If Verlander goes out and gives up three bombs at Coors, but only one would have been a home run at any other stadium, he's not a "bad" pitcher.

183 innings isn't a small sample size (although it's not huge) on the basis of FIP and WHIP, but it IS a small sample size on the basis of HRs allowed.

183 innings; 28 HRs given up = 1.377 HR/9
If he give's up just 5 less solo shots, you're down to 1.13 HR/9

At his current 183 innings, he's given up 200 combined hits/BB/HBP = 1.09 WHIP
However, if he gives up just 5 less overall walks, you're only dropping him to a 1.064 WHIP. There's so much statistical variance.

LOLOL. Life isn't extrapolated. This is ridiculous. If you have your first kid, are you thinking "Man, this kid looks great! But hunny, if you have 8 more, I'm not sure you can do as well as Johnny here." ?

Your entire argument is basically - "Yes, this happened. But what if it actually didn't happen?"

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

183 innings isn't a small sample size (although it's not huge) on the basis of FIP and WHIP, but it IS a small sample size on the basis of HRs allowed.

183 innings; 28 HRs given up = 1.377 HR/9
If he give's up just 5 less solo shots, you're down to 1.13 HR/9

At his current 183 innings, he's given up 200 combined hits/BB/HBP = 1.09 WHIP
However, if he gives up just 5 less overall walks, you're only dropping him to a 1.064 WHIP. There's so much statistical variance.

183 innings is a full season for Kershaw now. In fact, it's more innings than he's thrown in any one regular season since 2015.

[rman112]

The fact that Kershaw has pitched differently in the regular season vs. the postseason is THE ENTIRE POINT.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

LOLOL. Life isn't extrapolated. This is ridiculous. If you have your first kid, are you thinking "Man, this kid looks great! But hunny, if you have 8 more, I'm not sure you can do as well as Johnny here." ?

Your entire argument is basically - "Yes, this happened. But what if it actually didn't happen?"

My argument is that it is foolish to assume that Kershaw is a "bad postseason" pitcher because of several negative outcomes that fit well within "statistical noise", where the negative outcomes would expect to be diminished over a greater sample size. Hence, Kershaw went out and shoved last night, and brought his ERA closer to his expected ERA based on his FIP.

How many good pitchers give up lots of home runs? How many bad pitchers consistently limit them? How many pitchers consistently give up home runs that are significantly out of proportion to their FIP or WHIP?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

My argument is that it is foolish to assume that Kershaw is a "bad postseason" pitcher because of several negative outcomes that fit well within "statistical noise", where the negative outcomes would expect to be diminished over a greater sample size. Hence, Kershaw went out and shoved last night, and brought his ERA closer to his expected ERA based on his FIP.

He's pitched in playoff games in 10 different season. He's started a playoff game in 9 different seasons. How many is fair? 15? 18? 20?

His playoff ERA is still 4.22. FIP gets you nothing. No accomplishments, no awards, no wins. Nothing real.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

How many good pitchers give up lots of home runs? How many bad pitchers consistently limit them? How many pitchers consistently give up home runs that are significantly out of proportion to their FIP or WHIP?

How many pitchers have had as good a career as Kershaw, and as poor a playoff one?

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

My argument is that it is foolish to assume that Kershaw is a "bad postseason" pitcher because of several negative outcomes that fit well within "statistical noise", where the negative outcomes would expect to be diminished over a greater sample size. Hence, Kershaw went out and shoved last night, and brought his ERA closer to his expected ERA based on his FIP.

How many good pitchers give up lots of home runs? How many bad pitchers consistently limit them? How many pitchers consistently give up home runs that are significantly out of proportion to their FIP or WHIP?

He's got a huge postseason sample size, a full season's worth of innings. But almost his entire history is suppressing ERA over his FIP by quite a bit because he gives up so much weak contact. So his ERA/FIP difference is even more of an extreme than it would be with an average pitcher. I do not believe he's a worse postseason pitcher because I haven't seen a breakdown that proves it. But we are definitely in the realm of it's more likely there's a difference than it being noise. You also need to strip out his starts on short rest from the sample as well

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

How many pitchers have had as good a career as Kershaw, and as poor a playoff one?

The 12-12 record with a 1.069 WHIP? That WHIP, which would qualify for 14th best career WHIP of all time, which would be better than the careers of Seaver, Kluber, Scherzer, Marichal, Koufax, Verlander etc etc?

So bad!

[kyleuk21]

Originally Posted by rman112

How many pitchers have had as good a career as Kershaw, and as poor a playoff one?

He’s a top 10 pitcher to ever play the game, so no, probably no one is comparable for that statement bc almost no one has had a regular career as good as him.

Regardless of what anyone says, Kershaw would have ended this argument in the Astros World Series had they not been cheating in the Houston game he lost. No one would be talking about this today. If anything, a win in Houston and we would now be talking about how great he has been in the playoffs as of late.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

The 12-12 record with a 1.069 WHIP? That WHIP, which would qualify for 14th best career WHIP of all time, which would be better than the careers of Seaver, Kluber, Scherzer, Marichal, Koufax, Verlander etc etc?

So bad!

No. The ERA. The runs. The things that measure the stuff on the scoreboard.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by kyleuk21

He’s a top 10 pitcher to ever play the game, so no, probably no one is comparable for that statement bc almost no one has had a regular career as good as him.

Regardless of what anyone says, Kershaw would have ended this argument in the Astros World Series had they not been cheating in the Houston game he lost. No one would be talking about this today. If anything, a win in Houston and we would now be talking about how great he has been in the playoffs as of late.

I was actually just looking at the box scores from 2017. The day before that game, the Astros scored 2 runs. In Houston. 1 in 5.2 off Alex Wood, and 1 in the 9th when Jansen threw a curveball to Bregman.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

No. The ERA. The runs. The things that measure the stuff on the scoreboard.

I don't know what to tell you if you believe that ERA is the end all, be all statistic for pitchers. WHIP is subject to manipulation, and xFIP is going to be a better prediction for pure pitching ability. ERA, and to a lesser degree, WHIP, is subject to all the factors out of a pitchers control (like when the Phillies have five first basemen in the field or a routine flyout is a triple at Coors).

ERA, and even WHIP, to a lesser agree, were only created so we could calculate statistics on a surface level on the back of baseball cards to coincide with Wins. Then guys like Jose Lima won 21 games, and we developed Statcast to actually have some nuance.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

I don't know what to tell you if you believe that ERA is the end all, be all statistic for pitchers. WHIP is subject to manipulation, and xFIP is going to be a better prediction for pure pitching ability. ERA, and to a lesser degree, WHIP, is subject to all the factors out of a pitchers control (like when the Phillies have five first basemen in the field or a routine flyout is a triple at Coors).

ERA, and even WHIP, to a lesser agree, were only created so we could calculate statistics on a surface level on the back of baseball cards to coincide with Wins. Then guys like Jose Lima won 21 games, and we developed Statcast to actually have some nuance.

WHIP measures who gets on. ERA measures who scores. It's not about who gets on. It's about who scores.