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

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by rman112

Ok.

10/18/13 - 4.0 innings/7 earned runs (bad start)
10/3/14 - 6.2 innings/8 earned runs (bad start)
10/7/14 - 6.0 innings/3 earned runs/9K's ***
10/9/15 - 6.2 innings/3 earned runs/11K's ***
10/11/16 - 6.2 innings/5 earned runs (bad start)
10/22/16 - 5.0 innings/4 earned runs (bad start)
10/29/17 - 4.2 innings/6 earned runs (bad start)
10/12/18 - 3.0 innings/4 earned runs (bad start)
10/28/18 - 7.0 innings/4 earned runs * (not great, but "bad?")
10/4/19 - 6.0 innings/3 earned runs ***
10/9/19 - 0.1 innings/2 earned runs - in relief
10/15/20 - 5.0 innings/4 earned runs (bad start)

I included the stats from games you identified since you just put dates with no information. As most objective observers will see, some don't belong. Remember, you said, "bad playoff performances."

____________

Here are his gems - with stats. There are other good games, but I didn't include them since they were closer to average than great.

10/03/13 - 7.0 innings/1 earned run
10/07/13 - 6.0 innings/0 earned runs
10/12/13 - 6.0 innings/0 earned runs
10/13/15 - 7.0 innings/1 earned run
10/16/16 - 7.0 innings/0 earned runs
10/19/17 - 6.0 innings/1 earned run
10/24/17 - 7.0 innings/1 earned run
10/05/18 - 8.0 innings/0 earned runs
10/17/18 - 7.0 innings/1 earned run
10/01/02 - 8.0 innings/0 earned runs
10/20/20 - 6.0 innings/1 earned run

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

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

If ERA is such a telling statistic, why do literally zero DFS players with tens of thousands of dollars of skin in the game each night, use it as the basis for projections?

[cardsin47]

He’s undervalued for sure. Question is, will that always be the case, or will the hobby “catch up” to what he’s accomplished..... ( no crystal ball at my house / I just checked again )

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

If ERA is such a telling statistic, why do literally zero DFS players with tens of thousands of dollars of skin in the game each night, use it as the basis for projections?

I don't do fantasy.

Are baseball games won and lost based on who gets on base, or who scores?

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by badkarma318

He suffers from B.S.S. (Bumgarner Shadow Syndrome), and will never be in the conversation for greatest World Series pitchers in history.

Let me know when the regular season champ has at least 3 rings, and even approaches these numbers:

The HOF doesn't care if you had a great 4-year window in your career; consistency and longevity are the markers of greatness. There are plenty of HOFers that don't have a WS ring; this isn't basketball where one player can impact the game so much (see: Trout). Bumgarner was great during those years. However, I am a math geek, so I wanted to see what he would have to do in order to match Kershaw for career ERA (2.43).

Bumgarner would have to pitch for 4 and 1/3 more years, start 20 games each year, and not give up a single earned run.

In other words, starting next year, he would have to throw 602 straight scoreless innings just to match Kershaw's career ERA.

That's how dominant Kershaw has been.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

I don't do fantasy.

Are baseball games won and lost based on who gets on base, or who scores?

Why not cut to the chase and simply determine best pitcher based on number of wins in a season? If your team is winning when you leave the game, that's ultimately the most important thing to result of that particular game. You could consider Jason Vargas and Rick Porcello the best pitchers of 2017. They threw 179 and 223 innings, respectively; by your own admission, that would qualify as a large enough sample size to bestow them this crown.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I included the stats from games you identified since you just put dates with no information. As most objective observers will see, some don't belong. Remember, you said, "bad playoff performances."

10/7/14 - 6.0 innings/3 earned runs/9K's *** - Had 2-0 lead going into 7th. Single, single, HR. Pulled. Loss.

10/9/15 - 6.2 innings/3 earned runs/11K's *** - Was only down 1-0 going into 7th. Walked based loaded. Pulled. Baez gives up single, scoring 2. Loss.

10/28/18 - 7.0 innings/4 earned runs * (not great, but "bad?") - Yes, bad. The bar should not be this low. Loss.

10/4/19 - 6.0 innings/3 earned runs *** - Put team in 3-0 hole after 2 innings. Loss.

10/9/19 - 0.1 innings/2 earned runs - in relief - Turned 3-1 lead into a 3-3 game by giving up back to back home runs. That's bad.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Why not cut to the chase and simply determine best pitcher based on number of wins in a season? If your team is winning when you leave the game, that's ultimately the most important thing to result of that particular game. You could consider Jason Vargas the best pitcher of 2018, Rick Porcello the best pitcher of 2017. They threw 179 and 223 innings, respectively; by your own volition, that would qualify as a large enough sample size to bestow them this crown.

If you're talking about Rick Porcello and Jason Vargas in relation to Clayton Kershaw's playoff career, it's probably not a good point.

Pitching is about not giving up runs. It's literally the entire point of pitching.

[LVDan]

The 2006 BCD Blue Refractor Auto was the 1st time I remember a team colors refractor made me all tingly and s!@#.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

If you're talking about Rick Porcello and Jason Vargas in relation to Clayton Kershaw's playoff career, it's probably not a good point.

Pitching is about not giving up runs. It's literally the entire point of pitching.

That's a very surface level and somewhat flawed definition of pitching.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

That's a very surface level and somewhat flawed definition of pitching.

It's their job. To not give up runs. It's the job.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

It's their job. To not give up runs. It's the job.

Their job is, to efficiently as possible, induce weak contact and limit mistakes which can't be assigned to other players on the field (primarily walks and hit batsmen).

If Pitcher A gives up half a dozen seeing-eye singles and bloop hits on weakly induced contact and and no walks, which lead to 2 or 3 runs, while Pitcher B has six walks, but pitches around the mistakes with help from some missiles hit right at fielders, and doesn't give up any runs, is anyone arguing that Pitcher B was the objectively better pitcher that day? Pitcher B's team wins and B gets the win on fewer earned runs, but that doesn't qualify them as a better pitcher.

Do those differences in luck blend together over hundreds of innings? Definitely. Can you outpitch bad park factors and bad defense over this time? No.

[kyleuk21]

Originally Posted by rman112

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.

So? No correlation between that and Kershaw. If anything, that just means the Astros were bad that night even when they knew what was coming.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Their job is, to efficiently as possible, induce weak contact and limit mistakes which can't be assigned to other players on the field (primarily walks and hit batsmen).

If Pitcher A gives up half a dozen seeing-eye singles and bloop hits on weakly induced contact and and no walks, which lead to 2 or 3 runs, while Pitcher B has six walks, but pitches around the mistakes with help from some missiles hit right at fielders, and doesn't give up any runs, is anyone arguing that Pitcher B was the objectively better pitcher that day? Pitcher B's team wins and B gets the win on fewer earned runs, but that doesn't qualify them as a better pitcher.

Do those differences in luck blend together over hundreds of innings? Definitely. Can you outpitch bad park factors and bad defense over this time? No.

All to not give up runs.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by kyleuk21

So? No correlation between that and Kershaw. If anything, that just means the Astros were bad that night even when they knew what was coming.

If the Astros couldn't touch Alex Wood the day before in the same ballpark, I'm not sure we should be placing all the blame on their cheating to explain Kershaw's struggles the next day.

[kyleuk21]

Originally Posted by rman112

If the Astros couldn't touch Alex Wood the day before in the same ballpark, I'm not sure we should be placing all the blame on their cheating to explain Kershaw's struggles the next day.

That’s a far bigger assumption than stating a pitcher sucked bc all of his pitches were tipped off. Seems like common sense that most if not all blame would go to the cheating.

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by rman112

If the Astros couldn't touch Alex Wood the day before in the same ballpark, I'm not sure we should be placing all the blame on their cheating to explain Kershaw's struggles the next day.

But Alex Wood has a career ERA (3.45) that's identical to Curt Schilling's. What's wrong with Wood?

(At the time of the series, Wood had a career 3.29 ERA, which is better than Justin Verlander.)

[2infinitybeyond]

Originally Posted by rman112

If the Astros couldn't touch Alex Wood the day before in the same ballpark, I'm not sure we should be placing all the blame on their cheating to explain Kershaw's struggles the next day.

I believe Alex Wood routinely changes signs. Kershaw does not. That's the difference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[towerymt]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

If ERA is such a telling statistic, why do literally zero DFS players with tens of thousands of dollars of skin in the game each night, use it as the basis for projections?

Because ERA is not predictive.

Most of what I see on Fangraphs for Kershaw's post season vs regular season looks similar...but his post season HR rate is nearly double his career rate. Maybe that's his problem



Why is he giving up more home runs? Solve that problem.

Poor command/location? Hanging cement mixers? Loss of velo (fatigue?)? Poor luck (what's the xAVG/xSLG on those dingers?)? Facing better lineups that just hit better than the average team? Is he giving up higher exit velo or more barrels during the post season? Why???

[rman112]

Originally Posted by kyleuk21

That’s a far bigger assumption than stating a pitcher sucked bc all of his pitches were tipped off. Seems like common sense that most if not all blame would go to the cheating.

What assumption? The assumption was that he pitched bad because the Astros were cheating, right? At the very least, Kershaw was doing something wrong.

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

But Alex Wood has a career ERA (3.45) that's identical to Curt Schilling's. What's wrong with Wood?

(At the time of the series, Wood had a career 3.29 ERA, which is better than Justin Verlander.)

Nothing. He's certainly not Kershaw.

Originally Posted by 2infinitybeyond

I believe Alex Wood routinely changes signs. Kershaw does not. That's the difference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Good call. I seem to remember this being the case. So much so that it seemed overly paranoid at the time.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by towerymt

Why is he giving up more home runs? Solve that problem.

Poor command/location? Hanging cement mixers? Loss of velo (fatigue?)? Poor luck (what's the xAVG/xSLG on those dingers?)? Facing better lineups that just hit better than the average team? Is he giving up higher exit velo or more barrels during the post season? Why???

I'd say that it's the opposite of the reason in bold. He has always been a pitcher who pounds the strike zone, especially with nobody on base; always has - (Top 10 K : Walk ratio all-time). Obviously, he's spun a mixer in there and hung a curve that got blasted out, but every pitcher has that happen. When you attack the zone that much, you're going to get tagged.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by rman112

10/7/14 - 6.0 innings/3 earned runs/9K's *** - Had 2-0 lead going into 7th. Single, single, HR. Pulled. Loss.

10/9/15 - 6.2 innings/3 earned runs/11K's *** - Was only down 1-0 going into 7th. Walked based loaded. Pulled. Baez gives up single, scoring 2. Loss.

10/4/19 - 6.0 innings/3 earned runs *** - Put team in 3-0 hole after 2 innings. Loss.

To me, analyzing these games as good or bad is objective, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

To me, analyzing these games as good or bad is objective, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

They're definitely not 'good'. Eh, mediocre, average, bad, etc.. is certainly subjective. It's the pattern that's the problem. The bottom line is that he didn't get it done. For one of the best regular season pitchers ever, it's not good enough. There shouldn't need to be so many either explanations or excuses for a pitcher of his caliber.

At the end of the day, he's got a chance to make everyone shut up about all of this. There's a pretty good chance he goes again.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by rman112

They're definitely not 'good'. Eh, mediocre, average, bad, etc.. is certainly subjective. It's the pattern that's the problem. The bottom line is that he didn't get it done. For one of the best regular season pitchers ever, it's not good enough. There shouldn't need to be so many either explanations or excuses for a pitcher of his caliber.

At the end of the day, he's got a chance to make everyone shut up about all of this. There's a pretty good chance he goes again.

I'm not seeing a pattern, other than the one the media wants you to believe is there. He's pitched in 36 postseason games; you picked out 7 that were bad, I picked out 11 that were lights-out, the rest were +/- average. I'm not sure I'd qualify that as him being "bad" in the playoffs.

There shouldn't be this narrative. The fact is he has more games to "pick from" because he's always in the postseason. The only pitcher of his generation who is comparable is Verlander (31 postseason games), and again, because of how often people saw him in the postseason he had a certain (undeserved) critique as well.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I'm not seeing a pattern, other than the one the media wants you to believe is there. He's pitched in 36 postseason games; you picked out 7 that were bad, I picked out 11 that were lights-out, the rest were +/- average. I'm not sure I'd qualify that as him being "bad" in the playoffs.

There shouldn't be this narrative. The fact is he has more games to "pick from" because he's always in the postseason. The only pitcher of his generation who is comparable is Verlander (31 postseason games), and again, because of how often people saw him in the postseason he had a certain (undeserved) critique as well.

I picked out a third of the games that I thought were bad.

His total playoff performance is only not "bad" if you don't treat Kershaw like he's performed in the regular season.. as one of the best pitchers ever. Because the winning % difference in regular/post, and the ERA difference in regular/post are simply not close.

It's not a made up narrative, no matter how much you think it shouldn't be a thing. He's one of the best pitchers in the regular season .. EVER. In the playoffs, he hasn't been close to that.

He's a great pitcher without the playoff success to match it. He's on a team with continual regular season success, without the ring to match it.

Verlander's narrative is earned. It's that he struggles in the World Series. There's no other way to spin 0-6 with a 5.68 ERA in 7 WS starts. He'd be 0-7 if the Astros didn't erase a 3-1 deficit against the Dodgers.