baseball playoffs

[chaddurbin]

nfl may be #1, nba have the most visible stars, hockey is trying to stay relevant...but i'm a baseball fan from way back and this is the best time of the year! let the crapshoot-ness begins...

some observations:

--injuries have probably ended clev and wash years.
--jake arrieta turned back into a pumpkin (i'm probably still sore abt him winning CY over kershaw and greinke)
--the cubs are the overwhelming favs so that means they probably won't win
--by the metrics bos is the best AL team and should make it to WS...but tex have home field WTF
--rooting for blue jays over balt so we have more international incidents
--f*** the giants and those BATs( bay area tools)
--finally LET'S GO DODGERS~!

[bravos4evr]

due to the influx of teams into the playoffs (first with the wildcard and now 2 wildcard teams per league) the playoffs are becoming more and more of a crapshoot than ever before. Predicting the winner is pretty tough.

best teams would probably be Boston vs Cubs

result will probably be something screwy like Cleveland vs Giants

[Peter_Spaeth]

I fear the Indians of Cleveland.

[Peter_Spaeth]

due to the influx of teams into the playoffs (first with the wildcard and now 2 wildcard teams per league) the playoffs are becoming more and more of a crapshoot than ever before. Predicting the winner is pretty tough.

best teams would probably be Boston vs Cubs

result will probably be something screwy like Cleveland vs Giants

Even year -- it's Giants time again. And the addition of Cueto sure doesn't hurt.

[bravos4evr]

Even year -- it's Giants time again. And the addition of Cueto sure doesn't hurt.

true, but their bats are pretty lousy and their pen sketchy.... IDK, I like the Indians team, but if Texas gets good pitching from their top 3,(or if they meet the Red Sox in the ALCS) their massive offense could get them in. (seriously, a Rangers vs Red Sox ALCS would be 8-7 every night!)

[chaddurbin]

I think giants get past NY but no way their even year magic will escape the cubs curse... That narrative is more powerful this year and the cubs patient lineup will wear out sf starters and get to the weak Giants bullpen.

[bravos4evr]

I think giants get past NY but no way their even year magic will escape the cubs curse... That narrative is more powerful this year and the cubs patient lineup will wear out sf starters and get to the weak Giants bullpen.

this makes perfect baseball sense except... Cubs.

They will find way to Cubs it up again.BUT.......maybe not, hell the Red Sox finally won right?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I am mourning a very unCardinals-like season by the Cardinals.

[itjclarke]

--f*** the giants and those BATs( bay area tools)
--finally LET'S GO DODGERS~!

Haha... I thought we were supposed dislike you SoCal'ers, and you were just supposed to not care. Regardless, I also love the MLB post season, and love that the Giants v Dodgers passion is alive and well!

Go Giants!!... and "Don't look at me!"

(not for a second taking the Mets for granted, that's a gonna be great game on Wed... but if the Giants can get by the NYM, I love the match up vs the Cubs)

[chaddurbin]

Nothing personal Ian, just baseball :)

[bbcardzman]

I am mourning a very unCardinals-like season by the Cardinals.

++++1

[bn2cardz]

I am mourning a very unCardinals-like season by the Cardinals.

unCardinals-like season?

They finished 86-76. Sure they finished in 2nd place in the NL and didn't make the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they didn't play to their normal standards.

2006: 83-78
2007: 78-84
2008: 86-76
2009: 91-71
2010: 86-76
2010: 90-72
2012: 88-74
2013: 97-65
2014: 90-72
2015: 100-62

They seemed very inline with the last 10 years.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

unCardinals-like season?

They finished 86-76. Sure they finished in 2nd place in the NL and didn't make the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they didn't play to their normal standards.

2006: 83-78
2007: 78-84
2008: 86-76
2009: 91-71
2010: 86-76
2010: 90-72
2012: 88-74
2013: 97-65
2014: 90-72
2015: 100-62

They seemed very inline with the last 10 years.
I was referring more to their relatively at least for them starting pitching and not very reliable infield defense this year. It got very frustrating to watch.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[KCRfan1]

Best game of the post season may be Wednesday night with Bumgarner and Syndergaard. That game may turn out 1-0 with no more than 5 hits for each team.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

unCardinals-like season?

They finished 86-76. Sure they finished in 2nd place in the NL and didn't make the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they didn't play to their normal standards.

2006: 83-78
2007: 78-84
2008: 86-76
2009: 91-71
2010: 86-76
2010: 90-72
2012: 88-74
2013: 97-65
2014: 90-72
2015: 100-62

They seemed very inline with the last 10 years.
There were also a lot of frustrating instances of outfielders throwing to the wrong base and just not being very fundamentally sound.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[KCRfan1]

I thought the same thing Robert. The Cards record is somewhat in line, but the fundamental playmaking seemed to be missing this year. But look at me, a Royals fan talking. We have some issues to tend to this off season. GM says KC will have to cut back on payroll ( living beyond their means ), and it's unlikely the team will be able to sign Hosmer longterm.

Well, never mind the income generated from the AS game in 2012, and post season appearances the past two seasons, and getting to the Series. Not sure where THAT money went????

Apparently the $$$ went to pay Gordon. If the GM spent money that could have been used to sign Hosmer, this was a very bad mistake. The same could be said for the $$$ used to sign Kennedy.

Unless Moore was told directly from Hosmer that he will not sign. Appears that 2017 will be Hosmer's last season in KC....

[itjclarke]

Nothing personal Ian, just baseball :)

Totally, I'm just playing too.

I went to school in SLO, front lines in the N CA vs SoCal tussle. It was re-affirmed to me over and over that we caredway more than you guys about all of it-- the water, the sports, and our general "Beat LA!" mentality, which sort of made us come across as up tight and insecure... while you guys typically seemed too involved doing other fun things to be bothered by the rivalry. Jim Rome (SoCal native, school in SB) further reinforces this POV occasionally on his show.

So with this said, I love it when things flare up a bit, and there some fire coming from So Cal. The Bum vs Puig thing is ridiculous but marvelous at the same time. The Dodgers' T-shirts were funny as hell, but then the Giants swept LA response. Was at Friday's game, Posey got knocked down then brushed back in the same AB, and Belt got drilled. It's been intense between the teams, and great theater all year. Oh man, I so want an LA vs SF NLCS.

[irv]

EDWIN!! :D

The Texas series is going to be a gooder, I think?!?!

[chaddurbin]

Epic first game, I think tex was rooting for Baltimore.

Madbum vs Noah should be a classic if Thor shows up... U know Madbum is gonna bring it and he will render the Mets lefties useless granderson Bruce loney etc.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I thought the same thing Robert. The Cards record is somewhat in line, but the fundamental playmaking seemed to be missing this year. But look at me, a Royals fan talking. We have some issues to tend to this off season. GM says KC will have to cut back on payroll ( living beyond their means ), and it's unlikely the team will be able to sign Hosmer longterm.

Well, never mind the income generated from the AS game in 2012, and post season appearances the past two seasons, and getting to the Series. Not sure where THAT money went????

Apparently the $$$ went to pay Gordon. If the GM spent money that could have been used to sign Hosmer, this was a very bad mistake. The same could be said for the $$$ used to sign Kennedy.

Unless Moore was told directly from Hosmer that he will not sign. Appears that 2017 will be Hosmer's last season in KC....
I agree. Hosmer would have been better money spent than Gordon. When you're a mid-market team, like KC and StL, there is only so much $ to go around. Therein lies the importance of a solid farm system to produce the players.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[itjclarke]

Wow, MadBum is just unreal. Have seen the stat folks pick apart his game a bit, but he's so much more than his stats. This includes the total confidence he projects to the rest of the team in these otherwise super high pressure ballgames.

I also hear the "W" doesn't matter anymore, and am guessing Thor's FIP or WAR or whatever was better than Bum tonight (based on K's), but one guy goes 7 and leaves after 105 pitches (nice game)... one guys goes 120 pitches and rips that W. In October, I'll take the second guy anytime.

Go Giants!!

[pariah1107]

108 double stitches in a baseball, 108 years since the Cubs last World Series parade. Chicago in a walk.

[KCRfan1]

I agree. Hosmer would have been better money spent than Gordon. When you're a mid-market team, like KC and StL, there is only so much $ to go around. Therein lies the importance of a solid farm system to produce the players.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Agreed.

Unfortunantly, KC has wiffed on their first and second round picks during the past 15 much more than hit on them.

Teams with market size like KC has got to nail those draft picks.

[bravos4evr]

Agreed.

Unfortunantly, KC has wiffed on their first and second round picks during the past 15 much more than hit on them.

Teams with market size like KC has got to nail those draft picks.

I disagree, well, maybe you shouldn't have given Gordon that contract, but replacing Hosmer won't be difficult as finding a power hitting 1b is generally the easiest position to fill in MLB. I believe your team's issues have more to do with a down seasons as much as anything. If Moustakas, Hosmer, Gordon have career avg seasons, you probably make the wildcard. The pitching was decent, (around league avg) but the bats all seemed to have down seasons at the same time, it happens.

[KCRfan1]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Hosmer is entering prime years, and will not come cheap. He is a difficult fill due to that. Those guys aren't falling around like leaves from a tree. Maybe they do where you live but not here.

KC has a lot of "if's" that need to be met each season for things to go right.

Gordon by far is the easier fill in terms of expense and production compared with Hosmer.

[bravos4evr]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Hosmer is entering prime years, and will not come cheap. He is a difficult fill due to that. Those guys aren't falling around like leaves from a tree. Maybe they do where you live but not here.

KC has a lot of "if's" that need to be met each season for things to go right.

Gordon by far is the easier fill in terms of expense and production compared with Hosmer.

he was below replacement level in 2016 and about avg with the bat, sure he will probably improve on that a tad, but there are a lot of guys out there like Brandon Moss, Adam Lind, Mitch Moreland...etc that could be had for very little $$$ and free the team up to trade Hosmer before he leaves in free agency.

[KCRfan1]

Kind of done with players at the end of a career. Really don't build around those guys.

Good role players but hardly what you want every day.

[bravos4evr]

Kind of done with players at the end of a career. Really don't build around those guys.

Good role players but hardly what you want every day.

Hosmer in 2016 was kinda like that too tho.

I'm not saying "build around" those guys, but if you admit that it's probably time for a rebuild f some sort, moving Hosmer for a prospect would help and one of the guys I mentioned could fill in for a year or two. Then you can either try to keep Moustakas and some of the others or move them for prospects too before they are free agents, that frees up payroll and would allow you to make some moves after 2018 and be ready to compete again 2019 and forward.

[itjclarke]

Cub fans, win or lose, it's gonna be a really exciting and fun week. Can't wait for tomorrow!

(these pics are in no way being presumptuous about this year... just really love them)
247420247421


Will add--- after seeing the Royals up close in 2014 and 2015, I think Hosmer is a guy that's more valuable than the stats show. He plays with some serious fire (and balls), and think that is infectious in a club house. His dash home against the Mets is something that few guys have the situational wherewithal to consider, and fewer have the nuts to attempt. I'd be sad to see him leave. I love the heart/fire those Royals teams played with.

[david_l]

Did Dickey get left off of the Jays postseason roster?

[jb217676]

Dickey was left of the playoff roster. I also think the Rangers left there brains off their playoff roster from what I've seen today. Sweet!

[bravos4evr]

Dickey was left of the playoff roster. I also think the Rangers left there brains off their playoff roster from what I've seen today. Sweet!

Rangers are an odd team, you rarely win 95 games while posting only a +8 run differential. Lots of comebacks and close wins matched up with several times being blown out. I have no idea what to make of them!

[david_l]

Too bad Dickey was left off. I still love watching him pitch. Today seems like it would of been the perfect day for Dickey to pitch four or five innings and save Estrada a little bit of work.

[smallpaul2002]

Blue Jays are the sleeper team in this years playoffs, have very good starting pitching, and a roster that can score runs..got knocked out by KC last season in the ALCS, They have been playing playoff baseball for about 2 weeks now, and hooked most of the best in the AL east down the stretch, needless to say I think the soft finish the Rangers had, and the layoff, had an impact on the Rangers. 1 game does not make a series, but if things do not change quickly for them , it will be over quickly...It is almost like the "wild card" teams are at an advantage because they play every day, where division winners suffer from a long layoff..One thing is certain, it will be an electric atmosphere at Rogers centre in Toronto when the Jays arrive home (by the way the beer can tosser was arrested and charged today) :)

[Joshchisox08]

Pulling for the Indians or Blue Jays this year. Just anyone but Boston or the Scrubs PLEASE!

[MCoxon]

Pulling for the Indians or Blue Jays this year. Just anyone but Boston or the Scrubs PLEASE!


Mission accomplished for one night. We'll have to see if it continues today.

[irv]

Too bad Dickey was left off. I still love watching him pitch. Today seems like it would of been the perfect day for Dickey to pitch four or five innings and save Estrada a little bit of work.

I am the opposite. I fret everytime Dickey pitches and I am glad he got left off the roster.
Great pitcher when he is on but unfortunately he wasn't on enough this year.

Pulling for the Indians or Blue Jays this year. Just anyone but Boston or the Scrubs PLEASE!


Same. Hoping Indians get by Boston and of course the Jay's by Texas. Both are looking pretty good so far but it's a long ways to go yet before the fat lady sings. Fingers crossed!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Smart for Toles to get the Start for Game 1 for the Dodgers...which = WIN

[irv]

SWEEP!!!

What a game! :D

[smallpaul2002]

Jays pulled off the sweep, and I for one would love to see them play the Indians. It would be nice too see a couple of the small market teams battle it out in the ALCS. Blue Jays offence has come to life and as a Jays fan the team could not have picked a better time to get things rolling. As stated before, this clubs starting pitching staff is vastly under rated by sports media and now everyone gets a chance to see how well they have pitched this season. Jays will have a nice break before the next series kicks off, and the rest is needed after all the tough games they have played over the past few weeks down the stretch. Baseball is a great game to follow, especially when your favourite team is participating in the playoffs...Go Jays Go.

[chaddurbin]

have no rooting interest in the AL, but would love to see clev/tor also. actually carlos santana was a dodgers prospect at one point so i've always kept up to see how he's doing so go clev i guess (plus tor has a reputation of questioning every strike called against them, like the clippers of the nba). i'm also tired of david ortiz, it's like every borderline all star/hof caliber guy is getting a year-long farewell tour now. (/hot takes alert)

[itjclarke]

Giants didn't get the split I was hoping for in Chi, but can't to see what should be another amazing matchup tonight. Doesn't get much better than Bum vs Arrietta in a possible elimination game.

[clydepepper]

I'm pulling for the Cubs to win it all...after all, can't we let that happen after 108 years?


.

[bravos4evr]

I'm pulling for the Cubs to win it all...after all, can't we let that happen after 108 years?


.

It would be fun to see and they are easily the best team, but man.... I just get the feeling that they will Cubs it up and be left holding the bag another year.

[almostdone]

I feel the same way. I think if it was any of the other 29 teams that had that type of team and season we wouldn't have that quiet lingering doubt but since it's the Cubs....

Drew

[PolarBear]

It would be fun to see and they are easily the best team, but man.... I just get the feeling that they will Cubs it up and be left holding the bag another year.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. I invested myself into the 2007 and 2008 seasons.

Cubs fans are mostly scar tissue. - George Will

[tschock]

Did anyone on the east coast other than myself actually stay up to watch the end of the Cubs-Giants game last night?

[PolarBear]

Did anyone on the east coast other than myself actually stay up to watch the end of the Cubs-Giants game last night?


Yeah, way to go Cubs. Tie it up in the 9th and lose it in the 13th.

Should have just lost it in the 9th and I could have gotten two extra hours of sleep. :mad:

[tschock]

As a Giants fan, I am not sad at the outcome. Nor am I surprised anymore by how they win or lose. I guess you probably view the Cubs the same way. LOL

My better half did say when it was tied after nine, it was going to go 13 innings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And Clayton for two more playoff games chalks up a 6.17 ERA. And once again implodes in the 7th, although he had some help after he left. The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career.

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1593032]And Clayton for two more playoff games chalks up a 6.17 ERA. And once again implodes in the 7th, although he had some help after he left. The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career.[/QUOTE}

well he did get the win for game 1 and the dodgers won both games he started.

yeah his pitching line not great but 10 + Ks isnt bad in his last start with short rest . If all of those uglier starts in the playoffs in years past were all 'wins' no would care about whether the pitching line was pretty....this year the dodgers are 2-0 on games that he started..

[botn]

Agreed. Kershaw's performance in post season continues to be extremely lacking but then again the whole team seems to go into hibernation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1593032]And Clayton for two more playoff games chalks up a 6.17 ERA. And once again implodes in the 7th, although he had some help after he left. The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career.[/QUOTE}

well he did get the win for game 1 and the dodgers won both games he started.

yeah his pitching line not great but 10 + Ks isnt bad in his last start with short rest . If all of those uglier starts in the playoffs in years past were all 'wins' no would care about whether the pitching line was pretty....this year the dodgers are 2-0 on games that he started..

6.17. Sorry but that's pathetic for someone at his ultra-elite, all-time great talent level. He was at 4.65 in 14 games before tonight.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1593032]And Clayton for two more playoff games chalks up a 6.17 ERA. And once again implodes in the 7th, although he had some help after he left. The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career.[/QUOTE}

well he did get the win for game 1 and the dodgers won both games he started.

yeah his pitching line not great but 10 + Ks isnt bad in his last start with short rest . If all of those uglier starts in the playoffs in years past were all 'wins' no would care about whether the pitching line was pretty....this year the dodgers are 2-0 on games that he started..

That is a really bad argument IMO. They won despite him not because of him.

[chaddurbin]

interesting fact...pedro baez for the 3rd year in a row has come in and allowed an inherited runner of kershaw to score. in his 12 career starts, 8 of 11 of kershaw's baserunners have scored. that was a damn gutsy performance. if you thought that start somehow tarnished his legacy we're watching different games.

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=1952boyntoncollector;1593035]

That is a really bad argument IMO. They won despite him not because of him.

he did pitch on short rest..and his team had a sizeable lead and didnt give up runs that put the dodgers behind..

and again..if he was 12-0 with a 6.00 era no one would be saying how bad he was... peyton manning had the worst performance i have seen in a super bowl and he is a super bowl champion

If the Broncos lose that game, then the stats matter for Peyton...

Same thing for Kershaw...no one will say this year was a failure for him when both times he left the game leading or tied and the Dodgers won both of his games.

Plus inherited runners scoring really skew era when looking at a short sample size... kershaw i believe was in line to be the winning pitcher when he left the game..

if he does that 4-5 more times (leaving the game with dodgers winning or tied and Dodgers win all of the games) with a 6.00 era and the Dodgers win the World series, i really really dont think the stats matters

[Peter_Spaeth]

If Sandy Koufax had given up 3 runs and then loaded the bases in the 7th before being chased, nobody would have said, oh what a gutsy performance. Kershaw in the regular season has been the equal of Koufax at his peak. He just can't pitch in the post-season worth a damn, for the most part.

And yes the bullpen let him down. But an elite pitcher doesn't load em up and hope his bullpen can rescue him.

[1952boyntoncollector]

If Sandy Koufax had given up 3 runs and then loaded the bases in the 7th before being chased, nobody would have said, oh what a gutsy performance. Kershaw in the regular season has been the equal of Koufax at his peak. He just can't pitch in the post-season worth a damn, for the most part.

Well Koufax started 7 games in the postseason and his record was 4-3 and Kershaw is 3-6

id rather have a pitcher give up 3 runs and get the win then give up 2 runs and get the loss. Yes i know there are many other factors but if you are up 5 runs you tend to give up runs easier than up 1-0 if you are focusing on ERA. Afterall if you lose 1-0 that means the opposing pitcher beat you out so we should be honoring that guy and not the guy that lost 1-0 for example.

Kershaw has been bad in the postseason but i dont see how this year he added to being a bad postseason pitcher with 11ks today and his team going 2-0 in his starts (getting the win in one of them and in line to get the win in the other) in a best of 5 series when his team was the underdog..

Bullpen shouldnt be relied to always rescue someone but its not normal to allow 85% of the inherited runners to score either, If there were any inherited runners on base after Koufax left any games, i will assume less than 85% of the time they scored, again if there even were any

[Peter_Spaeth]

4-3 with an 0.95 ERA. Case closed.

[1952boyntoncollector]

4-3 with an 0.95 ERA. Case closed.

right he won one more game than he lost. So in a Huge game he had a little over a 50/50 chance to win . Its not the total runs that matter, its when you give up the runs.

The opposing pitchers just took better care of business (bob shaw, kaat, palmer ) than Koufax did in those 3 losses or about half the games in pitched in the postseason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

double post

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=koufasa01&t=p&post=1

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=kershcl01&t=p&post=1

If you want to even suggest these are comparable, you can have that discussion with yourself. :D Spin it any way you want to. Kershaw has been a major disappointment in the post-season overall, and (so far anyhow, who knows he may not be done) he has been mediocre at best this year.

[1952boyntoncollector]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=koufasa01&t=p&post=1

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=kershcl01&t=p&post=1

If you want to even suggest these are comparable, you can have that discussion with yourself. :D Spin it any way you want to. Kershaw has been a major disappointment in the post-season overall, and (so far anyhow, who knows he may not be done) he has been mediocre at best this year.

Not here to compare, but i think people would be surprised that Koufax was only 4-3 in the postseason and kershaw isnt close to be being done yet..and like the other poster said, there were a ton of inherited runners that scored that could easily of dropped Kershaws era to the 3.00 range and more runs are scored in todays game then they were in Koufax's time....

Basically if Urias started game 1 and game 4 for the dodgers i really do not think the dodgers win both games. In game 4, if the Nationals jumped out ahead in the first few innings the Dodgers i think lose. The fact kershaw put up all those early zeros means something to go along with 11ks

Just saying Kerhaw really has not disappointed in the playoffs thus far THIS YEAR with his team winning both games...and really nothing to criticize him for this year when he got the W and he was in line for the W in game 4 on short rest and the Dodgers winning both of his starts in a 5 game series..

[bravos4evr]

right he won one more game than he lost. So in a Huge game he had a little over a 50/50 chance to win . Its not the total runs that matter, its when you give up the runs.

The opposing pitchers just took better care of business (bob shaw, kaat, palmer ) than Koufax did in those 3 losses or about half the games in pitched in the postseason.

this is 100% wrong. pitcher wins mean doodley squat. You are basically arguing that a pitcher goes 0-6 in the playoffs with a 1.12 ERA and a 1.50 FIP was worse than a guy who goes 4-2 with a 6.70 era and a 7.05 FIP.

Why should the pitcher get credit for how good his offense performed?

[tschock]

this is 100% wrong. pitcher wins mean doodley squat. You are basically arguing that a pitcher goes 0-6 in the playoffs with a 1.12 ERA and a 1.50 FIP was worse than a guy who goes 4-2 with a 6/70 era and a 7.05 FIP.

Why should the pitcher get credit for how good his offense performed?

+1. Or conversely, said to have performed poorly because he lost? So Kershaw (W, ERA 5.40) pitched better in his NLDS Game #1 than Cueto (L, ERA 1.13) did in his? One would have to be a fool to propose such a nonsense.

[itjclarke]

Surprised Cubs fans are silent after the last couple nights. As a Giants fan, those were two of the most unforgettable playoff games I've been to. Game 3 was the ultimate high, Game 4 was the ultimate gut punch (still recovering). Can't believe Giants gave up 4 in the 9th... but then again I can, because the irpen's done it all year (30 blown saves and 2 more in consecutive nights vs the Cubs).

Can't take anything away from the Cubs, and give them full credit. In addition to being the most talented team in the league, they are incredibly scrappy and resilient. That said, it's a shame for all baseball fans this series couldn't have gone back to Chicago for game 5 and what would have been a EPIC matchup between Cueto and Lester.

[RTK]

Surprised Cubs fans are silent after the last couple nights. As a Giants fan, those were two of the most unforgettable playoff games I've been to. Game 3 was the ultimate high, Game 4 was the ultimate gut punch (still recovering). Can't believe Giants gave up 4 in the 9th... but then again I can, because the irpen's done it all year (30 blown saves and 2 more in consecutive nights vs the Cubs).

Can't take anything away from the Cubs, and give them full credit. In addition to being the most talented team in the league, they are incredibly scrappy and resilient. That said, it's a shame for all baseball fans this series couldn't have gone back to Chicago for game 5 and what would have been a EPIC matchup between Cueto and Lester.

They are scrappy, I saw four walk off games this year. They just don't give up. Unlike other years, we in the Chicago area, aren't hearing too much about the past; '69,'84, '89, etc... It's as if it's buried and forgotten, the guys playing today don't care, the fans don't care, everyone seems to be going for the kill. There seems to be a confidence like never before.

Cueto would have been very tough, he matches up well against the Cubs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know about pitch counts, but I don't get yanking a guy who was in complete mastery of the game.

[chaddurbin]

matt moore already had 1 TJ and various other arm trouble,, does bochy really want to risk moore's entire career over 1 game at 120 pitches? he made the right call. the cubs were facing the prospect of cueto/bumgarner game 5, that would've been fun and i'm sure the la/wash winner were rooting for the giants.

[tschock]

I know about pitch counts, but I don't get yanking a guy who was in complete mastery of the game.

+ whatever number you want to put here.

Bochy is one of the smartest managers but I felt he really blew this one as well. Moore was pitching better in the 7th and 8th than he was pitching earlier. If you're plan is/was to go 1-on-1 pitcher vs batter for the first 2 anyway, why not bring Moore back out in the 9th and see how he works the first 2? I mean it's not like the Giants have a real shut-em-down closer.

[1952boyntoncollector]

this is 100% wrong. pitcher wins mean doodley squat. You are basically arguing that a pitcher goes 0-6 in the playoffs with a 1.12 ERA and a 1.50 FIP was worse than a guy who goes 4-2 with a 6/70 era and a 7.05 FIP.

Why should the pitcher get credit for how good his offense performed?

I agree that Ws dont matter at all statisticlaly but we all know how history looks back at games. If Kershaws teams won every one of his past starts, noone would be saying how bad he was in the postseaon if he was 9-0. .

ERA isnt the sole indicator either or really important at all if your team wins every game. If your team scores 9 runs in the first inning, nobody cares if you then give up 5 runs in 7 innings which would lead to a brutal ERA but would give you the W. I do not think you would blame a pitcher for giving up 5 runs in that situation.

Like i said, if Manning lost the superbowl last year, we would be hearing a lot more of his legacy being tarnished. However his team bailed him out and it does matter when you look back at his career 20 years from now.

Just at it would matter for Kershaw if he won all of his postseason games but had an era of 6.00

What was Manning's QBR for the superbowl, does it matter since he won (even though it was a team win) They will still say has 2 'rings'.

In addition, Curry wasnt great for his lone Golden State Championship but his team got the 'W'. Wins matter even if you arent the one that was the main contributer and were supposed to be is all i am saying

Again, to keep on topic, i dont see Kershaw hurting his post season image this year with his team winning both of his starts..

[bravos4evr]

welll... quarterbacks are like presidents they get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. I think it's an unfair comparison to make (qb vs pitcher I mean)


The thing is, if my team put up 9 runs early I would expect my pitcher to throw strikes and get outs rather than give up 5 runs. and if he did I wouldn't say he had a good outing because the team won, I would say the offense carried the day despite a lousy performance.

History tends tends to be written by sports writers, and they are moving towards a metric way of thinking so eventually some of these antiquated narratives will be replaced with more modern thinking ones and all will be well. stats don't lie, and true it is a small sample size, but Kershaw has had some issues in the postseason. IDK if it is nerves or opposing teams are less prone to take pitches and swing away earlier or what, but he needs to make some adjustments to his strategy apparently.

[1952boyntoncollector]

welll... quarterbacks are like presidents they get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. I think it's an unfair comparison to make (qb vs pitcher I mean)


The thing is, if my team put up 9 runs early I would expect my pitcher to throw strikes and get outs rather than give up 5 runs. and if he did I wouldn't say he had a good outing because the team won, I would say the offense carried the day despite a lousy performance.

History tends tends to be written by sports writers, and they are moving towards a metric way of thinking so eventually some of these antiquated narratives will be replaced with more modern thinking ones and all will be well. stats don't lie, and true it is a small sample size, but Kershaw has had some issues in the postseason. IDK if it is nerves or opposing teams are less prone to take pitches and swing away earlier or what, but he needs to make some adjustments to his strategy apparently.


I agree with most of what you said actually.

The only thing is for me is i do think a pitcher did his job if his team scores 9 runs for him if he gives up 5 runs..

things happen in a 9 run lead...you have a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs you dont care if he scores. You also would rather have a guy hit a homer out the park then walk him when one guy is on base. It could be argued that a pitcher trying to keep his era in the 1.00-2.00 range in a 9-0 game may risk giving up a HUGE inning if he doesnt take the sure outs.

Even if its only a 1% chance that you give up 10 runs, i wouldnt risk it. Id rather give up 5 runs for certain and nothing more if up 9 runs than have a 1 percent chance to give up 10 runs with the attempt of keeping my ERA down to the 1-2 range


I know i am focusing on extreme outliers. i just trying to help out the pitchers that focus on the team wins then their era in all of the samples in between.

If Dodgers end up winning game 5 Kershaw could conceivably be top 5 guy for MVP of the series (would go to Janson.Turner )...thats not exactly terrible

[bravos4evr]

you have a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs you dont care if he scores. You also would rather have a guy hit a homer out the park then walk him when one guy is on base. It could be argued that a pitcher trying to keep his era in the 1.00-2.00 range in a 9-0 game may risk giving up a HUGE inning if he doesnt take the sure outs.

true you might not be too concerned if he scores, but it would be much better if he didn't. and no, I would not rather a batter hit a bomb than walk, the odds of scoring on first with no outs isn't all that high, the odds of scoring with a HR are 100%!


sure a pitcher can "skate by" giving up 5 runs, but I wouldn't feel to confident about his next playoff start. I want pitchers to dominate and keep runs off the board if it's 10-0 or 1-1.

[chaddurbin]

feels like the last few posts could be jack morris' argument for his hall of fame candidacy...which i'm not a fan of.

as for kershaw, i'm about as close to the situation as possible living in socal. there are many reasons why he's not as dominant as REGULAR SEASON KERSHAW...sure there could be some physiological or mental hurdle, but it could also be the SSS, leaky bullpen, short rest, him being so great he has a longer leash where lesser pitchers wouln't repeatedly turn over a lineup a 3rd time on 3 days rest etc.

i don't remember him being hit hard much, just some weird 7th innings haven't looked at his number closely but his OPS-against in the playoffs shouldn't be a big jump off from his regular season. the start in washington to open the series was the first time i could remember seeing him labor in forever and thinking this is not peak kershaw.

as is we're all hands on deck today...i still feel urias should've started game 4 at home and have a fresh kershaw for game 5 today in washington...but maybe the FO is thinking ahead if they can get by wash to have kershaw pitch 2-3x vs the cubs.

[pariah1107]

Really rooting for a Cubs v. Indians series. 176 years of combined futility (Cubs last World Series win 1908, Indians 1948) . Not likely to see that again in our lifetime, unless you live to be a 177 year old Mariners fan :)

[Peter_Spaeth]

feels like the last few posts could be jack morris' argument for his hall of fame candidacy...which i'm not a fan of.

as for kershaw, i'm about as close to the situation as possible living in socal. there are many reasons why he's not as dominant as REGULAR SEASON KERSHAW...sure there could be some physiological or mental hurdle, but it could also be the SSS, leaky bullpen, short rest, him being so great he has a longer leash where lesser pitchers wouln't repeatedly turn over a lineup a 3rd time on 3 days rest etc.

i don't remember him being hit hard much, just some weird 7th innings haven't looked at his number closely but his OPS-against in the playoffs shouldn't be a big jump off from his regular season. the start in washington to open the series was the first time i could remember seeing him labor in forever and thinking this is not peak kershaw.

as is we're all hands on deck today...i still feel urias should've started game 4 at home and have a fresh kershaw for game 5 today in washington...but maybe the FO is thinking ahead if they can get by wash to have kershaw pitch 2-3x vs the cubs.

Can you imagine the sh*t the manager and front office would have taken if they held Kershaw out of game 4 and were eliminated? I am sure nobody was thinking ahead, they were facing an elimination game and did what all teams would do, go with their best pitcher on short rest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OPS .564 regular season .658 post season.

[bravos4evr]

Can you imagine the sh*t the manager and front office would have taken if they held Kershaw out of game 4 and were eliminated? I am sure nobody was thinking ahead, they were facing an elimination game and did what all teams would do, go with their best pitcher on short rest.

well, sure, but the thing is they had to win two games to make the next rd and the argument is will a regular rest Urias in 4 and Kershaw in game 5 be better than a short rest kershaw in game 4 and a short rest Hill in game 5?

an argument can be made that the former was the better option.

[botn]

Can you imagine the sh*t the manager and front office would have taken if they held Kershaw out of game 4 and were eliminated? I am sure nobody was thinking ahead, they were facing an elimination game and did what all teams would do, go with their best pitcher on short rest.

Exactly. If Urias pitches game 4 there would not have been a game 5. Kershaw was their only hope and a gamble at that given his postseason history. The team itself is not the same in postseason but aside from a great strike out to walk ratio Kershaw is absolutely not the same dominant pitcher that he is during the regular season.

I like Rich Hill tonight if the Dodgers can give him a few runs.

[bravos4evr]

as for kershaw, i'm about as close to the situation as possible living in socal. there are many reasons why he's not as dominant as REGULAR SEASON KERSHAW...sure there could be some physiological or mental hurdle, but it could also be the SSS, leaky bullpen, short rest, him being so great he has a longer leash where lesser pitchers wouln't repeatedly turn over a lineup a 3rd time on 3 days rest etc.


I tend to think SSS is largely at play here with a bit of bad luck on BABIP and perhaps a little more aggressive approach by batter's faced in the playoffs.

career (regular season)

K/9: 9.81 BB/9: 2.44 HR/FB: 7.0% BABIP: .271 ERA: 2.37 FIP:2.55


career (playoffs)

K/9: 11.20 BB/9: 3.07 HR/FB: 10.7% BABIP: .311 ERA: 4.83 FIP: 3.04




this tells me that he's getting a little bit unlucky on balls in play(either by placement or bad defensive range behind him) and plays a little more to league avg in HR/FB as his K's go up as do walks, but not so much as to be a problem really.

If he were to have say 60 more playoff games I would expect to see his era and fip closer toward his regular season avg.

[Peter_Spaeth]

well, sure, but the thing is they had to win two games to make the next rd and the argument is will a regular rest Urias in 4 and Kershaw in game 5 be better than a short rest kershaw in game 4 and a short rest Hill in game 5?

an argument can be made that the former was the better option.

A team facing elimination in game 4 is, rightly, focused not on the best chance to win two but the best chance to stay alive and worry about game 5 if they get that luxury. You don't start a 19 year old with 5 lifetime wins in an elimination playoff game, IMO, not when you have an elite HOF pitcher available even if he is on short rest.

[bravos4evr]

A team facing elimination in game 4 is, rightly, focused not on the best chance to win two but the best chance to stay alive and worry about game 5 if they get that luxury. You don't start a 19 year old with 5 lifetime wins in an elimination playoff game, IMO, not when you have an elite HOF pitcher available even if he is on short rest.

this isn't entirely true tho (tho this is the way most people would view it)

a loss in game 4 or game 5 equals the same result, no advancement in the playoffs. true one must win game 4 to reach game 5, but the numbers of a 3 days rest Kershaw and Hill are not better than the numbers of a full rest Urias and Kershaw. (not to mention that in this age of bullpen specialization, Urias really only needs to go 4 or 5 to provide good value. ) It's tough to get past must win two vs must win one, but in some cases (like the most recent one) it was probably the correct call to save Kershaw for game 5. regardless of the result of game 4

I tend to think decisions should be made based on giving a team the highest % chance of a favorable result and not on whether or no the fanbase or media is going to get angry if the end result is not what they had hoped.


Dave Cameron of Fangraphs and ESPN presents a pretty good argument here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-dodgers-should-start-julio-urias/

[Peter_Spaeth]

Urias is a 19 year old kid with five wins to his name. No way, no how. Forget all this fangraphs stuff, use some common sense. :)

[chaddurbin]

Yea basically you need 2wins, the better % would have Kershaw starting game 5, hill/urias in front of a hostile crowd seems like another disadvantage on top of starting Kershaw game 4. I'm sure the front office know all this so they're taking a short-term hit in case they get thru.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you don't win the first game, your odds of winning the second game are zero. The immediate issue is not maximizing your chances of winning two, it's maximizing your chances of winning one and getting to the final game. This seems obvious.

[chaddurbin]

looking with hindsight that the dodgers won...but starting kershaw on 3 day rest over urias (who is a very capable pitcher and even better at home) was a marginal upgrade. i felt urias could've held his own against gio gonzalez and at worse was 50/50. with a tired kershaw dodgers are 55% to win? scherzer over a short-rest hill is a big advantage...whereas with a fully-rested kershaw on the road for game 5 you could make the case kershaw might have the advantage like game 1.

but whatever it's done with i'm not going to belabor the point.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Well Kershaw got the save tonight on one game rest

if Kershaw gives up a double then Janson gets the Loss with 2 earned runs and Janson's era goes through the roof even though he was terrific.

inherited runners scoring matters in a short sample size..

Kerhaw now has more post season saves than koufax


There was a graphic in the 9th inning when kershaw entered the game saying Kerhaw had 19ks in 11 innings or something to that effect and that the Dodgers won BOTH of his starts..(zero mention of his era)

so now his team won both of his starts and he gets a key save retiring Murphy and this year so far is supposed to support his bad history of the postseason? Yeah right, this year his postseason has not tarnished his legacy at all.

on to the next round.....and who cares about using kershaw/janson for 2 plus inning and the impact in game 1 versus cubs...if the dodgers dont win game 5 then season is over anyway

[Dewey]

Longest 9 inning nlds game ever. I'm exhausted. Go Doyers!

[spaidly]

Longest 9 inning nlds game ever. I'm exhausted. Go Doyers!

So exhausted too but now I can't sleep. Watch out Cubbies...:eek:

[itjclarke]

If you don't win the first game, your odds of winning the second game are zero. The immediate issue is not maximizing your chances of winning two, it's maximizing your chances of winning one and getting to the final game. This seems obvious.

I agree with this fully. Sure it's less than ideal to make compromises for a potential game 5, but when facing elimination you have to put all focus on the next game, plain and simple.

I think metrics also tend to ignore human considerations, and these guys are all very human. I remember a 19-20 year old Rick Ankiel being thrust into the post season spot light as a rookie, throwing 4-5 wild pitches and never recovering as a pitcher. Some guys can handle it (Bumgarner went 8 shutout innings in the WS his rookie year at age 20), some guys maybe need a little more seasoning. All of that (and more) and the numbers factor into these guys' decisions.

(NOTE: typed the above hours ago then lost internet on a plane... just finished game. Wow. Even as a Giants fan, I must say that was a manly showing by Kershaw)

[1952boyntoncollector]

And Clayton for two more playoff games chalks up a 6.17 ERA. And once again implodes in the 7th, although he had some help after he left. The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career.

I do think Peter will now agree with just 2 out being made in the 5th game and now looking at Kershaw's performance as a whole, (dodgers won both of his starts, and gets huge save with 1 day rest) that THIS years postseason at the current time for kershaw is not a huge black mark on his career nor is it continuing to be for THIS year....thus far..

[Peter_Spaeth]

I do think Peter will now agree with just 2 out being made in the 5th game and now looking at Kershaw's performance as a whole, (dodgers won both of his starts, and gets huge save with 1 day rest) that THIS years postseason at the current time for kershaw is not a huge black mark on his career nor is it continuing to be for THIS year....thus far..

I am glad he got the save and he did it with authority. Hopefully it will be a turning point for him. I still don't think he pitched anywhere near to his ability in the two prior games.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I am glad he got the save and he did it with authority. Hopefully it will be a turning point for him. I still don't think he pitched anywhere near to his ability in the two prior games.

right but not a black mark either. I think you made your post a little premature. All the newspapers talk about 'Kershaw saving the Dodgers' I really dont think people will care about what his ERA was for this series and again since the Dodgers won his starts, thats why there was a game 5. Getting Ws matter more than ERA when you look back at history. Kershaw could of lost game 1 and 4 and given up just 2 runs in both games and had a 2.00+ era but thats not as good as he looks right now..


Need to let the postseason play out.

[jimm]

Gutsy move with Jansen... outside the box worked well for Roberts

[chaddurbin]

getting 2 outs may seem mundane, but twitter reactions to kershaw from some of the best baseball writers like law cameron keri olney passan lindberg etc. etc. they knew the bad playoff kershaw was a B.S. narrative.

personally i'm not sure the 2 outs changed anything one way or another, but it got us thru to the next round and anything could happen...cubs huge favs tho fully rested and all-around just a far superior team in all facets.

[1952boyntoncollector]

getting 2 outs may seem mundane, but twitter reactions to kershaw from some of the best baseball writers like law cameron keri olney passan lindberg etc. etc. they knew the bad playoff kershaw was a B.S. narrative.

personally i'm not sure the 2 outs changed anything one way or another, but it got us thru to the next round and anything could happen...cubs huge favs tho fully rested and all-around just a far superior team in all facets.

well it was 2 outs with the arguably the best hitter at the plate with 2 runners on in a 1 run game where dodgers were desperate to hold on, we all saw what the lesser pitchers for the Dodgers were doing and the crowd was pumped for the home team Nats...

there were a ton of blown saves in the playoffs thus far with far more breathing room..

[bravos4evr]

I agree with this fully. Sure it's less than ideal to make compromises for a potential game 5, but when facing elimination you have to put all focus on the next game, plain and simple.

I think metrics also tend to ignore human considerations, and these guys are all very human. I remember a 19-20 year old Rick Ankiel being thrust into the post season spot light as a rookie, throwing 4-5 wild pitches and never recovering as a pitcher. Some guys can handle it (Bumgarner went 8 shutout innings in the WS his rookie year at age 20), some guys maybe need a little more seasoning. All of that (and more) and the numbers factor into these guys' decisions.

(NOTE: typed the above hours ago then lost internet on a plane... just finished game. Wow. Even as a Giants fan, I must say that was a manly showing by Kershaw)

Metrics do not ignore "the human side" any more than batting avg, era or RBI's do. It's just a better, more accurate representation of statistics than the old baseball card stats. That's it. They are just stats. And just because something gives you a better chance at winning doesn't mean the results will pan out, but I would always prefer to increase my overall % rather than decrease it if given the opportunity (which is why I loathe so many mgrs who manage with their "gut" instead of data)

[bravos4evr]

getting 2 outs may seem mundane, but twitter reactions to kershaw from some of the best baseball writers like law cameron keri olney passan lindberg etc. etc. they knew the bad playoff kershaw was a B.S. narrative.

personally i'm not sure the 2 outs changed anything one way or another, but it got us thru to the next round and anything could happen...cubs huge favs tho fully rested and all-around just a far superior team in all facets.

to be honest,the majority of baseball writers are still stuck in the 19th century and write for the mass audience who isn't very smart about the game.

getting two outs just isn't that big of a deal. (which is why closer is the most overrated and overpaid job in baseball)

[1952boyntoncollector]

to be honest,the majority of baseball writers are still stuck in the 19th century and write for the mass audience who isn't very smart about the game.

getting two outs just isn't that big of a deal. (which is why closer is the most overrated and overpaid job in baseball)

Ask the San Franciso Giants!..

but i did post a long time ago that closers shouldnt be in the same hall of fame as starting pitchers.....kershaw can get saves, but lets see a closer pitch 5-6 scoreless in an elimination game.... so i agree with you about the overrated issue

[chaddurbin]

they are relievers because they couldn't cut it as starters...turning over a lineup 3x consistently is way harder than facing some random 6-7-8...that is why zach britton can't be a CY YOUNG candidate to me.

just found this article today talking about kershaw's playoffs clutchness and how he's a victim of being CLAYTON KERSHAW (spoiler: he's clutch)

https://theringer.com/clayton-kershaw-october-luck-los-angeles-dodgers-2016-mlb-playoffs-4969800e9610#.28z8dbf8r

[bravos4evr]

Ask the San Franciso Giants!..

but i did post a long time ago that closers shouldnt be in the same hall of fame as starting pitchers.....kershaw can get saves, but lets see a closer pitch 5-6 scoreless in an elimination game.... so i agree with you about the overrated issue

you can cherry pick anything to try and prove a point, but the evidence is that every year a handful of guys become closers, save 30+ and then disappear again. Good relievers are good and can close, or pitch whenever,bad relievers can have good years but eventually become bad again. I think too often people have confirmation bias when it comes to relief pitchers and their performance.

[1952boyntoncollector]

you can cherry pick anything to try and prove a point, but the evidence is that every year a handful of guys become closers, save 30+ and then disappear again. Good relievers are good and can close, or pitch whenever,bad relievers can have good years but eventually become bad again. I think too often people have confirmation bias when it comes to relief pitchers and their performance.

same as starting pitchers..some are great for a year or 2 then disappear as well

sometimes it only takes a 2h of the year to implode

my comparison is HOF starting pitchers versus HOF closers so there is no cherry picking...i just can see the HOF starting pitchers doing a better job at closing then the closers could ever do as starting pitchers.

[bravos4evr]

same as starting pitchers..some are great for a year or 2 then disappear as well

sometimes it only takes a 2h of the year to implode

my comparison is HOF starting pitchers versus HOF closers so there is no cherry picking...i just can see the HOF starting pitchers doing a better job at closing then the closers could ever do as starting pitchers.

they are different jobs tho..... (tho I agree relievers should have a much tougher path to the HOF, and generally they have)


relief arms are the most volatile position in baseball from one year to the next, heck from one month to the next! Guys will post the best numbers in MLB and then be awful the following season. It's a tough gig.

[1952boyntoncollector]

they are different jobs tho..... (tho I agree relievers should have a much tougher path to the HOF, and generally they have)


relief arms are the most volatile position in baseball from one year to the next, heck from one month to the next! Guys will post the best numbers in MLB and then be awful the following season. It's a tough gig.

or a guy like Rodney who can be a all star 1h and wasnt even roster worthy the 2h of the year

but same has happened with starting ptichers.... think the path should be much much tougher if any path for a reliever to be in the HOF..

its like special teams in football, you can be an all pro one year than cut the next year if you are a gunner etc..

[chaddurbin]

Was totally wrong about Cleveland.... They're scrappy! Toronto will not beat Cleveland playing 2-1 3-2 games. They need to take advantage of the fact that Carrasco and Salazar out.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

If a team is going to beat Cleveland, they had better score some runs in the first 5 innings or so because when that bullpen takes over...

[irv]

Was totally wrong about Cleveland.... They're scrappy! Toronto will not beat Cleveland playing 2-1 3-2 games. They need to take advantage of the fact that Carrasco and Salazar out.

Hats off to Cleveland but the Jays aren't playing anywhere near the level they are capable of.

I currently don't have a good feeling about this series and unless the Jays get it together quickly, I can see Cleveland winning both games in Toronto completing the sweep. :(

[1952boyntoncollector]

Now the short sample size is starting to return to the normal form for kershaw with his 1-0 victory

You will see the news outlets saying the dodgers won all 3 of his starts. Like i said, people focus on the individual and team Ws....

No way the Washington series is a blemish at all to his legacy with the key save and he was in line for two Ws.......

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

[botn]

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

Hmmm....you could be on to something, actually. I just realized all of the Dodgers' wins this season came with Kershaw on the team...and most of those he was in the dugout.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Hmmm....you could be on to something, actually. I just realized all of the Dodgers' wins this season came with Kershaw on the team...and most of those he was in the dugout.

I dont think anyone has ever questioned the performance of Kershaw during the regular season. The issue on this thread has been the postseason.

You can say the same thing about Koufax being in the dugout for most of the dodger wins....

I guess you are the first. Hmmm, You may be onto something......being wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hats off to Cleveland but the Jays aren't playing anywhere near the level they are capable of.

I currently don't have a good feeling about this series and unless the Jays get it together quickly, I can see Cleveland winning both games in Toronto completing the sweep. :(

Now you, too, fear the Indians of Cleveland. (see my first post on thread)

:)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Now the short sample size is starting to return to the normal form for kershaw with his 1-0 victory

You will see the news outlets saying the dodgers won all 3 of his starts. Like i said, people focus on the individual and team Ws....

No way the Washington series is a blemish at all to his legacy with the key save and he was in line for two Ws.......

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

you had said THIS year was a black mark though. Its obviously a short sample size when so many inherited runners scored and his recent performance on short days rest gives more credence to give him the benefit of the doubt on the past performances. His era is probably now close to 2.50 if only half of the inherited runners scored during the postseason

You were provided with many stats on the past performances that showed the amount of runs scored was not usual given the metrics in play. The recent performances are showing the numbers evening out.

Your quote was "The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career"

Lets face it, the narrative has changed. He has pitched in every post season victory this year for the Dodgers. I just dont see the Huge Black mark when you made that post, when he won the first 2 games he started which helped him earn another start in the second round and another victory. I mean it only took one more start to show right now he is having a TERRIFIC postseason.

You are allowed to not have as good numbers against 100 win teams overall then you do when you face the Braves/losing teams this year in the regular season. Postseason stats against elite teams are not expected to be as good as they are against the regular season teams.

[bravos4evr]

The #1 mistake fans make is they look at results and then deduce the quality of a decision made prior to said result in which to judge it's merits. But, that isn't really fair, a decision is either the right one or not at the time it is made, regardless of the results.

If you choose to leave a RHP in to face a lefty masher and he pops up, it might be the result you wanted but it was not the correct decision to make.


Take Kershaw's relief appearance for example. In an age where arms fall of left and right AND he had a back injury, bringing him out to close the game was silly and seemed more like a stunt than anything else. It's also a slap in the face to the pen. You pay these guys to finish games, if you aren't going to let them do that ,then why are they on the roster? If he ends up injured or get's lit up in his next start.... Dave Roberts will have a lot to answer for

[Peter_Spaeth]

You are allowed to not have as good numbers against 100 win teams overall then you do when you face the Braves/losing teams this year in the regular season. Postseason stats against elite teams are not expected to be as good as they are against the regular season teams.

Show me some statistics that back that up, because I could equally posit that hitters won't do as well against elite teams with better pitching staffs, and you end up chasing your tail.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Show me some statistics that back that up, because I could equally posit that hitters won't do as well against elite teams with better pitching staffs, and you end up chasing your tail.

Im going to take a wild guess that facing a 100-95 win teams with their #1 pitcher usually more than once and #2 (more than once sometimes )and #3 pitchers aer harder then facing teams that won 65-80 games and many of those games are facing those teams #4-#5 pitchers. In addition i going to assume facing a 95-100 win team lineup (starting lineup most of the time) will be tougher than 65 win lineups who also give off days during the regular season to starters and also use AAAA call ups who cant hold a full season job.

Just quick checking with a large sample size..i see roger clemens regular season era 3.12 and playoffs was 3.75 more than half a run higher, Chipper jones hit .303 for regular season and .287 in the post season..

kershaw's era would be in the mid 2s if half of the inherited runners didnt score and it may only takes another game or 2 for him to have an elite post season era.....thats a long way away from the conversation being they he has been terrible in the postseason

[clydepepper]

As hard as it is to believe, it appears that Andrew Miller was actually HIDDEN as a member of the New York Yankees!! AMAZING!!

His Stats so far this post-season:

5G - 9IP - 4H - 2BB - 20K - 0.00 ERA

[itjclarke]

Metrics do not ignore "the human side" any more than batting avg, era or RBI's do. It's just a better, more accurate representation of statistics than the old baseball card stats. That's it. They are just stats. And just because something gives you a better chance at winning doesn't mean the results will pan out, but I would always prefer to increase my overall % rather than decrease it if given the opportunity (which is why I loathe so many mgrs who manage with their "gut" instead of data)

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.

[irv]

Now you, too, fear the Indians of Cleveland. (see my first post on thread)

:)

Yep. I don't know if it's Cleveland's pitching or if the Jays are in a slump, or maybe a combination of both but at this point, I'd say the Jays are done and are likely going to ge swept.:(

They look off in every which way, hitting, fielding, everything. Something is up with that club, definitely not playing like they are capable of.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Im going to take a wild guess that facing a 100-95 win teams with their #1 pitcher usually more than once and #2 (more than once sometimes )and #3 pitchers aer harder then facing teams that won 65-80 games and many of those games are facing those teams #4-#5 pitchers. In addition i going to assume facing a 95-100 win team lineup (starting lineup most of the time) will be tougher than 65 win lineups who also give off days during the regular season to starters and also use AAAA call ups who cant hold a full season job.

Just quick checking with a large sample size..i see roger clemens regular season era 3.12 and playoffs was 3.75 more than half a run higher, Chipper jones hit .303 for regular season and .287 in the post season..

kershaw's era would be in the mid 2s if half of the inherited runners didnt score and it may only takes another game or 2 for him to have an elite post season era.....thats a long way away from the conversation being they he has been terrible in the postseason

So according to you both pitchers and batters do worse in the postseason? That makes no sense at all, can't have it both ways.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.

Why stop there, Watson could also replace the catcher and select the best pitch and location for each situation.

[Snapolit1]

Jays offense has gone back into a deep sleep apparently.

[bravos4evr]

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.



appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

[bravos4evr]

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

well your assertion here is incorrect though, playoff starts don't come all in a row like the regular season, they are spread out over many seasons so to do what you say is by it's very nature "cherry picking"


Very few, if any, players collect enough at bats or appearances in the postseason to provide enough data not tarnished by sample size. I mean, it's hardly fair to look at 60 inning and compare it to a career of 2000 innings because we know that the larger the sample the greater the stability of the numbers.


Go back and look at my post that compared Kershaw's regular season to playoffs, he's done pretty much the same thing just with worse results in BABIP and HR/FB this signals that it is most likely poor luck and sample size at play here.

[tschock]

appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

What is it that they say in investing? Past performance does not guarantee future results. Same with stats. You can use the odds, or can ignore them when you deem appropriate. I don't think Ian is saying any different (though I know he can speak for himself).

[tschock]

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone. :D

[Peter_Spaeth]

well your assertion here is incorrect though, playoff starts don't come all in a row like the regular season, they are spread out over many seasons so to do what you say is by it's very nature "cherry picking"


Very few, if any, players collect enough at bats or appearances in the postseason to provide enough data not tarnished by sample size. I mean, it's hardly fair to look at 60 inning and compare it to a career of 2000 innings because we know that the larger the sample the greater the stability of the numbers.


Go back and look at my post that compared Kershaw's regular season to playoffs, he's done pretty much the same thing just with worse results in BABIP and HR/FB this signals that it is most likely poor luck and sample size at play here.

As I posted before his OPS against is 100 points or close to it higher in the post-season. Want to spin that away too? :)

I guess by your logic we should throw out all the legendary great post season performances too, like Mathewson, Gibson, etc. Just coincidence from small sample sizes that they pitched their best games under that pressure. Could just as easily have pitched their worst games.

You remind me of a poli sci professor I had in college. He was obsessed with data, his life's work was to come up with equations for predicting the likelihood of wars at any given time. Human considerations had nothing to do with it.

[bravos4evr]

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone. :D

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim. I'm sure these intangibles exist and make a small impact, but being that there "optimizations" that can be made, wouldn't you prefer a mgr who understands them and utilizes them as much as possible?

[bravos4evr]

As I posted before his OPS against is 100 points or close to it higher in the post-season. Want to spin that away too? :)

I guess by your logic we should throw out all the legendary great post season performances too, like Mathewson, Gibson, etc. Just coincidence from small sample sizes that they pitched their best games under that pressure. Could just as easily have pitched their worst games.

You remind me of a poli sci professor I had in college. He was obsessed with data, his life's work was to come up with equations for predicting the likelihood of wars at any given time. Human considerations had nothing to do with it.

Argument from incredulity.....

any given performance can be good or bad, to claim that said performance is a reflection on a person't ability as an entire is fallacious. (ie: "Kershaw is a bad playoff pitcher") Those players you mentioned had great playoff numbers, but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

Clutch is a myth as a skill, the numbers bare this out, good pitchers pitch good, bad hitters hit bad, in any given start a bad/good player can do lots of different things with lots of different results, but the data says that when the sample size reaches a certain threshold they will perform at or around their career averages.

OPS against is a flawed stat as it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP (and ignores BABIP)


Baseball is a results game, it has statistics that tell us how people performed. If you ignore the facts in favor of whim or emotion you are guilty of confirmation bias and an argument based on this isn't worth the paper it's written on. btw, your poly-sci comparison is also a fallacy as predicting the likelihood of a war is not the same as studying the results of a baseball game. you use stats, you just don't use the new ones, but it's the same thing just more refined.


ETA: after his last start Kershaw's FIP in the playoffs is 2.92 (vs 2.55 for his career) his xFIP (park and league adjusted) is now 3.09 (vs 2.92 for his career) he is striking out 1 more per 9 in the playoffs, walking only .5 more per 9 he has been hurt by BABIP and HR/FB which shows he has been unlucky


this year his slash line looks like this 3.72 ERA 1.18 FIP 2.99 xFIP vs a regular season of 1.69 1.80 2.28 so pretty close to normal (and we would expect it to be a tad bit higher due to the overall quality of competition.



remember how everyone though Big Papi was "clutch?" carer wRC+ 140, in playoffs? 144, career wOBA .392, in playoffs? .398 not much difference at all.


Derek Jeter? 119 wRC+ career, 121 in playoffs

Jack Morris? career era and fip of 3.90/3.94 in playoffs 3.80/3.74

[tschock]

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim.

As it is also to dismiss the "intangibles" when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim, right? :)

[Snapolit1]

I don't have a dog in the remaining fights, and realize that many many people are pulling for the Cubs, and it would be a great story for baseball of course, but I've been a little surprised by the level of . .. well, arrogance . . shown by a large segment of Cubs nation. Like its a foregone conclusion that its all done and over and the trophy is on its way to Wrigley Field. Newsflash: it doesn't matter how many games you win the regular season. It's which team gets hot at the right time. Cubs may well go on to win the whole shebang, but I would have thought that fans of a franchise with the Cubs history wouldn't be running out quite yet to get the Championship tattoos.

[bravos4evr]

As it is also to dismiss the "intangibles" when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim, right? :)

not at all, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I bare no burden to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to the positive

[bravos4evr]

If you say you have an invisible dragon in your garage I can try and ask question to ascertain the truth, but I carry no burden to prove it DOESN'T exist. You are obligated to prove it does or your claim can be dismissed as nonsense.

[tschock]

....but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

remember how everyone though Big Papi was "clutch?" carer wRC+ 140, in playoffs? 144, career wOBA .392, in playoffs? .398 not much difference at all.

Perhaps the sample size was not large enough, eh? ;) At least if you are going to use statistics, use meaningful ones. Not every at playoff AB is a 'clutch' AB, is it?

But it does get back to the point. Good managers use stats. Better managers know when to ignore the stats, more based on the 'flow' of the game than just 'gut feel', as you would propose. To level set though, I would really LOVE to see an analysis of managers decisions that went against 'conventional wisdom' or the what the stats said and see how they fared. How did those that deviate from the stats fare in crucial situations? Until someone can provide a meaningful comparison, the rest is just hand waving.

[tschock]

not at all, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I bare no burden to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to the positive

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me. :)

[bravos4evr]

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me. :)

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

You seem to think baseball is like a giant APBA game where given enough at bats or innings pitched all players will approach the stats predicted by their cards. Every game is the same, and players are essentially fixed in their abilities, and over time everyone will regress to their mean (if I am using that term correctly, I forget my statistics). I don't buy it; to me even if I can't prove it statistically I can confidently say there are players who perform better or worse under the pressure of big games or situations and anomalies are not just sample size. In other words, I don't buy this reductionist approach. Yeah, I am sure you can identify some logical flaw in the argument, but I think you are making some unwarranted a priori assumptions as well.

[irv]

Jays offense has gone back into a deep sleep apparently.

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken! :D

[chaddurbin]

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

He didn't pitch that badly, 2 runs 4 hits in 5 innings. I can understand Francona wanting to close this thing out, and his aggressive managing has largely paid off recently. I probably would have saved him for the next game but I think it's difficult to criticize the decision too harshly.

[KCRfan1]

Heard an interesting take today.

Going into the playoffs, beware of the team with the biggest chip on their shoulder. The Indians may not be the best team on paper, but they do have the biggest chip on their shoulders. And that goes a long way.

This brings the human element back in the game, and players / teams who rise to the occasion.

[itjclarke]

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

I can't imagine you really believe all this stuff... or at least I'll tell myself that in hopes of not getting fully hooked. I also cannot imagine you believe the "clutch is myth".

The beauty of postseason anything is that once these guys reach their sport's respective pinnacles, they have to perform, right then a there. No BS about small sample size. Would you argue that Madison Bumgarner's 0.25 ERA over 36 innings in WS play is too small to matter? or his 18 scoreless innings in winner take all Wild Card games (2 complete game road shut outs). Or on the flip side when some other Cy Young worthy guy like David Price gets blasted over a similar post season sample size?

Sure you can argue that these guys' playoff sample sizes are too small to judge, and were they perhaps to get 162 games of postseason, they'd eventually perform to their career averages. I think that argument is BS, but I'll humor it. Sure some guys like Jeter are incredibly consistent, post season or regular (that's great), but there are also some that clearly fold while others rise. Check out guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Matt Cain, Timmy, Javier Lopez, Jeremy Affeldt, etc... all who's post season #'s far exceed regular. Anyway, the problem with the small sample size argument is that many of the guys in the post season (this year included) will probably NEVER get another chance to perform. That's one of the beauties of these moments... Howard Emke, Don Larsen, Francisco Cabrera.. this post season, Conner Gillaspie. Some guys step up that moment and grab it. It doesn't matter, and is not even worth arguing that sample sizes are too small, or that performance would have evened out over a longer duration, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THOSE EXTRA GAMES!!

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

With regards to intangibles and team chemistry, I think there's a lot there and though again probably nothing that can be proven via baseball's metrics. That doesn't mean they're not important, even essential to a team's success, just that mathematics don't yet understand. There are players who time and time again not only rise to the occasion, but help bring others around them along for the ride. Not to keep coming back to the Giants, but MadBum vs the Mets is a prime example. The guy is napping on the bus to CitiField, is dead calm before, during and even after the game. I think his calmness feeds into other players' confidence. Joe Montana breaking the ice by spotting John Candy before his game winning 92 yard TD drive in SB XXIII is another prime example. On the flip side, there are examples like the aforementioned Nick Anderson, or what I watched this year in SF with Santiago Casilla and an eventual meltdown within the entire bullpen. Funny thing about that latter, the SF bullpen was pretty good in every inning but the 9th. You think those guys weren't affected by the pressure the came with that moment?? And do you think it's not important that a manager can try to wade through these very human emotions (flaws or strengths), in addition to statistics, to determine who's best and when?

Re- chemistry, Matt Duffy wrote a nice little article on Derek Jeter's web site. He said that when he made the jump to the Giants straight from AA ball, there was no hazing. Instead he was immediately engaged by all star caliber players like Hunter Pence who went out of their way to make him comfortable. That comfort showed early in his MLB career as he was confident enough to try (and succeed) to score from 2nd on WP to tie game 2 of the NLCS in the 9th. This is a late season call up, a rookie who barely made the postseason roster, and was put in to pinch run down 1 run in the 9th. If he gets thrown out at home, the game's over. If he stays at 3rd, no one thinks worse of him... yet he had the guts in that moment to take home. I think the ease he felt within that clubhouse may have gone a long way into how aggressively and instinctively he played that. Sure teams like the 1970's A's and Yankees were at each others' throats (Reggie Jackson is a common denominator) but I think most guys play better when they're comfortable (not all of course, see Barry Bonds or Kobe who needed the chips on their shoulder), and that most winning teams have had very good chemistry... though I do admit winning begets good chemistry, while losing has the opposite effect.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

[1952boyntoncollector]

So according to you both pitchers and batters do worse in the postseason? That makes no sense at all, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can when talking about elite guys. If they are only merely 'good' like you basically saying kershaw is compared to regular season he can still win games. An elite hitter can do worse than their regular season norms and win games. In the playoffs more so than the regular season there is also a tendency to make a lesser hitter beat you and we get the aaron boones of the world make their mark.

In terms of the Cubs being a foregone conclusion to win everything. Its like this every year in the NBA playoffs..unless its 3-0 in a best of 7, there really no reason to say who has won or lost the series until it plays out. How many times has a home team won 2 games and its suddenly 'over' for the away team who than returns the favor and they suddenly its 'over' again and then they lose the next game and so forth.

The dodgers did beat a 104 win Oakland team in 1988 (4 games to 1 ). I do no think that 1988 Oakland team was worse than this cubs team and it can be argued that this years dodgers team is better than the 1988 team. Mcgwire and Canseco were terrible in that world series.

Lets see the series play out. Kershaw certainly has the chance to add to his now post season legacy.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.




man you forgot to mention Jon Starks as well...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in. :D

[rats60]

I tend to think SSS is largely at play here with a bit of bad luck on BABIP and perhaps a little more aggressive approach by batter's faced in the playoffs.

career (regular season)

K/9: 9.81 BB/9: 2.44 HR/FB: 7.0% BABIP: .271 ERA: 2.37 FIP:2.55


career (playoffs)

K/9: 11.20 BB/9: 3.07 HR/FB: 10.7% BABIP: .311 ERA: 4.83 FIP: 3.04




this tells me that he's getting a little bit unlucky on balls in play(either by placement or bad defensive range behind him) and plays a little more to league avg in HR/FB as his K's go up as do walks, but not so much as to be a problem really.

If he were to have say 60 more playoff games I would expect to see his era and fip closer toward his regular season avg.

Argument from incredulity.....

any given performance can be good or bad, to claim that said performance is a reflection on a person't ability as an entire is fallacious. (ie: "Kershaw is a bad playoff pitcher") Those players you mentioned had great playoff numbers, but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

Clutch is a myth as a skill, the numbers bare this out, good pitchers pitch good, bad hitters hit bad, in any given start a bad/good player can do lots of different things with lots of different results, but the data says that when the sample size reaches a certain threshold they will perform at or around their career averages.

OPS against is a flawed stat as it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP (and ignores BABIP)


Baseball is a results game, it has statistics that tell us how people performed. If you ignore the facts in favor of whim or emotion you are guilty of confirmation bias and an argument based on this isn't worth the paper it's written on. btw, your poly-sci comparison is also a fallacy as predicting the likelihood of a war is not the same as studying the results of a baseball game. you use stats, you just don't use the new ones, but it's the same thing just more refined.


ETA: after his last start Kershaw's FIP in the playoffs is 2.92 (vs 2.55 for his career) his xFIP (park and league adjusted) is now 3.09 (vs 2.92 for his career) he is striking out 1 more per 9 in the playoffs, walking only .5 more per 9 he has been hurt by BABIP and HR/FB which shows he has been unlucky.

I would suggest that you watch Kershaw's games instead of just looking at stats. Kershaw's ERA is high because he has been shelled. When you give up a series of hard hit balls, your BABIP is going to be higher. He is not giving up 4, 5, 6 runs in innings because other teams have been lucky. It has been because Kershaw has pitched poorly and the other team has pounded him.

I'm not sure how you come up with luck involving giving up more HRs. Again, it is Kershaw making mistakes and getting pounded. What HR that he allowed was bad luck?

It is funny that you claim someone else's post is "myth" because your claims about Kershaw are myth. BABIP is influenced by defense and how hard balls are hit much more than luck. The highest BABIP for a season: Babe Ruth. The highest BABIP for a career: Ty Cobb. I guess you think those guys weren't very good, they were just the luckiest players of all time. However, if you watch the innings where Kershaw has given up runs, it is not because of weak seeing eye singles or bloop hits, it is because of a series of hard hit balls. There is no bad luck involved, in fact it would be Kershaw who would have had to have been incredibly lucky to have not given up big innings.

This article might explain it a little better in the context of false claims this season that the Cubs staff has been good because of luck and defense.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cubs-pitchers-are-making-their-own-luck/

That leads to a larger takeaway from our models: Leaguewide, the impact of pitchers’ contact management is more than twice that of defense, which seems to contradict the traditional defense-independent pitching theory that most pitchers have little ability to prevent hits on balls in play.

Still, we can conclude that the Cubs’ historically low BABIP through their first 69 games isn’t merely luck. One way or another, the Cubs have earned a lot of those outs.

[irv]

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken! :D

Guess the Indians weren't too worried after all. :D

Great job by their starting pitcher today! Well deserved win by the whole club.

Good luck in the World Series. :)

[1952boyntoncollector]

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in. :D

I think we would of seen what would have happened if Urias started instead of Kershaw pitched in the National series....giving up the first runs of the game always the toughest...putting up early zeros means a lot even if you give up runs later on when your team is already ahead

[bravos4evr]

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

[bravos4evr]

I can't imagine you really believe all this stuff... or at least I'll tell myself that in hopes of not getting fully hooked. I also cannot imagine you believe the "clutch is myth".

The beauty of postseason anything is that once these guys reach their sport's respective pinnacles, they have to perform, right then a there. No BS about small sample size. Would you argue that Madison Bumgarner's 0.25 ERA over 36 innings in WS play is too small to matter? or his 18 scoreless innings in winner take all Wild Card games (2 complete game road shut outs). Or on the flip side when some other Cy Young worthy guy like David Price gets blasted over a similar post season sample size?

Sure you can argue that these guys' playoff sample sizes are too small to judge, and were they perhaps to get 162 games of postseason, they'd eventually perform to their career averages. I think that argument is BS, but I'll humor it. Sure some guys like Jeter are incredibly consistent, post season or regular (that's great), but there are also some that clearly fold while others rise. Check out guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Matt Cain, Timmy, Javier Lopez, Jeremy Affeldt, etc... all who's post season #'s far exceed regular. Anyway, the problem with the small sample size argument is that many of the guys in the post season (this year included) will probably NEVER get another chance to perform. That's one of the beauties of these moments... Howard Emke, Don Larsen, Francisco Cabrera.. this post season, Conner Gillaspie. Some guys step up that moment and grab it. It doesn't matter, and is not even worth arguing that sample sizes are too small, or that performance would have evened out over a longer duration, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THOSE EXTRA GAMES!!

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

With regards to intangibles and team chemistry, I think there's a lot there and though again probably nothing that can be proven via baseball's metrics. That doesn't mean they're not important, even essential to a team's success, just that mathematics don't yet understand. There are players who time and time again not only rise to the occasion, but help bring others around them along for the ride. Not to keep coming back to the Giants, but MadBum vs the Mets is a prime example. The guy is napping on the bus to CitiField, is dead calm before, during and even after the game. I think his calmness feeds into other players' confidence. Joe Montana breaking the ice by spotting John Candy before his game winning 92 yard TD drive in SB XXIII is another prime example. On the flip side, there are examples like the aforementioned Nick Anderson, or what I watched this year in SF with Santiago Casilla and an eventual meltdown within the entire bullpen. Funny thing about that latter, the SF bullpen was pretty good in every inning but the 9th. You think those guys weren't affected by the pressure the came with that moment?? And do you think it's not important that a manager can try to wade through these very human emotions (flaws or strengths), in addition to statistics, to determine who's best and when?

Re- chemistry, Matt Duffy wrote a nice little article on Derek Jeter's web site. He said that when he made the jump to the Giants straight from AA ball, there was no hazing. Instead he was immediately engaged by all star caliber players like Hunter Pence who went out of their way to make him comfortable. That comfort showed early in his MLB career as he was confident enough to try (and succeed) to score from 2nd on WP to tie game 2 of the NLCS in the 9th. This is a late season call up, a rookie who barely made the postseason roster, and was put in to pinch run down 1 run in the 9th. If he gets thrown out at home, the game's over. If he stays at 3rd, no one thinks worse of him... yet he had the guts in that moment to take home. I think the ease he felt within that clubhouse may have gone a long way into how aggressively and instinctively he played that. Sure teams like the 1970's A's and Yankees were at each others' throats (Reggie Jackson is a common denominator) but I think most guys play better when they're comfortable (not all of course, see Barry Bonds or Kobe who needed the chips on their shoulder), and that most winning teams have had very good chemistry... though I do admit winning begets good chemistry, while losing has the opposite effect.



ok, lots to go through here so give me second to break it all down:

A-yes ,Bumgarner's performance is good, but claiming he is wired differently is not backed up by evidence of a large enough sample size to be legitimate. You can rant about it all you want, but this is a fact. Stop looking at things through fan colored glasses and look at it scientifically


B- clutch situations happen certainly, but clutch as a skill possessed by some player's and not other's does not. This is a fact based upon thousands of pieces of data. People point to Jeter or Papi or any other player, but this is confirmation bias and recency bias. You look at their numbers in the postseason and in high leverage situations, it ends up right around their career numbers. This has been endlessly analyzed and found to be true. Certain player's being "clutch" is a myth. as sure a myth as Bigfoot or Chupacabras.


C-Matt Duffy thing: anecdotes, while nice, are not evidence (nor is the plural of anecdote, evidence) team chemistry exists, but there is no evidence that it is required to perform well as too many teams who had player's who hated each other have done well (late 70's Yankees, 2000's Giants) Plus, when you consider how much expanded playoffs has increased the level of randomness into the results, I would say that chemistry means less now than ever before


D-the thing with fans is, we like to believe stuff is true about player's we like/hate , the media knows this and thus these myths get created about players that aren't true like "he's clutch" or "he's not" or "he's a postseason monster"....etc this is called CONFIRMATION BIAS, and it drives 99% of the bad information out there in sports land. Combine that with RECENCY BIAS (the idea that a person feels recent events are signals of a greater effect that must be changed, like when people say 'player ABC isn't hitting move him in the order" after 4 games. In the regular season you would never do this. But people get kinda silly in the playoffs.


E- I find it amusing that so many people these days have become anti-intellectual to the point where they refuse to acknowledge new data in favor of old beliefs. (not saying you in particular, but some on this board surely) Time moves on, better information comes with it, better methods, better tools, better data. That's all modern metrics are They take the same game and dig inside the old stats to create new and better one's that increase our understanding of it! it isn't just a bunch of nerds like so many a-holes like to say. EVERY SINGLE TEAM in baseball is doing this to one level or another. Why? Because it works, and to ignore it is to be left behind.

[tschock]

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate.

Well, that has to be the silliest or most ass-backwards opening statement I've seen today. If something can be proven, would there be any point to even debate it?

In other words, wouldn't debating something that is proven be the height of pointlessness?

[tschock]

E- I find it amusing that so many people these days have become anti-intellectual to the point where they refuse to acknowledge new data in favor of old beliefs. (not saying you in particular, but some on this board surely) Time moves on, better information comes with it, better methods, better tools, better data. That's all modern metrics are They take the same game and dig inside the old stats to create new and better one's that increase our understanding of it! it isn't just a bunch of nerds like so many a-holes like to say. EVERY SINGLE TEAM in baseball is doing this to one level or another. Why? Because it works, and to ignore it is to be left behind.

I wish my 2 posts from yesterday didn't get lost in the cloud, but anyway...

The point is not having blind reliance on ANY metrics, but knowing when to ignore or go against those metrics. It isn't as much intangibles or gut instinct as it is to considering circumstances that aren't measured by said metric. It is more akin to having too many variables that metrics can't take into account in any given situation.

Feel free to provide any metric and situation, and I can easily provide a dozen variables that would affect a manager's decision to go against the *ahem* proven metric.

[Peter_Spaeth]

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

[Peter_Spaeth]

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

Just another form of your a prior assumption -- who says only that which can be conclusively resolved is worth debating?

[KCRfan1]

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

This guy kills more rally's at the plate than preventing opponent runs.

[itjclarke]

I wish my 2 posts from yesterday didn't get lost in the cloud, but anyway...

The point is not having blind reliance on ANY metrics, but knowing when to ignore or go against those metrics. It isn't as much intangibles or gut instinct as it is to considering circumstances that aren't measured by said metric. It is more akin to having too many variables that metrics can't take into account in any given situation.

Feel free to provide any metric and situation, and I can easily provide a dozen variables that would affect a manager's decision to go against the *ahem* proven metric.

Totally agree. It's fine and dandy to use advanced metrics. To ignore them would be a mistake, but they are just a piece of the puzzle. There are a whole lot of other things at play, and though many may not be "provable", they are still factors in the end result.

To Taylor's point there are any number of circumstances that can and should also play into a manager/coach's decision making beyond just statistics. These may be "in game" related, as in maybe a SP has great numbers vs a hitter, but has gone 8+, walked the guy before and you can tell his mechanics are breaking down as he tires. There could also be a near infinite number or personal considerations... maybe you find out the guy was out partying the night before, or is in the middle of a nasty divorce, or any number of other things that may distract him. Zach Grienke was DL'd due to social anxiety. If you knew this, wouldn't you at least consider it before throwing a guy into a high leverage situation, even if all past statistics show you should? Maybe the stats win out in your thought process, but I'd prefer to consider everything, even if its not all empirical.

Bravos4ever-- to your point C about clutch players, I completely disagree. I had even used Jeter as an example of a guy whose post season stats were very similar to his regular but this is in no way universal in baseball. And frankly, I think maintaining your level of play in high pressure situations against the best either league has to offer is "clutch" in its own right. There are also clearly players whose post seasons have far exceeded their regular season performance, prime example- Reggie Jackson (looking at WS stats). There are also players who consistently floundered in the postseason. With exception of an incredible 2002, Barry Bonds is a guy who comes to mind as an example MVP/HOF caliber of a guy who repeatedly did not perform in the postseason.

I think you would have to agree that confidence in any given moment (AB, executing a pitch, etc) is really important to your own performance (guessing you played some ball at some level, and hopefully can relate). Clearly Reggie felt comfortable and confident in the WS, and am sure his repeated high performance further reinforced this throughout his career (mentioned 2010, 2012, 2014 Giants pitchers fall into this category too). Bonds on the other hand failed to deliver in October (90, 91, 92, 97, 2000) and would guess his repeated under performance ate at him, which in turn may have affected his play. These guys are not robots, are not fully defined by their stats, and will respond to different situations in all kinds of different ways.

[clydepepper]

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

This guy kills more rally's at the plate than preventing opponent runs.



Yeah, that's why the Braves were willing to let him go.

His stance has always looked very uncomfortable. I hope he can spend the off-season re-inventing his approach.

He's built just like Kris Bryant...perhaps he can try that.

With that same kind of 'leverage' (as a tall player), he should be launching!

[MCoxon]

Humans crave certainty, predictability, and rationality. Evidenced lots of places (religion, economic theory, physics, conspiracy theories like that Oswald couldn't have been a lone gunman, because it bespeaks randomness and disproportionality for a nobody to kill the leader of the free world).

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

[chaddurbin]

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

this is probably wrong, i mean analytics is all about most of these things...ie the cubs' defensive positioning to suppress #3 and #4 of babip avg, the dodgers stacking 15 left-handed hitters against a rhp. these are meant to combat against some of the luck and randomness. don't know if you can ever quantify "clutch"...but there are stats about players' performance after the 7th in a game where run deficit is 2 or less, we're kind of getting there?

what computers can't analyze is the emotional impact of a hostile crowd in the brightest october lights and our physiological reaction to these stressors. in some of arod's postseason abs you can just tell he'd have no chance, or me personally with yasiel puig judging by his body language he's just gonna flail at 3 pitches with the bases juiced bottom of the 8th trailing 4-2...like he'd rather be in jamaica right then.

and this is where the analytics fanboy in me gets confused sometimes...by the number of course you'd rather have arod in there than slappy mcslap david eckstein or angel pagan...but just going by the eye test at least those guys won't shrink up and battle thru the at bat. that's where the great divide is atm and the 2 sides of grit/attitude vs. computer/analytics can't reconcile.

[chaddurbin]

re: kershaw being hit hard in postseason...i remember most of his starts, can't recall many instances where he was really hit hard. i do remember him giving up a 2-run bomb matt adams bottom 7th in st louis pitching on 3-days rest where if the dodgers had a better bullpen he should've been lifted after 6...and that wacky game against wainwright where each SP gave up like 6-7 runs it was alot of dinks and dunks and people were wondering if the cards were stealing signs.

re: urias start at home vs cubs being comparable to a would've been start game 4 against washington. this is silly, totally different circumstances cubs are pretty good against lefties their best hitter is rh bryant vs a depleted washington roster where both their best bats murphy harper were lefties and the biggest rh threat was werth.

i'm not too result-oriented you trust the process/preparation and make the best decision in the moment with the data you have. a bad decision leading to a positive outcome doesn't mean you should repeat that mistake. i thought the complexion of the cubs-dodgers series changed on that agon out call at home...dodgers should've been up 1-0 with 2 runners on instead of what happened. but it wasn't a surprise the cubs finally woke up, i mean the dodgers are down to 2.5 good pitchers and the cubs are stacked.

[bravos4evr]

Humans crave certainty, predictability, and rationality. Evidenced lots of places (religion, economic theory, physics, conspiracy theories like that Oswald couldn't have been a lone gunman, because it bespeaks randomness and disproportionality for a nobody to kill the leader of the free world).

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

[bravos4evr]

this is probably wrong, i mean analytics is all about most of these things...ie the cubs' defensive positioning to suppress #3 and #4 of babip avg, the dodgers stacking 15 left-handed hitters against a rhp. these are meant to combat against some of the luck and randomness. don't know if you can ever quantify "clutch"...but there are stats about players' performance after the 7th in a game where run deficit is 2 or less, we're kind of getting there?

what computers can't analyze is the emotional impact of a hostile crowd in the brightest october lights and our physiological reaction to these stressors. in some of arod's postseason abs you can just tell he'd have no chance, or me personally with yasiel puig judging by his body language he's just gonna flail at 3 pitches with the bases juiced bottom of the 8th trailing 4-2...like he'd rather be in jamaica right then.

and this is where the analytics fanboy in me gets confused sometimes...by the number of course you'd rather have arod in there than slappy mcslap david eckstein or angel pagan...but just going by the eye test at least those guys won't shrink up and battle thru the at bat. that's where the great divide is atm and the 2 sides of grit/attitude vs. computer/analytics can't reconcile.

confirmation and recency bias can skew your eye and opinion tho, this is why the numbers are best because they don't lie or care about situational opinions.

[bravos4evr]

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

wtvr makes you happy booboo

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ugh, that Dodgers game. Spin time for Clayton post-season defenders, I guess.

[KCRfan1]

Looking forward to the Series!

Should be fun!!!

[rats60]

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

It's just small sample size booboo. :D

[1952boyntoncollector]

Ugh, that Dodgers game. Spin time for Clayton post-season defenders, I guess.

If kershaw wins the game hes the post season MVP (if they gave out an award today after the win) out of all players on all teams this year thus far so its not like this year was a black mark on his post season when his team won all but 1 of every postseason game he played in the postseason.

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

Anyway, dodgers werent winning the game anyway scoring zero runs but if want to say its all kershaw's fault the kershaw haters will say that.

Hendricks gave up 1 run in 2 starts and he lost as many games in the Dodgers series as Kershaw did the entire postseason...

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

[Peter_Spaeth]

If kershaw wins the game hes the post season MVP (if they gave out an award today after the win) out of all players on all teams this year thus far so its not like this year was a black mark on his post season when his team won all but 1 of every postseason game he played in the postseason.

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

Anyway, dodgers werent winning the game anyway scoring zero runs but if want to say its all kershaw's fault the kershaw haters will say that.

Hendricks gave up 1 run in 2 starts and he lost as many games in the Dodgers series as Kershaw did the entire postseason...

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Next spinner?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Next spinner?

tough critic. Kershaw's opposing pitchers in the cubs series gave up a total of 1 run in 2 games and Dodgers won 1 of those games. Tough to win 2 games when your team scores 1 run in 2 entire games.

[botn]

tough critic. Kershaw's opposing pitchers in the cubs series gave up a total of 1 run in 2 games and Dodgers won 1 of those games. Tough to win 2 games when your team scores 1 run in 2 entire games.

You can't give up 5 runs in 5 innings. If he lost 1-0 then get on the offense (which was anemic almost every game) but he got shelled again, Mr. Spin.

[1952boyntoncollector]

You can't give up 5 runs in 5 innings. If he lost 1-0 then get on the offense (which was anemic almost every game) but he got shelled again, Mr. Spin.

right it not good giving up 4 earned runs in 5 innings. (7 hits in 5 innings against Cubs ) but he did also throw a 1-0 almost shutout on 2 hits as well in a game only he wins....its not like he sucked this postseason with the other 2 team wins on short rest and the save etc. If the post season results were like they were in the past like they were this year, he would be considered a good/great post season pitcher. Career not over yet, we will see..

if he lost 1-0 he still would of lost an elimination game, mr spin..

[Peter_Spaeth]

right it not good giving up 4 earned runs in 5 innings. but he did also throw a 1-0 almost shutout as well in a game only he wins....its not like he sucked this postseason with the other 2 team wins on short rest and the save etc.

if he lost 1-0 he still would of lost an elimination game, mr spin..

You are missing the point. If he lost 1-0 everyone would agree he pitched a great game. If he was 0-10 lifetime in the post-season with a 2.00 ERA nobody would be suggesting he had a post-season choking problem. The fact is he has pitched too poorly too often in the post-season to keep spinning his problems as small sample size, leaky bullpen, short rest, whatever.

[botn]

right it not good giving up 4 earned runs in 5 innings. but he did also throw a 1-0 almost shutout as well in a game only he wins....its not like he sucked this postseason with the other 2 team wins on short rest and the save etc.

if he lost 1-0 he still would of lost an elimination game, mr spin..

His ERA this postseason was 4.44. Good thing he had the shutout! He did hit .286 they may want to use him next year as a pinch hitter.

[1952boyntoncollector]

You are missing the point. If he lost 1-0 everyone would agree he pitched a great game. If he was 0-10 lifetime in the post-season with a 2.00 ERA nobody would be suggesting he had a post-season choking problem. The fact is he has pitched too poorly too often in the post-season to keep spinning his problems as small sample size, leaky bullpen, short rest, whatever.

right but this season isnt a black mark, thats my point which i think you agree..plus he did win 1-0 this year which isnt winning 9-4.....only he wins that game (harder to win 1-0 then win 15-0) which you said his performance was amazing i believe plus the only game out of 5 he appeared in that they lost his team scored 0. If he replicates this every year from here on out it the narrative will have changed and the needle has already moved.

[1952boyntoncollector]

His ERA this postseason was 4.44. Good thing he had the shutout! He did hit .286 they may want to use him next year as a pinch hitter.

if a 4.44 era means my team wins 3 out of 4 games i started and i also get a key save ill take it. Man only hitting.286 hitting, good thing he made an out last game who he would be batting over .300!

[Peter_Spaeth]

right but this season isnt a black mark, thats my point which i think you agree..plus he did win 1-0 this year which isnt winning 9-4.....only he wins that game which you said his performance was amazing i believe plus the only game out of 5 he appeared in that they lost his team scored 0. If he replicates this every year from here on out it the narrative will have changed and the needle has already moved.

4.44 booboo. No, he needs to dramatically improve in the future to change the narrative. It's not about wins, it's about pitching well which more often than not puts your team in a position to win.

[1952boyntoncollector]

4.44 booboo. No, he needs to dramatically improve in the future to change the narrative. It's not about wins, it's about pitching well which more often than not puts your team in a position to win.

I think everyone would agree he was considered a major star in the dodgers/Nats series. He would of been given the mvp of that series or do you disagree. Noboday cares about era . Its about wins not era.

If you agree he was MVP of the Nationals series then obviously era doesnt matter.

His era was 3.00 in the cubs series and whip was .83 .who care about those good number he lost..

In addition Baez won NL series MVP against the dodgers and went 1-6 with zero runs/rbis against Kershaw.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Guess you didn't like Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young with a 13-12 record then. His 2.27 ERA was unimportant, right?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Guess you didn't like Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young with a 13-12 record then. His 2.27 ERA was unimportant, right?

You talking about regular season where stats matter more. If you want to cite regular season, how has Kershaw done in the regular season

Plus how many post season games as Felix's team won when he pitched.


So you agree Kershaw would have won MVP for the national/dodgers playoff series...enough said..

[Peter_Spaeth]

..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Guess you didn't like Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young with a 13-12 record then. His 2.27 ERA was unimportant, right?

Livan Hernandez won the world series MVP and his era was 5.27 , (whip 1.829) i guess era was really important there. His team winning i guess meant nothing. He didnt even pitch in game 7 of that series

at least he struck out 1 guy every 2 innings, oh wait that is bad too..

I could drop the mike after this post.

[botn]

Dang...Jake is getting beat up here as badly as Kershaw did during the postseason.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Dang...Jake is getting beat up here as badly as Kershaw did during the postseason.

Yeah i getting beat bad.. you probably the guy that says Trump/clinton did great in all the debates (maybe he/she did or didnt, i not have any political views to share, but showing you can say one thing but there are going to be people that disagree)


Also If you think ERA matters when Livan Hernandez won world series MVP with an over 5.00 era maybe the higher the better. His whip was 1.829 as well.

I dropping mike now, have a good rest of the weekend.

[bravos4evr]

It's just small sample size booboo. :D

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"

[Peter_Spaeth]

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"

That's an argument ad hominem, no? :) Or is it ad ursum?

[botn]

I dropping mike now, have a good rest of the weekend.

Ya dropped far more than that, sport.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Ya dropped far more than that, sport.

Yeah dropping knowledge.. good one by the way!

[tschock]

Oh yeah? Just all you Dodger and Kershaw haters wait til next year! :p

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh yeah? Just all you Dodger and Kershaw haters wait til next year! :p

I love Kershaw. The best pitcher of his generation and, from all one can see, a truly outstanding young man. I am just not deceiving myself into thinking he doesn't have a post-season problem.

[rats60]

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '



If you think that a 4.44 ERA out of the guy who is supposed to be your best pitcher was good, then we were definitely watching different post seasons. That is what you would expect out of a #4 or 5 starter. It is bad when it is a future hofer.

[itjclarke]

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Just gotta correct, Bum didn't lose in the LDS, he got touched up for 3 (all on Arrietta HR) runs over 5 innings, but the Giants eventually won 6-5 in 13 innings. Those 3 runs represented the first runs he's ever given up in an elimination game. His prior scoreless stretch in elimination games included, a 9 inning CG SHO in the 2014 WC game, 5 scoreless innings to close Game 7 of the 2014 WS and another 9 inning CG SHO in the 2016 WC game.

Add onto that a WS record that includes--- 8 SHO innings in the 2010 WS (as 21 year old rookie), 7 SHO innings in the 2012 WS, then in 2014-- 7 innings w/ 1 ER in game 1, a 9 inning CG SHO in game 5, and the 5 SHO innings to close game 7. It's pretty amazing in its totality. Kershaw destroys Bum's regular season statistics and he's a likely a HOF, but he doesn't come close to touching Bum's record in October.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Just gotta correct, Bum didn't lose in the LDS, he got touched up for 3 (all on Arrietta HR) runs over 5 innings, but the Giants eventually won 6-5 in 13 innings. Those 3 runs represented the first runs he's ever given up in an elimination game. His prior scoreless stretch in elimination games included, a 9 inning CG SHO in the 2014 WC game, 5 scoreless innings to close Game 7 of the 2014 WS and another 9 inning CG SHO in the 2016 WC game.

Add onto that a WS record that includes--- 8 SHO innings in the 2010 WS (as 21 year old rookie), 7 SHO innings in the 2012 WS, then in 2014-- 7 innings w/ 1 ER in game 1, a 9 inning CG SHO in game 5, and the 5 SHO innings to close game 7. It's pretty amazing in its totality. Kershaw destroys Bum's regular season statistics and he's a likely a HOF, but he doesn't come close to touching Bum's record in October.

there was nothing for you to correct. I never claimed to compare their past history in the postseaon.

i clearly was talking about this years postseason. If the Giants score zero in his last start than Bum loses and he was in line to lose. My post doesnt say he lost it notes that the pitching lines were very close for each of these big guys in their last games against the cubs. This thread has been about THIS postseason not being a black mark on kershaw's postseason.

Everyone seems to agree that Kershaw would of won MVP of the Nats/Dodgers series and Kershaw went 1-1 in 2 games versus the cubs in which his team scored exactly 1 run. Thats not remotely close to a bad postseason THIS year. There was no postseason problem for Kershaw this year is all i am saying. You are allowed to lose 1 game in 5 games (and be a big part in 4 wins, one of which was 1-0) and the 1 game you lose your team scores zero.

[itjclarke]

I not talking about last year, i talking about this year. If the Giants score zero this year than Bum loses and he was in line to lose. His pitching line was very close to Kershaw THIS postseason in his last start against the cubs. This thread has been about THIS postseason not being a black mark on kershaw's postseason. There was nothing for you to correct

If any team scores no runs and their pitcher doesn't toss a shutout, he loses. Not sure your point.

BTW- Bum's ERA THIS postseason was 1.93 over two starts. IF we're allowed to use these "ifs"... if his BP can get 3 outs in the 9th of game 4, Bum may have another opportunity to go legend in game 5, as the potential first/last guy out of the pen after Cueto. That said, I think 1.93 in 2016 is pretty impressive in its own right.

[1952boyntoncollector]

If any team scores no runs and their pitcher doesn't toss a shutout, he loses. Not sure your point.

BTW- Bum's ERA THIS postseason was 1.93 over two starts. IF we're allowed to use these "ifs"... if his BP can get 3 outs in the 9th of game 4, Bum may have another opportunity to go legend in game 5, as the potential first/last guy out of the pen after Cueto. That said, I think 1.93 in 2016 is pretty impressive in its own right.

Life is about opportunity. 1.93 era or not, Kershaw had a better postseason then Bum THIS year. Maybe if Bum had the chance, things could of been different. If kershaw pitched game 1 versus the cubs maybe things are different too but it doesnt matter. Going by the actual games pitched in THIS postseason kershaw did more.

The point I made about a team scoring zero runs, is that teams pitcher never had the opportunity to win the game. However if you think Bum was impressive this year, then not sure how you cant be impressed with Kershaw THIS year as well in the postseason. If kershaw sucked this year than so did Mr. Bumg.

[itjclarke]

Life is about opportunity. 1.93 era or not, Kershaw had a better postseason then Bum THIS year. Maybe if Bum had the chance, things could of been different. If kershaw pitched game 1 versus the cubs maybe things are different too but it doesnt matter. Going by the actual games pitched in THIS postseason kershaw did more.

Get off it. Bum is better in the post season bar none. He's been better in each and every post season of his career, 2010, 2014, 2014, and 2016, than Kershaw has been in any single post season of his career. Look it up.

Kershaw is a stud, but seems like you're going to ridiculously great lengths to argue something that just isn't there as far as his postseason legacy (this year, and career) are concerned. In about a week, Kershaw's 2016 postseason will be forgotten forever. Aside from a couple short rest appearances, there is nothing about it that will stand the test of time.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Get off it. Bum is better in the post season bar none. He's been better in each and every post season of his career, 2010, 2014, 2014, and 2016, than Kershaw has been in any single post season of his career. Look it up.

Kershaw is a stud, but seems like you're going to ridiculously great lengths to argue something that just isn't there as far as his postseason legacy (this year, and career) are concerned. In about a week, Kershaw's 2016 postseason will be forgotten forever. Aside from a couple short rest appearances, there is nothing about it that will stand the test of time.

agree with most except in 2016. We will agree to disagree that Mad Bum had a better post-season than Kershaw in 2016.

[chaddurbin]

rooting for clev...but cubs in 5.

[1952boyntoncollector]

rooting for clev...but cubs in 5.

man Kershaw has to be jealous of Hendricks...bases loaded when he leaves the game with one out and nobody scoring...thats 3 inherited runners his relievers prevent from going onto his era...... people focused on era will point to his 0.00 era now..but if 2 runs come its in the 5s...etc...

i think thats about has many inherited runners the dodgers relievers prevented from scoring in all of kershaw's career postseason appearances...


in a side note i think kyle kendricks is also jealous of kyle hendricks..

[clydepepper]

- in spite of Joe Madden pulling Kyle Hendricks with a 5-1 lead.

IMO that was a huge blunder...but he got away with it.


I would not want Jon Lester on my team...that's ridiculous!

I know, I know- he pitched well - there is just NO excuse for a pitcher that is so well paid to be unable to make throws to first and just barely able to field his position at all.

I'm glad the Cubs won...in spite of all that.

[irv]

- in spite of Joe Madden pulling Kyle Hendricks with a 5-1 lead.

IMO that was a huge blunder...but he got away with it.


I would not want Jon Lester on my team...that's ridiculous!

I know, I know- he pitched well - there is just NO excuse for a pitcher that is so well paid to be unable to make throws to first and just barely able to field his position at all.

I'm glad the Cubs won...in spite of all that.

I thought the same, but glad to see this morning the Cubbies won!

I stayed up until 10:30 figuring the Cub's would win it and was quite surprised to see what happened this morning watching the highlights! :eek:

What time (EST) did the game finish?

[almostdone]

I thought the same, but glad to see this morning the Cubbies won!

I stayed up until 10:30 figuring the Cub's would win it and was quite surprised to see what happened this morning watching the highlights! :eek:

What time (EST) did the game finish?

About 12:40 or so. So happy. So tired.
Drew

[chaddurbin]

congrats to the cubbies, seems like a bunch of nice guys (besides chapman). epstein is the ring whisperer. maddon kind of went overboard with the "use your best reliever in the most leveraged situation". became a war of attrition there at the end and the more superior team won.

[Peter_Spaeth]

- in spite of Joe Madden pulling Kyle Hendricks with a 5-1 lead.

IMO that was a huge blunder...but he got away with it.


I would not want Jon Lester on my team...that's ridiculous!

I know, I know- he pitched well - there is just NO excuse for a pitcher that is so well paid to be unable to make throws to first and just barely able to field his position at all.

I'm glad the Cubs won...in spite of all that.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-they-dont-run-like-mad-on-jon-lester/

[tschock]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-they-dont-run-like-mad-on-jon-lester/

It's a reasonable theory, especially the part about not wanting to appear to be a bonehead (as a base runner). It's similar to the idea that, statistically speaking, your best chance to score with a free kick on goal in soccer is to kick it directly at the goalie. But just think how embarrassing that would be if the goalie didn't move.

Obviously once players started taking advantage of these counter-intuitive actions (in either case), there would be some form of adjustments made to offset them.

[clydepepper]

Supposedly, with greater risk, comes greater glory.

It has been said that, in order to become a winner, one must be willing to risk failure.

Jon Lester is incomplete as a ballplayer no matter how good his deliveries to the plate are. He makes his teammates strain to cover his butt.

IMO - Just as Shaq never resolved the Free Throw issue, I'll always believe such an issue can be conquered with enough effort. James Harden's lack of defense is another obvious example.


Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith were not good hitters when they first came up, but through their efforts, they became at least competitive against the highest level of play.

Darrell Evans was not born with speed, but became know as one of the smartest baserunners ever.

There are many more examples of those who worked hard and made themselves better.

Perhaps all the guaranteed money makes a difference after all.


.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Playoffs coming which means adding to the legacy of kershaw Last year he was good in the playoffs...now this year is his time to be a legend

[cardsfan73]

Who are you folks picking for the wild card winners?

I am going with Daimondbacks & Yankees!

[MrSeven]

Who are you folks picking for the wild card winners?

I am going with Daimondbacks & Yankees!

Hope that happens. In fact, I'd love to see both of them return to the World Series.

I'd be hyped up for weeks.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Hope that happens. In fact, I'd love to see both of them return to the World Series.

I'd be hyped up for weeks.

Yankees v Dodgers World Series.

[cardsfan73]

I am going with the Indians & Nationals in the series, picking Cleveland to win it all this year.

[barrysloate]

Cleveland over Los Angeles.

[cardsfan73]

Cleveland over Los Angeles.

Another vote for the Indians!! Good luck tribe!!

[chaddurbin]

indians over rockies. i look forward to wednesday when my bracket bust.

[KMayUSA6060]

I'm superstitious, and am not going to try and predict anything, but GO TRIBE!

[Sean]

Cleveland wins a rematch against the Cubs.

[clydepepper]

Cleveland wins a rematch against the Cubs.



That's what I'll guess also.

[KMayUSA6060]

How about those Indians?!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Playoffs coming which means adding to the legacy of kershaw Last year he was good in the playoffs...now this year is his time to be a legend

4 HR. Some legend. 4.63 career post-season ERA as we speak. Yeah I know small sample size blah blah blah.

[conor912]

The only thing that takes the sting away from the Red Sox getting blown out is watching the Yankees blow a huge lead and lose in extra innings. I'm really excited for a Cleveland/Houston series, though. Should make for some great baseball.

[rats60]

4 HR. Some legend. 4.63 career post-season ERA as we speak. Yeah I know small sample size blah blah blah.

Shelled in the 7th inning again. At least he is being consistent. 95 innings isn't a small sample size, it is half a season for him.

[1952boyntoncollector]

4 HR. Some legend. 4.63 career post-season ERA as we speak. Yeah I know small sample size blah blah blah.

and add another W....how many starting pitchers in the playoffs this year have gone 6 + innings....he was fine. you are ok with the yankee starter in the twins getting blown as just a bad start..

stats dont matter when up 7 runs....rather have a 90% chance to give up 4 runs or less than a 50% chance to do that due to pitching around guys to keep your era lower in exchange for having more risk to give up the lead..........only 4 runs..one less its a quality start...you acting like he gave up 7 runs etc..

Another win...... one more win and he can be series mvp for that round if they gave those awards...(he would of won last years)

Its also yet another start when he left the game his team was winning.... hes on an amazing run.....livan hernandez won world series mvp and look at his era..... the whip was good for kershaw....1.263...you singling out one metric which isnt bad at all given the situation...

Plus its not like he gave up 4 runs and they were down 4-0......its when you give up the runs which is also important

[1952boyntoncollector]

duplicate

[1952boyntoncollector]

Shelled in the 7th inning again. At least he is being consistent. 95 innings isn't a small sample size, it is half a season for him.

Giving up 4 runs (2 of which when your team is up 7-2 in the sixth inning) is far from being shelled.... he doesnt pitch the same if up 2-0 obviously... hes a team guy

If you want to see shelled...look at Grey, Greinke , T. Walker and a litany of guys this year in the playoffs..

hes still top 3 in the mvp of the series thus far in the dodgers/ariz series......if you are top 3 thats not shelled....by end of series he will be top 1-3...

Dodgers still on march to win it all.....feel free to criticize if dodgers are no longer playing this year..pointless to talk now...especially when kershaw keeps pitching in games his team wins.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That is perhaps the most ridiculous spin I have ever seen put on something. LOL. Stats don't matter when you have a lead. LOL. Yes they do because teams come back. He had yet another mediocre outing. I am sure he would tell you so himself. Period paragraph.

[irv]

The only thing that takes the sting away from the Red Sox getting blown out is watching the Yankees blow a huge lead and lose in extra innings. I'm really excited for a Cleveland/Houston series, though. Should make for some great baseball.

Same, but with Encarnacion out now, (imo) they will be in tough, unless their depth is deeper than I am aware of?

Edwin was the main reason I was, and am still, rooting for the Indians so I hope they can still get it done without him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Same, but with Encarnacion out now, (imo) they will be in tough, unless their depth is deeper than I am aware of?

Edwin was the main reason I was, and am still, rooting for the Indians so I hope they can still get it done without him.

Last I checked Edwin wasn't toeing the pitching rubber. They'll be fine without him IMO.

[1952boyntoncollector]

That is perhaps the most ridiculous spin I have ever seen put on something. LOL. Stats don't matter when you have a lead. LOL. Yes they do because teams come back. He had yet another mediocre outing. Period paragraph.

They dont matter. Dodgers won period..and game was never close. You are biased. Especially when you look at this years playoffs he had one of the top 3 starts this year thus far. Times have changed. Pitching in the playoffs is a whole different animal now then even 10 years ago. Wait till series is over..but silly to comment when Dodgers are winning his starts, at least wait till comment if his team is losing. The dodgers care about wins not era. To say you dont pitch differently when your team is up 7 versus 0 is silly as well.

You can win world series MVP if you go 6.1 innings with 4 runs earned and win 3 starts. Heck Livan Hernandez won World Series MVP with a 5.27 era and a 1.829 whip with just 2 W's. Team wins matter obviously..and Kershaw's team won. Plus its not like he gave up 7 runs etc...

[Peter_Spaeth]

They dont matter. Dodgers won period..and game was never close. You are biased. Especially when you look at this years playoffs he had one of the top 3 starts this year thus far. Times have changed. Pitching in the playoffs is a whole different animal now then even 10 years ago. Wait till series is over..but silly to comment when Dodgers are winning his starts, at least wait till comment if his team is losing. The dodgers care about wins not era. To say you dont pitch differently when your team is up 7 versus 0 is silly as well.

You can win world series MVP if you go 6.1 innings with 4 runs earned and win 3 starts. Heck Livan Hernandez won World Series MVP with a 5.27 era and a 1.829 whip with just 2 W's. Team wins matter obviously..and Kershaw's team won. Plus its not like he gave up 7 runs etc...

Ex post reasoning. And wrong on so many levels.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Ex post reasoning. And wrong on so many levels.

Agree to disagree..anyway, many games to go...he still has at least one more start coming in the playoffs..

[irv]

Last I checked Edwin wasn't toeing the pitching rubber. They'll be fine without him IMO.

I hope but when a team loses their top run producer, it isn't good news by any stretch.

I honestly don't think he'll be back. Although nothing concrete has come out yet as far as his status goes, I think it is going to be a little more than day to day.

[D. Bergin]

The only thing that takes the sting away from the Red Sox getting blown out is watching the Yankees blow a huge lead and lose in extra innings. I'm really excited for a Cleveland/Houston series, though. Should make for some great baseball.

Devastating loss as a Yankee fan. Teased us by blasting Kluber and then made us watch as our vaunted bullpen teased the game away. Cleveland capitalized on every mistake the Yanks made.

Oh well. The Indians and Astros were head and shoulders the best teams in the AL this year anyways. Should be a good series between the two.

[bravos4evr]

They dont matter. Dodgers won period..and game was never close. You are biased. Especially when you look at this years playoffs he had one of the top 3 starts this year thus far. Times have changed. Pitching in the playoffs is a whole different animal now then even 10 years ago. Wait till series is over..but silly to comment when Dodgers are winning his starts, at least wait till comment if his team is losing. The dodgers care about wins not era. To say you dont pitch differently when your team is up 7 versus 0 is silly as well.

You can win world series MVP if you go 6.1 innings with 4 runs earned and win 3 starts. Heck Livan Hernandez won World Series MVP with a 5.27 era and a 1.829 whip with just 2 W's. Team wins matter obviously..and Kershaw's team won. Plus its not like he gave up 7 runs etc...

A- they won because of their offense (and Justin Turner is obviously their MVP so far after one game)

B- Home runs are bad, the three things a pitcher can directly control are K's, BB's and home runs (which is why FIP is more predictive of future success than ERA) so, maybe you could make the argument that Roberts should not have brought him out for the 7th, but to try and say he pitched well is a false narrative

C- people are smarter about what matters in baseball now,stuff like pitcher wins aren't considered important any more so Livan wouldn't win MVP in 2017

[rats60]

Giving up 4 runs (2 of which when your team is up 7-2 in the sixth inning) is far from being shelled.... he doesnt pitch the same if up 2-0 obviously... hes a team guy

If you want to see shelled...look at Grey, Greinke , T. Walker and a litany of guys this year in the playoffs..

hes still top 3 in the mvp of the series thus far in the dodgers/ariz series......if you are top 3 thats not shelled....by end of series he will be top 1-3...

Dodgers still on march to win it all.....feel free to criticize if dodgers are no longer playing this year..pointless to talk now...especially when kershaw keeps pitching in games his team wins.

He was shelled. Dave Roberts was just smarter than Don Mattingly and got him out of the game before he gave up 8. Kershaw is just too weak to finish what he started.

[KMayUSA6060]

Same, but with Encarnacion out now, (imo) they will be in tough, unless their depth is deeper than I am aware of?

Edwin was the main reason I was, and am still, rooting for the Indians so I hope they can still get it done without him.

Our depth is deeper than you're aware of. The Indians are the deepest team in baseball, and it's a shame we can't carry 30-35.

First of all, EE is reportedly day-to-day. Finish off the Yankees today, and you can just let him heal. Second of all, his replacement is All-Star Michael Brantley at DH. You pick your poison there. You lose a power bat, but you add a .300+ bat. Think about this. The Indians lineup with EE is Lindor, Kipnis, JRam, EE, Bruce, Slamtana, LF/Gomes/Perez, Gomes/Perez/LF, Urshella. Now you plug and play Brantley in there. Regardless, you still have to get through 6 hitters before you face a lesser bat, and even Austin Jackson is batting around .300 and has hit in that 7 hole, so that would mean 7 formidable hitters before a lesser bat. Plus, Gomes hit the game winner on Friday.

[1952boyntoncollector]

He was shelled. Dave Roberts was just smarter than Don Mattingly and got him out of the game before he gave up 8. Kershaw is just too weak to finish what he started.

eh..he coudl of pitched 6 innings and everyone would of thought it was a terriifc game and be taken out as well. How many starting pitchers in the playoffs this year have gone more than 6 months...everything is relative...if he was shelled than 90% of the rest of the aces were blaaaasted..

[1952boyntoncollector]

A- they won because of their offense (and Justin Turner is obviously their MVP so far after one game)

B- Home runs are bad, the three things a pitcher can directly control are K's, BB's and home runs (which is why FIP is more predictive of future success than ERA) so, maybe you could make the argument that Roberts should not have brought him out for the 7th, but to try and say he pitched well is a false narrative

C- people are smarter about what matters in baseball now,stuff like pitcher wins aren't considered important any more so Livan wouldn't win MVP in 2017


Right,,he could of been tired gong into the 7th...if he just goes 6 innings and score was 6-4 maybe he doesnt even come out for the 7th.....its not the same thing to give up 2 runs when up 5 versus only up 2 on the late innings.

Justin turner is mvp right now but series is not over...game 2 wasnt great for turner...so again like i said kershaw is top 3 still mvp wise. YOu can also say the Dodgers are winning because the other teams staters are still pitching worse than kershaw...arizona has a more potent offense as well

and for C- you say people are smarter about what matters in baseball now, well holding a lead is more important than era. We can all argue about 'what matters' but there isnt a clear line. Livan still wins MVP as well. Plus season isnt over for Kershaw yet....need to wait for year to end to judge...but if he wins every start...i not sure how that hurts his legacy even if era is 5 if hes a top starting pitcher in all of the playoffs...again people are smarter about what matters in baseball now. starting pitching in the playoffs is a different standard than regular season....if you disagree than its not so easy to say 'people are smarter about what matters in baseball now" I value helping your team win.. There are about 90 % of the starters in this years playoffs that could of lost the game that kershaw won....goin g6 innings and getting a large lead is worth a lot.....again its only 1 game....still more time to decide.

[bravos4evr]

There are about 90 % of the starters in this years playoffs that could of lost the game that kershaw won....goin g6 innings and getting a large lead is worth a lot.....again its only 1 game....still more time to decide.

This is nonsensical rationalization.


Giving pitchers credit because they only gave up *insert more than 4 runs here* and won a game based on "preserving the lead" is silly, it's folly. Good pitching is good pitching. If a pitcher goes 6 and gives up 8 REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME, that was a bad start. No pitcher with multiple games that bad should win any individual awards for the postseason. Bad starts are bad starts, trying to make excuses for them based on the score doesn't work as an argument.



and the idea that Livan Hernandez won a world series MVP with this stat line:

13.2 inn pitched, 5.27 ERA, 7 K's, 10 BB's, 15 hits and 3 HR's allowed in 2 starts (where his teams won 7-4 and 8-7) is hilariously awful.Like, whoever voted for him was bad and they should feel bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How well his own team hit has nothing at all to do with how well a pitcher pitched. This is entirely obvious.

[irv]

Our depth is deeper than you're aware of. The Indians are the deepest team in baseball, and it's a shame we can't carry 30-35.

First of all, EE is reportedly day-to-day. Finish off the Yankees today, and you can just let him heal. Second of all, his replacement is All-Star Michael Brantley at DH. You pick your poison there. You lose a power bat, but you add a .300+ bat. Think about this. The Indians lineup with EE is Lindor, Kipnis, JRam, EE, Bruce, Slamtana, LF/Gomes/Perez, Gomes/Perez/LF, Urshella. Now you plug and play Brantley in there. Regardless, you still have to get through 6 hitters before you face a lesser bat, and even Austin Jackson is batting around .300 and has hit in that 7 hole, so that would mean 7 formidable hitters before a lesser bat. Plus, Gomes hit the game winner on Friday.

Good to hear!

Hopefully they finish off the Yankees tonight! :D

[KMayUSA6060]

Good to hear!

Hopefully they finish off the Yankees tonight! :D

You and me both my friend! :D

[1952boyntoncollector]

How well his own team hit has nothing at all to do with how well a pitcher pitched. This is entirely obvious.

Yes it does. Whenever someone says something is obvious or 'clearly' usually that means it is not in my humble experience...

two more starting pitchers tonight went about 2 innings...

[irv]

You and me both my friend! :D

@#$%^&* Judge! That was a 2 run H/R if any other right fielder was playing there! :mad:

[KMayUSA6060]

@#$%^&* Judge! That was a 2 run H/R if any other right fielder was playing there! :mad:

We have just missed 2 HRs tonight. AJax was a degree off in his launch angle (warning track) and then Frankie was robbed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes it does. Whenever someone says something is obvious or 'clearly' usually that means it is not in my humble experience...

two more starting pitchers tonight went about 2 innings...

Hoping for a rainout tomorrow and Sale on Tuesday.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We have just missed 2 HRs tonight. AJax was a degree off in his launch angle (warning track) and then Frankie was robbed.

Jose looking out of sync at the plate.

[bravos4evr]

Yes it does. Whenever someone says something is obvious or 'clearly' usually that means it is not in my humble experience...

two more starting pitchers tonight went about 2 innings...

this is more babbling nonsense.



I mean, the words are all english, but the order they in is hilariously wrong and silly. Like , do you even baseball bro?

[KMayUSA6060]

Jose looking out of sync at the plate.

Agreed. He's taking big swings, which isn't so much his game, although he does have a long swing on his HR balls.