[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..

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

[QUOTE=1952boyntoncollector;1593035]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.

[QUOTE=1952boyntoncollector;1593035]That is a really bad argument IMO. They won despite him not because of him.

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.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1593044]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

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.

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

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.

double post

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...a01&t=p&post=1

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...l01&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..

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.

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.

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

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.

+ 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.

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..

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

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

OPS .564 regular season .658 post season.

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.

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.

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.

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-d...t-julio-urias/

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Los Doyers!
 

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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..

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)

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