baseball playoffs

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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-kersha...610#.28z8dbf8r

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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..