Future HOFers

[Peter_Spaeth]

1-5, 5.12 in 6 postseason games. He has to improve that before he is going to be considered in Koufax's league.

As for Koufax, his three best WARs were 10.7 10.3 and 8.1. Kershaw's best is 7.8. Numbers don't tell the whole story, and certainly not one number, but that's a pretty good barometer of relative dominance. Koufax at his peak was even better.

Also unless the rules have changed you need 10 years to be eligible.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As for Koufax, his three best WARs were 10.7 10.3 and 8.1. Kershaw's best is 7.8. Numbers don't tell the whole story, and certainly not one number, but that's a pretty good barometer of relative dominance. Koufax at his peak was even better.

To be fair, Koufax was pitching in a four-man rotation in an era when starters were expected to finish most games, so he pitched well over 300 innings in the years when he wasn't hurt. Kershaw is pitching in a five-man rotation in an era that uses relievers much more extensively, so he has pitched no more than about 230 innings in any year. Kershaw has been at least as dominant as Koufax when he has pitched (ERA+ of 194 and 199 in 2013 and 2014, vs. ERA+ of 190 and 186 in Koufax's two best years), but he hasn't been able to pitch as many innings because of the time in which he's playing, so his WARs are proportionally lower.

[HRBAKER]

Good point. So why does he disappear in the postseason I wonder.

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I dunno. Yes to what you say, but on the other hand, one HR title, one hits title, no MVPs, only 4 all star selections, and who but a hardcore fan could even tell you where he played? EDIT TO ADD If he keeps going and gets to 3000 hits, then I think his odds vastly improve. If not, he may be Dave Parker.

Beltre is far from a Dave Parker. Everyone should look up players with 2,700 or more hits, 400 or more HR's. I think that will weed out a lot of players, and shine some light on others.

Here's one with 2,500 or more hits, and 400 or more HR's. All are in the HOF or will be.

http://m.sporcle.com/games/jmnyyanke...s-400-homeruns

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As for Koufax, his three best WARs were 10.7 10.3 and 8.1. Kershaw's best is 7.8. Numbers don't tell the whole story, and certainly not one number, but that's a pretty good barometer of relative dominance. Koufax at his peak was even better.

Was he?

I think WAR is good for comparing players within the same era. I think it is far less useful when comparing players from different eras.

Let's look at the last five years of both pitchers. 1962 to 1966 for Koufax, and 2011 to 2015 for Kershaw (which is not yet completed, but it's close enough).

One thing we have to remember is that a pitcher's wins, or more specifically, his win percentage, is a component of WAR. A pitcher can pitch great, and yet if his team doesn't score runs in support of his efforts, he might not get a win. Earlier I referenced what a shame it is that Kershaw doesn't win more. It's obviously not because he doesn't pitch well. I would imagine it's a lack of run support, in part. Let's compare some numbers.

You said that Kershaw's best WAR is 7.8. Koufax has three seasons better from a WAR standpoint: in 1963 (10.7), 1966 (10.3), and 1965 (8.1). In those three seasons, Koufax won 25, 27 and 26 games. In the five year period, Koufax was 111-34, a .766 win pct. He averaged more wins per season (22) than Clayton Kershaw's best win total in any of his five years (21 in both 2011 and 2014). Kershaw, in his near five years, is 82-32, a .719 win pct, and an average of 16 wins a season. Kershaw has started 151 games to Koufax's 176.

When individual metrics are compared side by side, I don't see anything else that would explain the huge difference in WAR.

ERA:
Koufax 1.95
Kershaw 2.14

Strikeouts per 9 IP:
Koufax 9.4
Kershaw 9.8

Walks per 9 IP:
Koufax 2.1
Kershaw 1.9

Strikeout to BB ratio:
Koufax 4.57
Kershaw 5.04

WHIP:
Koufax 0.926
Kershaw 0.942

Hits per 9 IP:
Koufax 6.3
Kershaw 6.5

ERA +:
Koufax 167
Kershaw 171

Home runs allowed per 9 IP:
Koufax 0.6
Kershaw 0.5

Their numbers are really, really close, aren't they? They give up about the same number of hits and walks per game, Kershaw strikes out batters slightly more often often. Koufax has a better ERA, but relative to the rest of the league at the time they played, Kershaw's ERA + is slightly better.

The difference in WAR? Koufax pitched at a time when complete games were far more common (100 for him, only 18 for Kershaw). That leads to a huge discrepancy in innings pitched:

Koufax 1,377
Kershaw 1,072.

By the time this season is done, Koufax will still have thrown about 250 more innings, which breaks down to about 50 per year. So, while Koufax was allowed to stay in, and pitch a whole game, Kershaw gets pulled out, and his it is the responsibility of his bullpen to preserve the lead, and ultimately get Kershaw the win. Poor bullpen performance means ultimately fewer wins for the pitcher, affecting the starter's winning percentage, and WAR.

Look at Kershaw's 2013 season. He started 33 games, had a 1.83 ERA (best in the NL), and won only 16 games. Look at some of the dominant starts he had where he didn't get a win:

May 3rd vs San Francisco, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 2-1.
May 8th vs Arizona, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 3-2.
June 10th vs Arizona, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 5-4.
June 15th vs Pittsburgh, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers win 5-3.
July 31st vs New York Yankees, 8 IP, 0 earned runs allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 3-0.
September 8th vs Cincinnati, 7 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 2-3.

6 starts, 43 innings pitched, 6 earned runs allowed. Kershaw had a 1.26 ERA across these six starts, and got nothing to show for it. The Dodgers scored 11 runs. Kershaw, on average, got 1.83 runs support per game. The Dodger bullpen? They gave up 12 runs in 14 innings.

Then there are some of the games he lost:

August 6th vs St. Louis, 6 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. Dodgers lose 5-1.
August 27th vs Chicago Cubs, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. Dodgers lose 3-2.
September 13th vs San Francisco, 7 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. Dodgers lose 4-2.

Clayton Kershaw should have won 20 games easily in 2013, if not more. But his bullpen was awful in the games he started, and he didn't get any run support in many of his games.

Compare Kershaw's 2013 season to Sandy Koufax's 1963 season. Koufax won 25 games, and again, Kershaw won 16.

Kershaw had 33 starts. Koufax 40. Kershaw's ERA was 1.83. Koufax's ERA was 1.88.

The Dodgers scored 125 runs, or 3.79 RPG, for Kershaw's 33 starts.
The Dodgers scored 172 runs, or 4.30 RPG, for Koufax's 40 starts.

The Dodgers scored 2 or fewer runs in 17 of Kershaw's 33 starts (51.5%)
The Dodgers scored 2 or fewer runs in 12 of Koufax's 40 starts (30.0%)

What am I driving at? We're becoming conditioned to look at WAR as the be-all, end-all metric for comparing players (not you, specifically, Peter, I'm speaking in the abstract). If we accept this, Sandy Koufax was a much better pitcher than Clayton Kershaw is now. After all, Koufax's best WAR seasons of 1963, 10.7, is much better than Kershaw's best season of 7.8 in 2013, a difference of nearly 3 wins. But the truth is, the discrepancy in their WAR figures can be accounted for by the very fact that Koufax won more, and pitched more games/innings. He also got a half more run support per game, had fewer instances where the offense scored 2 or fewer runs in his starts, and didn't have to suffer at the hands of an inept bullpen. Now, Koufax should have a higher WAR. Yes, starters back in the 1960s did throw more innings per start, and Koufax held his level of excellence through higher pitch counts. But was he better than Clayton Kershaw on an inning by inning basis? No. The numbers do not support this assertion.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

This^^ or you could do like most ebay sellers and buy a few different colored pens/markers a bunch of cards and start signing.

EDITED to add in no way shape or form is David Ortiz a HOFer or should ever be considered anything other than a guy that steroids gave him all his #'s. He couldn't even make the Twins everyday lineup without them.

TESTIFY Ben !!!!!!!!!!! TESTIFY !!!!!!!!!

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

Beltre is far from a Dave Parker. Everyone should look up players with 2,700 or more hits, 400 or more HR's. I think that will weed out a lot of players, and shine some light on others.

Here's one with 2,500 or more hits, and 400 or more HR's. All are in the HOF or will be.

http://m.sporcle.com/games/jmnyyanke...s-400-homeruns

Never been a huge fan of Beltre but I'd have to say he's a no brainier.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

I believe with the way baseball has changed that the day of 300 game winners is over. Kershaw has been the most dominant pitcher in baseball for a 5-6 year stretch and counting. Is he going to win 511 games or throw 25-30 complete games a year?? Of course not but neither is anyone else. In my opinion if Kershaw retired at the end of this season he would be a HOFer. His stretch of greatness has been just as impressive as Koufax in my opinion and nobody questions him being a HOFer.

I'm not quite sure why everyone gushes SO much over him. He's pitched for GOOD teams, he faces a pitcher 50-60 PA's a year, National League, and how about his playoff numbers:

W L W-L% ERA G GS IP H R ER HR BB SO
1 5 .167 5.12 11 8 51.0 45 32 29 6 18 58

It's like that band that is phenomenal at making albums (The Doors, Zeppelin as a couple examples)

You see them live Morrison was drunk and Zeppelin hardly ever played that great of a show.

Studio albums (Kershaw regular season awesome with his favorable variables)

Live (playoffs not so much)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

Beltre is far from a Dave Parker. Everyone should look up players with 2,700 or more hits, 400 or more HR's. I think that will weed out a lot of players, and shine some light on others.

Here's one with 2,500 or more hits, and 400 or more HR's. All are in the HOF or will be.

http://m.sporcle.com/games/jmnyyanke...s-400-homeruns

Well, if you look up Adrian Beltre on Baseball Reference, the player he most resembles statistically is.. you guessed it ... Dave Parker. So I stand by the comparison.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Koufax COMPLETED 27 games in 65 and again in 66. It didn't matter to him what his bullpen did, because he didn't need one. Kershaw's best has been 6. Of course much of that is a function of their respective eras, but let's give credit where credit is due.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Koufax COMPLETED 27 games in 65 and again in 66. It didn't matter to him what his bullpen did, because he didn't need one. Kershaw's best has been 6. Of course much of that is a function of their respective eras, but let's give credit where credit is due.

To their managers? Or is Kershaw asking to be removed from games more often than Koufax did?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Was he?

I think WAR is good for comparing players within the same era. I think it is far less useful when comparing players from different eras.

Let's look at the last five years of both pitchers. 1962 to 1966 for Koufax, and 2011 to 2015 for Kershaw (which is not yet completed, but it's close enough).

One thing we have to remember is that a pitcher's wins, or more specifically, his win percentage, is a component of WAR. A pitcher can pitch great, and yet if his team doesn't score runs in support of his efforts, he might not get a win. Earlier I referenced what a shame it is that Kershaw doesn't win more. It's obviously not because he doesn't pitch well. I would imagine it's a lack of run support, in part. Let's compare some numbers.

You said that Kershaw's best WAR is 7.8. Koufax has three seasons better from a WAR standpoint: in 1963 (10.7), 1966 (10.3), and 1965 (8.1). In those three seasons, Koufax won 25, 27 and 26 games. In the five year period, Koufax was 111-34, a .766 win pct. He averaged more wins per season (22) than Clayton Kershaw's best win total in any of his five years (21 in both 2011 and 2014). Kershaw, in his near five years, is 82-32, a .719 win pct, and an average of 16 wins a season. Kershaw has started 151 games to Koufax's 176.

When individual metrics are compared side by side, I don't see anything else that would explain the huge difference in WAR.

ERA:
Koufax 1.95
Kershaw 2.14

Strikeouts per 9 IP:
Koufax 9.4
Kershaw 9.8

Walks per 9 IP:
Koufax 2.1
Kershaw 1.9

Strikeout to BB ratio:
Koufax 4.57
Kershaw 5.04

WHIP:
Koufax 0.926
Kershaw 0.942

Hits per 9 IP:
Koufax 6.3
Kershaw 6.5

ERA +:
Koufax 167
Kershaw 171

Home runs allowed per 9 IP:
Koufax 0.6
Kershaw 0.5

Their numbers are really, really close, aren't they? They give up about the same number of hits and walks per game, Kershaw strikes out batters slightly more often often. Koufax has a better ERA, but relative to the rest of the league at the time they played, Kershaw's ERA + is slightly better.

The difference in WAR? Koufax pitched at a time when complete games were far more common (100 for him, only 18 for Kershaw). That leads to a huge discrepancy in innings pitched:

Koufax 1,377
Kershaw 1,072.

By the time this season is done, Koufax will still have thrown about 250 more innings, which breaks down to about 50 per year. So, while Koufax was allowed to stay in, and pitch a whole game, Kershaw gets pulled out, and his it is the responsibility of his bullpen to preserve the lead, and ultimately get Kershaw the win. Poor bullpen performance means ultimately fewer wins for the pitcher, affecting the starter's winning percentage, and WAR.

Look at Kershaw's 2013 season. He started 33 games, had a 1.83 ERA (best in the NL), and won only 16 games. Look at some of the dominant starts he had where he didn't get a win:

May 3rd vs San Francisco, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 2-1.
May 8th vs Arizona, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 3-2.
June 10th vs Arizona, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 5-4.
June 15th vs Pittsburgh, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers win 5-3.
July 31st vs New York Yankees, 8 IP, 0 earned runs allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 3-0.
September 8th vs Cincinnati, 7 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 2-3.

6 starts, 43 innings pitched, 6 earned runs allowed. Kershaw had a 1.26 ERA across these six starts, and got nothing to show for it. The Dodgers scored 11 runs. Kershaw, on average, got 1.83 runs support per game. The Dodger bullpen? They gave up 12 runs in 14 innings.

Then there are some of the games he lost:

August 6th vs St. Louis, 6 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. Dodgers lose 5-1.
August 27th vs Chicago Cubs, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. Dodgers lose 3-2.
September 13th vs San Francisco, 7 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. Dodgers lose 4-2.

Clayton Kershaw should have won 20 games easily in 2013, if not more. But his bullpen was awful in the games he started, and he didn't get any run support in many of his games.

Compare Kershaw's 2013 season to Sandy Koufax's 1963 season. Koufax won 25 games, and again, Kershaw won 16.

Kershaw had 33 starts. Koufax 40. Kershaw's ERA was 1.83. Koufax's ERA was 1.88.

The Dodgers scored 125 runs, or 3.79 RPG, for Kershaw's 33 starts.
The Dodgers scored 172 runs, or 4.30 RPG, for Koufax's 40 starts.

The Dodgers scored 2 or fewer runs in 17 of Kershaw's 33 starts (51.5%)
The Dodgers scored 2 or fewer runs in 12 of Koufax's 40 starts (30.0%)

What am I driving at? We're becoming conditioned to look at WAR as the be-all, end-all metric for comparing players (not you, specifically, Peter, I'm speaking in the abstract). If we accept this, Sandy Koufax was a much better pitcher than Clayton Kershaw is now. After all, Koufax's best WAR seasons of 1963, 10.7, is much better than Kershaw's best season of 7.8 in 2013, a difference of nearly 3 wins. But the truth is, the discrepancy in their WAR figures can be accounted for by the very fact that Koufax won more, and pitched more games/innings. He also got a half more run support per game, had fewer instances where the offense scored 2 or fewer runs in his starts, and didn't have to suffer at the hands of an inept bullpen. Now, Koufax should have a higher WAR. Yes, starters back in the 1960s did throw more innings per start, and Koufax held his level of excellence through higher pitch counts. But was he better than Clayton Kershaw on an inning by inning basis? No. The numbers do not support this assertion.

I am sorry, but the numbers aren't remotely close. This is something we are just going to have to agree to disagree on. Koufax's last 3 full seasons
Games Started
40
41
41
Complete Games
20
27
27
Innings
311
336
323
Shutouts
11
8
5

Koufax was able to put up his numbers pitching deap into games.Just because Kershaw doesn't have stamina, look at how he was shelled in the 7th inning his last two playoff games, is no reason to downgrade Koufax.
When a pitcher is given more rest, when a pitcher doesn't have to go through a lineup an extra time, when a pitcher doesn't pitch tired, his numbers should be much better. Koufax was a much better pitcher at his peak. It is reflected in the total picture, not cherry picking stats or ratios that favor the pitcher with the light load. It is reflected in the stats you just chose to dismiss like WAR.

[sago]

Miguel Cabrera. Barring any unforeseen problems, should win the batting title again this year, by a staggering 40+ points. The most dominant player of the decade, and as surefire a HOF'er as one can be at this point with only 13 years played.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I am sorry, but the numbers aren't remotely close. This is something we are just going to have to agree to disagree on. Koufax's last 3 full seasons
Games Started
40
41
41
Complete Games
20
27
27
Innings
311
336
323
Shutouts
11
8
5

Koufax was able to put up his numbers pitching deap into games.Just because Kershaw doesn't have stamina, look at how he was shelled in the 7th inning his last two playoff games, is no reason to downgrade Koufax.
When a pitcher is given more rest, when a pitcher doesn't have to go through a lineup an extra time, when a pitcher doesn't pitch tired, his numbers should be much better. Koufax was a much better pitcher at his peak. It is reflected in the total picture, not cherry picking stats or ratios that favor the pitcher with the light load. It is reflected in the stats you just chose to dismiss like WAR.

Not only do today's starters have a lighter load (more rest between starts, PLUS rarely finishing), but they also are rarely pitching under the pressure of the 8th and 9th innings when most games are still on the line. You can't blame Kershaw for being a product of his era, but at the same time you can't take away from Koufax by saying things like his WAR is better only because he had more wins, as if somehow that were unimportant.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Since this is a baseball card forum...

[packs]

I don't know if there's any merit to arguing about whether or not Kershaw is good. He IS good. But he is not a HOFer today. That much we can be sure about.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not only do today's starters have a lighter load (more rest between starts, PLUS rarely finishing), but they also are rarely pitching under the pressure of the 8th and 9th innings when most games are still on the line. You can't blame Kershaw for being a product of his era, but at the same time you can't take away from Koufax by saying things like his WAR is better only because he had more wins, as if somehow that were unimportant.

But, I can blame him for not being more valuable. Recent WARs, Halliday 8.9, Greinke 10.4. Going back a few years, R. Johnson 10.9, P. Martinez 11.7, Clemens 11.9. Trying to justify Kershaw's lower WAR is just an excuse. I blame him for not pitching no hitters 4 years in a row. I blame him for not pitching back to back shutouts in the postseason , instead getting shelled twice. I can blame him for being the reason his team lost instead of carrying his team, see Madison Bumgarner. Kershaw may be the best of today, but he doesn't compare well to the best of other eras at this point in his career.

[tschock]

In comparison, one thing Kershaw and Koufax do have in common. Neither of them can/could hit.

Bumgarner had 4 HRs last year and 5 already this year? And a ..250-ish BA the past 2 seasons? Not sure if that makes late inning decisions harder or easier. Pitching comparison? Not quite there yet, but definitely a much bigger stud in the post season.

[packs]

Koufax was his own pitcher. There will never be another pitcher like him. Numbers don't tell you everything about a person. The man was pitching with an arm that no major league team would even let a pitcher toss batting practice with today. And he still dominated the game.

You can't say that about anyone else.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Was he?

I think WAR is good for comparing players within the same era. I think it is far less useful when comparing players from different eras.

Let's look at the last five years of both pitchers. 1962 to 1966 for Koufax, and 2011 to 2015 for Kershaw (which is not yet completed, but it's close enough).

One thing we have to remember is that a pitcher's wins, or more specifically, his win percentage, is a component of WAR. A pitcher can pitch great, and yet if his team doesn't score runs in support of his efforts, he might not get a win. Earlier I referenced what a shame it is that Kershaw doesn't win more. It's obviously not because he doesn't pitch well. I would imagine it's a lack of run support, in part. Let's compare some numbers.

You said that Kershaw's best WAR is 7.8. Koufax has three seasons better from a WAR standpoint: in 1963 (10.7), 1966 (10.3), and 1965 (8.1). In those three seasons, Koufax won 25, 27 and 26 games. In the five year period, Koufax was 111-34, a .766 win pct. He averaged more wins per season (22) than Clayton Kershaw's best win total in any of his five years (21 in both 2011 and 2014). Kershaw, in his near five years, is 82-32, a .719 win pct, and an average of 16 wins a season. Kershaw has started 151 games to Koufax's 176.

When individual metrics are compared side by side, I don't see anything else that would explain the huge difference in WAR.

ERA:
Koufax 1.95
Kershaw 2.14

Strikeouts per 9 IP:
Koufax 9.4
Kershaw 9.8

Walks per 9 IP:
Koufax 2.1
Kershaw 1.9

Strikeout to BB ratio:
Koufax 4.57
Kershaw 5.04

WHIP:
Koufax 0.926
Kershaw 0.942

Hits per 9 IP:
Koufax 6.3
Kershaw 6.5

ERA +:
Koufax 167
Kershaw 171

Home runs allowed per 9 IP:
Koufax 0.6
Kershaw 0.5

Their numbers are really, really close, aren't they? They give up about the same number of hits and walks per game, Kershaw strikes out batters slightly more often often. Koufax has a better ERA, but relative to the rest of the league at the time they played, Kershaw's ERA + is slightly better.

The difference in WAR? Koufax pitched at a time when complete games were far more common (100 for him, only 18 for Kershaw). That leads to a huge discrepancy in innings pitched:

Koufax 1,377
Kershaw 1,072.

By the time this season is done, Koufax will still have thrown about 250 more innings, which breaks down to about 50 per year. So, while Koufax was allowed to stay in, and pitch a whole game, Kershaw gets pulled out, and his it is the responsibility of his bullpen to preserve the lead, and ultimately get Kershaw the win. Poor bullpen performance means ultimately fewer wins for the pitcher, affecting the starter's winning percentage, and WAR.

Look at Kershaw's 2013 season. He started 33 games, had a 1.83 ERA (best in the NL), and won only 16 games. Look at some of the dominant starts he had where he didn't get a win:

May 3rd vs San Francisco, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 2-1.
May 8th vs Arizona, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 3-2.
June 10th vs Arizona, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 5-4.
June 15th vs Pittsburgh, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. No decision. Dodgers win 5-3.
July 31st vs New York Yankees, 8 IP, 0 earned runs allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 3-0.
September 8th vs Cincinnati, 7 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. No decision. Dodgers lose 2-3.

6 starts, 43 innings pitched, 6 earned runs allowed. Kershaw had a 1.26 ERA across these six starts, and got nothing to show for it. The Dodgers scored 11 runs. Kershaw, on average, got 1.83 runs support per game. The Dodger bullpen? They gave up 12 runs in 14 innings.

Then there are some of the games he lost:

August 6th vs St. Louis, 6 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. Dodgers lose 5-1.
August 27th vs Chicago Cubs, 7 IP, 1 earned run allowed. Dodgers lose 3-2.
September 13th vs San Francisco, 7 IP, 2 earned runs allowed. Dodgers lose 4-2.

Clayton Kershaw should have won 20 games easily in 2013, if not more. But his bullpen was awful in the games he started, and he didn't get any run support in many of his games.

Compare Kershaw's 2013 season to Sandy Koufax's 1963 season. Koufax won 25 games, and again, Kershaw won 16.

Kershaw had 33 starts. Koufax 40. Kershaw's ERA was 1.83. Koufax's ERA was 1.88.

The Dodgers scored 125 runs, or 3.79 RPG, for Kershaw's 33 starts.
The Dodgers scored 172 runs, or 4.30 RPG, for Koufax's 40 starts.

The Dodgers scored 2 or fewer runs in 17 of Kershaw's 33 starts (51.5%)
The Dodgers scored 2 or fewer runs in 12 of Koufax's 40 starts (30.0%)

What am I driving at? We're becoming conditioned to look at WAR as the be-all, end-all metric for comparing players (not you, specifically, Peter, I'm speaking in the abstract). If we accept this, Sandy Koufax was a much better pitcher than Clayton Kershaw is now. After all, Koufax's best WAR seasons of 1963, 10.7, is much better than Kershaw's best season of 7.8 in 2013, a difference of nearly 3 wins. But the truth is, the discrepancy in their WAR figures can be accounted for by the very fact that Koufax won more, and pitched more games/innings. He also got a half more run support per game, had fewer instances where the offense scored 2 or fewer runs in his starts, and didn't have to suffer at the hands of an inept bullpen. Now, Koufax should have a higher WAR. Yes, starters back in the 1960s did throw more innings per start, and Koufax held his level of excellence through higher pitch counts. But was he better than Clayton Kershaw on an inning by inning basis? No. The numbers do not support this assertion.

The best thing on Baseball-Reference? Kershaw's #1 pitching comp is Babe Ruth. I can see it now:

"Kershaw sold to Yankees for $1.25 Billion, Yanks will move him to outfield full time"

[Kenny Cole]

Leaving aside all the statistical analysis and parsing of numbers, Koufax pitched the first game I can remember ever seeing in person, at Dodger Stadium in 1966. I was 5. He hooked me on baseball and immediately became my hero. Maybe its just the childhood memory, but as far as I am concerned, he was the best.

[Tabe]

Kershaw is the only pitcher to lead the majors in ERA four years in a row. Just throwing that out there.

[packs]

Actually Kershaw is one of two players to lead the league 4 times in a row. Lefty Grove is the second.

By the way, the record is 5 seasons in a row. It is held by a man named Sandy Koufax.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Actually Kershaw is one of two players to lead the league 4 times in a row. Lefty Grove is the second.

By the way, the record is 5 seasons in a row. It is held by a man named Sandy Koufax.

Chris said the majors, not the league.

EDIT TO CORRECT MISTAKE ON OTHER POINT.

[darwinbulldog]

You're both correct. It's also worth noting that it's considerably easier, since the advent of the DH, to lead the majors in ERA if you're in the NL, especially so if you pitch half of your games in Dodger Stadium.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

You're both correct. It's also worth noting that it's considerably easier, since the advent of the DH, to lead the majors in ERA if you're in the NL, especially so if you pitch half of your games in Dodger Stadium.

Absolutely true. Since 1973, the AL Leader has led the majors in ERA just 12 times - or just 28.6% of the time.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Chris said the majors, not the league.

I did indeed. Thanks Peter.

[howard38]

I'm surprised there has been no mention of Robinson Cano. He has the combination of good D, high BA, power and durability at a middle infield position that voters love.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

I am sorry, but the numbers aren't remotely close.

Yes, they are. Actually, they are very, very close.

Your choosing to pick a few stats that favor Koufax don't invalidate at all the myriad of statistics I provided. On an inning by inning basis, they are remarkably similar, almost a dead heat, statistically. I respect your opinion, rats60, but I am going to show that it is not based on actual fact. The only real difference between Koufax and Kershaw is the number of starts Koufax made a year (a product of rotation size), and the number of innings pitched (a product of starts per year, and starting pitcher management in the 1960s). I'll provide statistics on how Clayton Kershaw pitches later in his starts, and that prevailing logic, not any issues with ability or conditioning, cause Kershaw to lag behind in the statistics you listed directly below.

Originally Posted by rats60

This is something we are just going to have to agree to disagree on. Koufax's last 3 full seasons
Games Started
40
41
41
Complete Games
20
27
27
Innings
311
336
323
Shutouts
11
8
5

Again, games started and innings pitched are a product of pitching in a four man rotation versus a five man rotation, and how starting pitchers were handled in the sixties. You start more games, you are going to throw more innings. You pitch more innings, you get more complete games. And when one pitcher throws more complete games than another (both possessing equal abilities), that pitcher is going to have more shutouts. While I absolutely give Koufax credit for finishing off the games himself, there is no evidence whatsoever that Kershaw couldn't do the exact same thing if asked to. The difference is thinking in today's game is what limits Kershaw. Sandy Koufax never had a pitch count. If you could jump in a Delorean, and go back to the 1960s, Walter Aston, if asked about Sandy Koufax's pitch count, would look at you weird, because the term "pitch count" didn't even enter into the baseball lexicon until the 1980s.

By the way, know how many times Clayton Kershaw has been taken out after pitching 7 or more innings, and not allowing a single run since 2011? I checked. While he only has ten shutouts (which is most in the Majors over the last five seasons, by the way. Three more than anybody else.), he's had thirty-five such starts. That means twenty-five times over the last five seasons, an average of five times each year, he's been taken out throwing a shutout with two or fewer innings to pitch.

Originally Posted by rats60

Koufax was able to put up his numbers pitching deap into games.Just because Kershaw doesn't have stamina, look at how he was shelled in the 7th inning his last two playoff games, is no reason to downgrade Koufax.

Yes, he was afforded the opportunity to compile more complete games and shutouts by pitching deep into games. That you are right about. I fail to see how that proves Koufax was better. Everybody pitched more innings back then. Between 1962 and 1966, there were 84 seasons where pitchers threw over 250 innings. Between 2011 and 2016, only one pitcher in all of baseball, Justin Verlander in 2011, exceeded that plateau (251 innings). 25 pitchers from 1962 to 1966 threw 11 or more shutouts. Koufax had 33, Juan Marichal 26, Jim Bunning and Dean Chance had 21.

Originally Posted by rats60

When a pitcher is given more rest, when a pitcher doesn't have to go through a lineup an extra time, when a pitcher doesn't pitch tired, his numbers should be much better.

That sounds real good in theory. Too bad the actual statistics do not back up your assertion.

First of all, you commented when a pitcher is given more rest, they should pitch better.

Hmm....

Clayton Kershaw has started 13 games on 4 days of rest, and 10 games on 5 days of rest in 2015. The stats?

On 4 days of rest: 7-4, 1.78 ERA, 96 IP, 129 Ks, 13 BB, 0.781 WHIP, 12.1 K/9 IP, 9.92 K:BB.
On 5 days of rest: 2-2, 3.22 ERA, 67 IP, 77 Ks, 17 BB, 1.164 WHIP, 10.3 K/9 IP, 4.53 K:BB

Both his shutouts came on starts he threw on 4 days of rest. He is clearly much better on shorter rest in 2015. So, eh, that's one hypothesis that's wrong. Oh, and it was wrong for 2014, as well. Kershaw had 13 starts on 4 days of rest last year, and 11 starts on 5 days rest. On 4 days rest, he was 10-1 with a 1.74 ERA, 11.2 K/9 IP, and 8.71 K:BB. On 5 days rest, he was 9-2 with a 1.81 ERA, 10.5 K/9 IP, and 6.20 K:BB. While the spread isn't as wide, he had better numbers overall, again, on four days of rest. For his career? On 4 days rest, he's got a 2.40 ERA (129 starts). On 5 days rest, he's got a 2.71 ERA (82 starts). So, it's clear....Kershaw pitches better on fewer days of rest.

What about how he does against hitters going deeper into games. You hypothesized that pitchers fatigue as they go later into games, basically, and so their numbers should drop off.

Again....nope.

Let's look at his career numbers here.

Clayton Kershaw, for his career:
When his pitch count is between 1 and 25: opponents have a career .199 batting average, and a slash line of .258 OBP/.301 SLG/.559 OPS (1,426 plate appearances)
When his pitch count is between 26 and 50: opponents have a career .216 batting average, and a slash line of .274 OBP/.315 SLG/.589 OPS (1,506 plate appearances)
When his pitch count is between 51 and 75: opponents have a career .216 batting average, and a slash line of .281 OBP/.316 SLG/.596 OPS (1,499 plate appearances)

Now we are working later into the game, when Clayton Kershaw (according to your theory) should be at a disadvantage, because he is tiring, and opposing hitters have seen him multiple times in that particular start. Kershaw's numbers should worsen. Opposing hitters should get on base more, and hit him harder, because as he tires, his command and velocity should suffer, right?

When his pitch count is between 76 and 100: opponents have a career .200 batting average, and a slash line of .266 OBP/.291 SLG/.557 OPS (1,362 plate appearances)
When his pitch count is 101 or higher: opponents have a career .199 batting average, and a slash line of .268 OBP/.314 SLG/.582 OPS (409 plate appearances).

In plain English, opposing hitters have the same average off of Kershaw in the late innings that they do in the first inning of his starts. It makes no difference what inning he is in. He dominates.

Want to look at it from the perspective of how many times a hitter has seen Kershaw in that game? Okie doke.

In Kershaw's career, in which he has started 237 games, pitching 1,563 innings, facing 6,202 batters...

In a batter's first time seeing Kershaw in a start: hitters have a .187 average, and a slash line of .247 OBP/.278 SLG/.526 OPS (2,109 plate appearances).
In a batter's second time seeing Kershaw: hitters have a .221 average, and a slash line of .284 OBP/.329 SLG/.613 OPS (2,075 plate appearances).
In a batter's third time seeing Kershaw: hitters have a .217 average, and a slash line of .281/.321/.602 OPS (1,728 plate appearances).
In a batter's fourth time seeing Kershaw: hitters have a .208 average, and a slash line of .254 OBP/.270 SLG/.524 OPS (278 plate appearances).

Now, I know what you're going to say. 278 plate appearances isn't anywhere near the 1,700-2,100 plate appearances he's getting the first three times through. True. But are his innings limited because he's ineffective late? No, clearly not. Batters have a lower OPS against Kershaw the fourth time they see him (.524) than they do the first time they see him (.526). If you still want to hold to the "low sample rate", well, look at the difference between opposing batter success the second and third time they see him. You would think that batters would do better against Kershaw the third time through the lineup, but Kershaw performs better-opponent batting average drops from .221 to .271 from the second to third time through the order, and and their OPS drops from .613 to .602. Not huge drops by any means, but the fact that he does better the farther he goes into a game, with substantial gains the fourth time through the lineup, should serve as proof that he's coming out of games because they are wanting to protect his arm, and lengthen his career's length.

The last five years, Kershaw has 152 starts, and has thrown 1,080 innings. He's throwing 7.11 innings per start. Koufax? Well, in his last five years, he threw 1,369 innings in 176 starts, and average of 7.78 innings per start (I went through his game logs for the five seasons, and subtracted the eight innings he pitched in relief.) Koufax averaged 2/3 of an inning pitched more per start more than Kershaw. He got 2 outs more a game than Clayton. Why? Because while Sandy Koufax pitched more complete games, he also got pulled very early more often than Kershaw.

In their last five years, the number of starts where the pitcher failed to make it to the third inning:
Sandy Koufax 9 (14.8%)
Clayton Kershaw 1 (11.8%)

The same metric, but failed to make it to the sixth inning:
Sandy Koufax 16 (9.1%)
Clayton Kershaw 3 (2.0%)

Koufax was a much better pitcher at his peak. It is reflected in the total picture, not cherry picking stats or ratios that favor the pitcher with the light load. It is reflected in the stats you just chose to dismiss like WAR.[/QUOTE]

Who's cherry picking stats? I think I was pretty thorough in my comparison, looking at win-loss record, win percentage, ERA, ERA +, innings pitched, strikeouts, walks, WHIP, K's/9 IP, BB's/9 IP, K:BB ratio, hits and home runs allowed/9 IP. It's common sense that if one player is on the mound 20% more than another, their WAR will be higher, even if their performance is nearly identical. Clayton Kershaw doesn't make the decision to pull himself out. That's the manager's job.

Koufax in his last season earned $125,000. Clayton Kershaw, in 2015, is being paid $32,571,000. Franchises are much more protective of their stars now because of the financial implications. I'm sorry. At his peak, Sandy Koufax was not a "much better pitcher" than Clayton Kershaw. If the statistics from their last five seasons are compared dispassionately, that claim is unsupportable. Now, if you wanted to say that Koufax was better in the post season, I would absolutely agree with that. But not during the regular 162 game season.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not only do today's starters have a lighter load (more rest between starts, PLUS rarely finishing), but they also are rarely pitching under the pressure of the 8th and 9th innings when most games are still on the line. You can't blame Kershaw for being a product of his era, but at the same time you can't take away from Koufax by saying things like his WAR is better only because he had more wins, as if somehow that were unimportant.

Where did I say that Koufax had a higher WAR only because he had more wins. I said that was one component of it. I also said this:

The difference in WAR? Koufax pitched at a time when complete games were far more common (100 for him, only 18 for Kershaw). That leads to a huge discrepancy in innings pitched:

Koufax 1,377
Kershaw 1,072.

The simple answer is that Koufax played more each season, much more. I give him all the credit for finishing those games, but the ball is being taken out of Kershaw's hand a lot of the time when it probably isn't necessary.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It is indeed difficult to compare pitchers from the 4 man rotation, 9 inning era to the 5 man rotation, 7 inning era. I also wonder if a sophisticated analysis would support the switch as an overall proposition.

[the 'stache]

Kershaw is just going off right now.

In his last ten starts:

7-0, 0.90 ERA, 80 IP, 104 K's, 49 hits, 7 walks, 0.700 WHIP, 11.7 K's/9 IP, 14.9 K's per walk. 3 complete games, 2 shutouts.

With his 14th (of 15) strikeout tonight, he became the second left handed pitcher in history to strike out 250 hitters in under 200 innings. He's going for his 4th Cy Young in 5 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kershaw is just going off right now.

In his last ten starts:

7-0, 0.90 ERA, 80 IP, 104 K's, 49 hits, 7 walks, 0.700 WHIP, 11.7 K's/9 IP, 14.9 K's per walk. 3 complete games, 2 shutouts.

With his 14th (of 15) strikeout tonight, he became the second left handed pitcher in history to strike out 250 hitters in under 200 innings. He's going for his 4th Cy Young in 5 years.

Meet me in St. Louis, Louis.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Meet me in St. Louis, Louis.

I'm a Brewers fan. Them be fighting words, Peter

First round is on me.

[Beatles Guy]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kershaw is just going off right now.

In his last ten starts:

7-0, 0.90 ERA, 80 IP, 104 K's, 49 hits, 7 walks, 0.700 WHIP, 11.7 K's/9 IP, 14.9 K's per walk. 3 complete games, 2 shutouts.

With his 14th (of 15) strikeout tonight, he became the second left handed pitcher in history to strike out 250 hitters in under 200 innings. He's going for his 4th Cy Young in 5 years.

As a Cardinals fan, he doesn't scare me in the playoffs. I'd rather face him than Bumgarner. Heck, I'd rather face him than Greinke.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Beatles Guy

As a Cardinals fan, he doesn't scare me in the playoffs. I'd rather face him than Bumgarner. Heck, I'd rather face him than Greinke.

Yeah, no. I watched Greinke start three games in the post season for the Brewers. He gave up 12 earned runs in 16 2/3 IP for us.

Eventually, Kershaw is going to put it together in the post season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Yeah, no. I watched Greinke start three games in the post season for the Brewers. He gave up 12 earned runs in 16 2/3 IP for us.

Eventually, Kershaw is going to put it together in the post season.

Or not. Maddux for all his greatness was 11-14 postseason. His ERA was respectable, and he only got hammered a couple of times, but he was not the same pitcher.

[Mrvintage]

Everyone wants to talk about the struggles Kershaw has had in the postseason. Like many other all-time greats it is only a matter of time before his greatness shows in the playoffs. It used to be the same thing with Peyton Manning and Lebron James.......

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or not. Maddux for all his greatness was 11-14 postseason. His ERA was respectable, and he only got hammered a couple of times, but he was not the same pitcher.

Kershaw has started 8 post season games. He's had three bad starts, and five quality starts (four of which he went at least six innings, and gave up two runs or fewer). In 2013, through his first three starts of the post season, he had a 0.47 ERA with 23 K's in 18 IP. So, he was pitching quite well. Then the Cardinals blew him up.

He's had some real success, but those couple of awful starts skew his overall ERA terribly.

Koufax was simply phenomenal in the post season. He was only 4-3, but his ERA was 0.95, and his WHIP was 0.825 with 9.6 K's/9 IP. That's filthy.

[Mrvintage]

Keep in mind that we keep judging Kershaw against Koufax in this debate. It's not like you have to be as good or better than Koufax to get in the HOF.....LOL

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or Garvey. 6 200 hit seasons, 10 time all star, MVP, 4 gold gloves, 2600 hits. Not even close to making it. So yeah let's not hear about Andruw Jones shall we?

Don't forget his playing in an NL record 1,207 straight games.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Mrvintage

Keep in mind that we keep judging Kershaw against Koufax in this debate. It's not like you have to be as good or better than Koufax to get in the HOF.....LOL

Yeah, Koufax was pretty special and, at his best, was absolutely spectacular. It looked like his curveball dropped two feet. Batters looked stupid. Blyleven threw a great curve, but all in all, I'll go with Koufax.

Kershaw is pretty special too. But he isn't Koufax, at least not yet IMO. And, as mentioned before, Koufax didn't fade in the big games which, as also mentioned before, is currently a fair criticism of Kershaw.