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?:D

More to the point, how does one accumulate 20,000 autographed cards?

It's not as hard as you think.

How anyone that watches baseball questions Clayton Kershaw being a HOF player is beyond me.

For the simple reason that it's too early in his career. Doc Gooden started off 119-53. Kershaw is 108-55.

He certainly seems headed that way, but to Peter's point so did Gooden. Clayton doesn't seem to have the demons that Dwight did. If his career ended today - he would not get in, hence I don't regard him as a lock.

And if he went 90-95 for the rest of his career averaging 9 wins a season I'm not sure he would get in either. He's quite obviously on track, but he has to keep going.

As another example, Denny Mclain. 114-57 at age 25. And then....

How to accumulate so many signed cards. Get spring training rosters for majors and minors and try to buy at least 4-5 cards of each guy or as many as available as well as all minor league team sets for that team for the previous years. Spend 3 weeks at mlb spring training and another 2 at minor league getting aautographs from 6am-6pm 7 days a week. Average day is 100-200 different signed cards. Do it for 10 years. You may end up with 30 or more signed cards (all different) of some guys that are willing signers- so for instance Josh Hamilton would gladly sign 6-8 cards at a time. get different ones each year and pretty soon you have 4--50 of him especially with all the variations- chrome, regular, etc. Go to minor league spring training that has 200 players armed with 1-3 cards of most of them.. Be a perfectionist/hoarder. Some folks have 100,000 signed and then the dealers who get many of the same card signed at a time to sell on ebay may have up to 500,000 signed in their inventory especially getting guys in their first minor league season when they gladly sign everything everyone has.

I was about to come here and post the exact same thing. Literally. That's spooky.

Two of the most under-appreciated hitters in the game today. I picked Votto back up on my fantasy team two weeks ago, and he's exploded. He's an on base machine. Got 3 more walks last night, up to 106 for the season. Hitting .309 with a .446 OBP and a .956 OPS. He's a former MVP winner, 4 time All Star, and a former Gold Glove winner.

Braun's slowly coming back to where he was before the thumb injury. He's been hitting the ball really hard as of late (.333 in August with a .955 OPS), and as his BAbip continues to correct, he'll get closer to .300 again for the season.) He's won an MVP, finished 2nd and 3rd other times, has been an All Star six times, and has five Silver Sluggers.

Both are 31. They'll need about 5 more years of strong production before they should start consider warranting real consideration. Their career numbers thus far are excellent.

http://imageshack.com/a/img910/8683/Kr63vF.jpg

Their Hall of Fame metrics are intriguing as well.

Braun's

http://imageshack.com/a/img912/1935/8mJf2C.jpg

..and Votto's

http://imageshack.com/a/img673/6643/xC3BI0.jpg

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.

They have no problem adjusting to him by the 7th inning of playoff games.:D

Dwight Gooden had only one truly dominant season. He was outstanding as a rookie, don't get me wrong, but his ERA + was only a 137. He was 17-9 with a 2.60 ERA and 276 K's. He led the NL in K's, K/9 IP and WHIP. His second season was one for the ages, obviously. 24-4 with a 1.53 ERA, 268 K's. He led the NL in wins, ERA, K's, innings pitched, and complete games (16). He also had 8 shutouts en route to a 229 ERA +.

Clayton Kershaw has been the dominant pitcher in the NL, and baseball, for five season straight. And you could make the case it's really been six. In 2010, he was only 13-10, but had a 2.91 ERA and 202 K's as a 22 year old. His 133 ERA + was only 4 points off of Gooden's rookie season, which everybody went gaga over. When I show you his Hall of Fame metrics, Peter, he's already crossed some of those Hall thresholds, and he's only 27.

He has led the National League in:

Wins: twice, 2011 (21), and 2014 (21)
ERA: four times, 2011 (2.28), 2012 (2.53), 2013 (1.83), and 2014 (1.77).
Strikeouts: two times, 2011 (248), 2013 (232). He leads the NL with 222 in 117 IP this year.
WHIP: four times, 2011 (0.977), 2012 (1.023), 2013 (0.915), 2014 (0.857).
Hits per 9 IP: three times, 2009 (6.3), 2011 (6.7), 2012 (6.7).

He's won three Cy Young Awards, an MVP, and a Gold Glove. Going back to 2010, 183 starts, he's 95-42 with a 2.26 ERA with 1,382 K's in 1,276 IP.

And his control is improving, if you can believe that. He struck out 10.8 per 9 IP (best in the NL) last year, while walking only 32 batters, a league-best 7.71 K's per walk. This year he has 222 K's against 32 walks, a 6.91 K per walk ratio.

To put his greatness in perspective, since 1901, of all Major League pitchers with at least 1,500 innings pitched in their first eight seasons (there are 250 of them), only four--Walter Johnson, Mordecai Brown, and Lefty Grove--had a better ERA + than Kershaw's 153. Of those 250 pitchers, only Tom Seaver, Bert Blyleven and Johnson struck out more batters than Kershaw (and they had 2,167, 2,143 and 2,442 innings pitched compared to Kershaw's 1,555!) His strikeouts per 9 IP average of 9.6 is the third highest in baseball history behind Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez (just ahead of Nolan Ryan). And, it's rising. He's striking out 11.3/9 IP this year.

I absolutely agree it's too early in his career to call him a Hall of Famer. We don't know what goes on in his private life, but I don't see him going the direction of Gooden or McClain. If he stays healthy, he'll have a few more dominant seasons comparable to what he's had the last five...really six, if you look at some of the metrics. Figure that he's going to have 150 wins, and about 2,200 strikeouts by age 30. Considering how great he's been, it's downright criminal he's not won more. 10 wins this year? 14 in 2012? 16 in 2013 (with a 1.83 ERA across 33 starts)?

By the way, here are his Hall of Fame metrics. Pretty eye popping.

http://imageshack.com/a/img661/6599/LNqCo8.jpg

Yeah two years in a row now, right?

I absolutely agree, I think it's highly likely he continues on course and he certainly seems to be stable personally. My only point has been that sh*t happens and that things can fall apart for guys who look like locks.

Kershaw's 45.2 WAR through his first eight season is the 15th highest by any pitcher going back to 1901. Figure he has 7 or 8 more starts this season based on games remaining, and the Dodger rotation. He has a 5.5 WAR through 23 starts, so, if his production is constant, figure another 1.8-2.0 WAR this season. That puts him right behind Christy Mathewson's 47.7 WAR through his first eight seasons for thirteenth-best ever. Now, it's hard to compare different eras, and I'm certainly not equating Kershaw to Mathewson--because I want to see how Kershaw's career finishes before I even think of putting him anywhere near arguably the best pitcher to ever play the game (Matty is on my short list of five-Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Greg Maddux being three of the other four for sure. Then I look at a group including Roger Clemens, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller, Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Warren Spahn, and Grover Cleveland Alexander)....as you alluded to, Peter, I also need to see Kershaw bring some of that dominance to the post season, because, quick glance, all of those other names I mentioned won at least one World Series in their careers (if it was played). If Walter Johnson could win one on that horrible Senators team, then Kershaw has no excuses. If he can't win at least one ring on a team that spends $250 million a year on payroll, and has another ace in Zack Greinke, my opinion of him will dip.

BUT, I can compare their careers to this point, and I feel pretty safe in saying we're witnessing one of the all-time greats right now. I don't see Kershaw having a Dwight Gooden or Denny McClain downfall. I hope that he doesn't have an essentially career-ending injury, like a J.R. Richard, or Herb Score. What happens going forward we'll find out in time. But Kershaw has been absolutely dominant.

And this little beauty rests in my safe deposit box, going up in value: :p

http://net54baseball.com/picture.php...ictureid=15139

Ain't that the truth, unfortunately?

I've always wondered what would have happened to the Houston Astros if J.R. Richard hadn't had that blood clot. How great could their starters have been in 1981? The Braves rotation of the early to late 90s is often mentioned as the best in the modern era-in 1993 they had Tom Glavine (22-6), Greg Maddux (20-10), Steve Avery (18-6), and John Smoltz (15-11), and in 1998 they had Glavine (20-6), Maddux (18-9), Smoltz (17-3), Kevin Milwood (17-8) and Denny Neagle (16-11). Of course, the 1971 Baltimore Orioles had four 20 game winners in Dave McNally (21-5), Pat Dobson (20-8), Mike Cuellar (20-9) and Hall of Famer Jim Palmer (20-9).

But look at what the Astros could have put out there in the mid 80s.

In 1980, J.R. Richard started 17 games before collapsing during a pre game warm up. That stroke ended his career. He'd been 10-4 with a 1.90 ERA, 119 K's in 113 IP, and a 174 ERA +. His WHIP was a career-best 0.924. He'd gone 36-24 with a 2.90 ERA and 616 K's the prior two seasons. He was clearly one of the most dominant pitchers in the game, and was only 30. And, to that point, he'd only pitched 1,600 career innings. He hadn't worked over 100 innings in a season until 1975, when he first went over 200 IP. The Astros also still had Nolan Ryan, who would have a spectacular 1981 strike-shortened season. He was 11-5 with a league-leading 1.69 ERA, 140 K's in 149 IP, and an amazing 2 home runs allowed. His ERA + was a whopping 195, the best of his Hall of Fame career. The Astros also had Joe Niekro, who was 4th in the National League Cy Young Award for the 1980 season. He was 20-12 with a 3.55 ERA, and 127 K's. In 1981, he was only 9-9, but he had a 2.82 ERA, and a 1.187 WHIP, which is very good. In 1982, he would go 17-12 with a 2.47 ERA, and a 1.067 WHIP. Niekro would remain in Houston until late 1985, when he went to the Yankees.

But what if Richard's career had continued? The Astros would feature Richard, Ryan, Niekro...and in 1983, they would be joined by Mike Scott. Scott, of course, won the Cy Young in 1986 for the Astros, going 18-10 with a 2.22 ERA, and 306 K's. Nolan Ryan, the ageless wonder, was still a great pitcher. In 1986, he struck out 194 batters. The next four seasons, he would lead the league in K's, with 270 and 228 in 1987 and 1988 with the Astros, and 301 and 232 in 1989 and 1990 with the Rangers. In 1986, the Astros would have featured three pitchers who'd thrown over 300 strike outs in a season as their top 3, Bob Knepper, who won 17 games in 1986 as their #4, and Jim Deshaies as their #5. Deshaies went 12-5 with a 3.25 ERA that year.

The Astros went 96-66 in 1986 without Richard. The Astros lost to the eventual World Champions, the New York Mets, in the NLCS. The Mets won 108 games that year. Could Richard have made the difference?

breaks my heart to this day that the 'Stros lost in '86 to the Mets...That was an AWESOME series (from the perspective of an impressionable 9-year old)!

As stated elsewhere, what pitchers do best is get hurt or lose their fastballs, most often right after someone signs them to a very large contract. We have no idea if Kershaw is going to turn out any better than say, Justin Verlander, who pitched himself into the Hall in his 20's and thus far (with the exception of 7 of his last 8 starts--it appears that he is learning the importance of command with his fastball, a better slider to get righties out with,, and generally how to pitch, rather than just be a power thrower, something he's never had to do before this), out of it in his 30's. See in this vein also Sudden Sam McDowell, who was virtually unhitable for a large portion of the '60's, as well as Gooden, who was all the rage in the collecting circles of the '80's and even into the very early '90's.
Let us also not forget Kerry Wood, who before hurting himself, was about as dominant as they come. On the other hand, some guys just enjoy shooting craps!

Great discussion,

Larry

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

TESTIFY Ben !!!!!!!!!!! TESTIFY !!!!!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

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

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Since this is a baseball card forum...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"
:D

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.

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

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.

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.

I did indeed. Thanks Peter.

Cano
 

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.


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 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.

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.

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.

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

First round is on me. :p

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.

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.

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.......

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.

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

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

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.