Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The point about Kershaw in the playoffs and sample sizes seems to be often misunderstood by both the people making the argument and those arguing against it.

It's not that we can say with confidence that his postseason performance being sub par is just bad luck and small sample sizes. The problem is that we can't say that it isn't. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts in statistics. When I was in grad school, I tutored a lot of other students and this was something that many of them struggled with. The difference between "it's just luck" and "this is entirely explainable by luck" is important, and they're not the same thing. In the case of Kershaw, we simply don't have enough data to know either way (and will likely never have it). He very well could just be someone who folds under pressure, or he could just be getting unlucky. It could also be a bit of both. My guess is that he got unlucky at first, but then allowed that to get to his head because the narrative surrounding him was that he choked under pressure, and now he felt even more pressure to perform, but fell short mentally. But I don't know. That's just speculation. The statistical explanation should be that it is explainable by bad luck, but that we don't have enough data to know if that is indeed the case. I know, it's not helpful. But agnosticism in the absence of sufficient evidence should always be the default.

The problem I have is when people want to make claims like they know he chokes under pressure. Sure, it's possible, but then again, he also might not.

I understand what you're saying, but just looking at it statistically doesn't account for observations like body language, facial expression, very similar patterns of wilting (getting shelled all at once in a fateful inning), and so forth. In my view, sometimes anyhow, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Could I "prove" it objectively? No, probably not.