Clayton Kershaw

[bravos4evr]

I suspect he will end up with a Pedro like career, this huge peak and a swift decline. Back injuries tend to linger and shorten careers.

Pedro had a great peak, but he isn't a top 10 pitcher because of longevity. You can't give guys credit for innings they never pitched.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I suspect he will end up with a Pedro like career, this huge peak and a swift decline. Back injuries tend to linger and shorten careers.

Pedro had a great peak, but he isn't a top 10 pitcher because of longevity. You can't give guys credit for innings they never pitched.

Truth be told, I have always worried about his windup...and Alex Wood's is very similar.

Herky-Jerky windup like theirs' always put extra stress on the back.

Sad to see...but I'm still hopeful for him to return.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yes, Kershaw indeed does have an odd pitching motion, herky jerky. I hope him the best and would love to see him strut his stuff a bunch more years, but???

I remember watching Bert Blyleven when he was with the Angels. The most smooth and fluid pitching motion I ever saw - pure grace.

[Topnotchsy]

(Responding to a number of comments)

Kershaw has been very durable to this point, and he's a much bigger person than Pedro so I don't think there's a strong reason to assume he'll break down the same way.

Regarding Pedro's ranking though, I do believe (and think I am far from alone) that he had arguably the most dominant peak of any pitcher ever and despite his relatively short career is a top 5-7 pitcher of all-time.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

(Responding to a number of comments)

Kershaw has been very durable to this point, and he's a much bigger person than Pedro so I don't think there's a strong reason to assume he'll break down the same way.

Regarding Pedro's ranking though, I do believe (and think I am far from alone) that he had arguably the most dominant peak of any pitcher ever and despite his relatively short career is a top 5-7 pitcher of all-time.

Back injuries can linger though. So much energy transitions through the back that as a pitcher he may have to either dial back the velocity or get used to the cortizone shots.

As far as Pedro is concerned, I have a tough time putting a guy in the top 10 all time when he doesn't have 3000 innings pitched in the big leagues. Sure his 7 year peak was epic, but for guys like Clemens (pre roids) Maddux, WJ, Young, Ryan, Big Unit...etc who threw 5000+ innings and kept a very high level of production for 15+ years they are at another level.

Pedro was a shadow of himself at 34 and done by 36 (tho he lingered for two bad seasons )

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Yes, Kershaw indeed does have an odd pitching motion, herky jerky. I hope him the best and would love to see him strut his stuff a bunch more years, but???

I remember watching Bert Blyleven when he was with the Angels. The most smooth and fluid pitching motion I ever saw - pure grace.

Cliff Lee and, in an earlier time, Floyd Bannister were joys to watch...like a ballet!

Shortly after he was drafted, Bannister pitched just a couple of games here with the Columbus Astros and he was fun to watch.

The danger with a smooth, very repeatable windup is, without great off speed pitches, it is far easier to time.

[bravos4evr]

Here's a question:


If Kershaw never comes back from his back issues is he a HOF'er? (I would say no, but only because of less than 2000 innings bugs me, tho I can see the Koufax argument being made)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Here's a question:


If Kershaw never comes back from his back issues is he a HOF'er? (I would say no, but only because of less than 2000 innings bugs me, tho I can see the Koufax argument being made)

If he retires now, no. He has only pitched 9 years. If he tries to pitch next year and does poorly, I think he does.

[the 'stache]

If he retires now, he's absolutely a Hall of Famer.

We're giving far too much credit to guys who had long careers. Longevity should be a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as dominance. Clayton Kershaw has been, hands down, the best pitcher in the game the last six seasons. And he was pretty darned good the two before that amazing six year run. And, like Koufax, he had inarguably his best season at the end. If this is it for Kershaw (it won't be), he's one of the greatest to ever play his position. That he dominated at a ridiculous level as a left handed pitcher only adds to his stature.

He was a rookie at 20, and had a 4.29 ERA. In the eight seasons since, he's never had an ERA above 3.00. He's led the league in ERA five of the last six seasons, and the one he didn't lead, his ERA was 2.13. How good has he really been? Through the history of baseball (with complete statistics going back to 1901, so 115 years of the sport), only two pitchers have been more dominant through their first nine seasons (1,000 innings pitched, minimum): Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez.

Career ERA + through nine seasons:

Walter Johnson 176
Pedro Martinez 168
Clayton Kershaw 158

Then, let's look at FIP. Again, FIP (fielding independent pitching) measures only the things a pitcher can control: home runs surrendered, hit batsmen, walks, and strikeouts. Through nine seasons, Clayton Kershaw ranks 32nd of all starting pitchers in FIP (again, 1,000 innings pitched, minimum).

But here's the caveat. All thirty-one pitchers on the list ahead of Kershaw played in the dead ball era, when home runs were rare. They should have a lower FIP metric than Kershaw because the game was different. This means that, when considering only things a pitcher can control, eliminating things like wins, runs allowed, hits allowed, etc, all of which the team behind the starter can heavily influence, Clayton Kershaw is the best starting pitcher of the modern era. Not top ten. Not top five. Number one.

2,000 innings pitched, or 3,000 innings pitched is some arbitrary number picked out at random because people like nice ever numbers. 3,000 hits. 3,000 strike outs. 500 home runs. As if Frank Robinson would be judged differently if he'd somehow managed 57 more hits to reach 3,000, or Fred McGriff would suddenly be a Hall of Famer if he'd hit 7 more home runs. Clayton Kershaw has thrown 1,732 innings in the Major Leagues, more than enough time to demonstrate how he throws the ball, and more than enough time for Major League hitters to adjust, if they could, and improve their fortunes against him. Nine years into his career, not only have they not figured him out, but Kershaw is getting better. In the past six seasons, he's won an MVP, three Cy Young Awards, and he's finished second and third in the voting once each. If the season ended today, he'd be a unanimous Cy Young winner for 2016.

Look at his past three seasons, and how spectacular his numbers are. 48-12 (an .800 winning percentage), 1.92 ERA, 552 IP, 13 CG, 8 SHO, 685 K, 82 BB, 190 ERA +, 1.85 FIP, 0.839 WHIP, 11.2 K/9 IP, 1.3 BB/9 IP, 8.35 K:BB.

Look at his Hall of Fame metrics:

Black ink: 65 (16th all-time), average HoF 40
Gray ink: 154 (92nd all-time), average HoF 185
Hall of Fame Monitor: 123 (64th all-time), average HoF 100
Hall of Fame Standards: 46 (48th all-time), average HoF 50

He's already met the Black Ink and Hall of Fame Monitor metrics in nine seasons. He's 4 points off the Hall of Fame Standards, and 31 points off of Gray Ink. All in, being accurate, 8.5 seasons as a starter.

I don't see an argument that could be made keeping Kershaw out of the Hall of Fame. He's simply one of the most dominant starters the game has ever seen. If the Hall of Fame rewards true excellence, how can he be kept out?