baseball playoffs

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is 100% wrong. pitcher wins mean doodley squat. You are basically arguing that a pitcher goes 0-6 in the playoffs with a 1.12 ERA and a 1.50 FIP was worse than a guy who goes 4-2 with a 6/70 era and a 7.05 FIP.

Why should the pitcher get credit for how good his offense performed?

I agree that Ws dont matter at all statisticlaly but we all know how history looks back at games. If Kershaws teams won every one of his past starts, noone would be saying how bad he was in the postseaon if he was 9-0. .

ERA isnt the sole indicator either or really important at all if your team wins every game. If your team scores 9 runs in the first inning, nobody cares if you then give up 5 runs in 7 innings which would lead to a brutal ERA but would give you the W. I do not think you would blame a pitcher for giving up 5 runs in that situation.

Like i said, if Manning lost the superbowl last year, we would be hearing a lot more of his legacy being tarnished. However his team bailed him out and it does matter when you look back at his career 20 years from now.

Just at it would matter for Kershaw if he won all of his postseason games but had an era of 6.00

What was Manning's QBR for the superbowl, does it matter since he won (even though it was a team win) They will still say has 2 'rings'.

In addition, Curry wasnt great for his lone Golden State Championship but his team got the 'W'. Wins matter even if you arent the one that was the main contributer and were supposed to be is all i am saying

Again, to keep on topic, i dont see Kershaw hurting his post season image this year with his team winning both of his starts..

[bravos4evr]

welll... quarterbacks are like presidents they get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. I think it's an unfair comparison to make (qb vs pitcher I mean)


The thing is, if my team put up 9 runs early I would expect my pitcher to throw strikes and get outs rather than give up 5 runs. and if he did I wouldn't say he had a good outing because the team won, I would say the offense carried the day despite a lousy performance.

History tends tends to be written by sports writers, and they are moving towards a metric way of thinking so eventually some of these antiquated narratives will be replaced with more modern thinking ones and all will be well. stats don't lie, and true it is a small sample size, but Kershaw has had some issues in the postseason. IDK if it is nerves or opposing teams are less prone to take pitches and swing away earlier or what, but he needs to make some adjustments to his strategy apparently.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

welll... quarterbacks are like presidents they get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. I think it's an unfair comparison to make (qb vs pitcher I mean)


The thing is, if my team put up 9 runs early I would expect my pitcher to throw strikes and get outs rather than give up 5 runs. and if he did I wouldn't say he had a good outing because the team won, I would say the offense carried the day despite a lousy performance.

History tends tends to be written by sports writers, and they are moving towards a metric way of thinking so eventually some of these antiquated narratives will be replaced with more modern thinking ones and all will be well. stats don't lie, and true it is a small sample size, but Kershaw has had some issues in the postseason. IDK if it is nerves or opposing teams are less prone to take pitches and swing away earlier or what, but he needs to make some adjustments to his strategy apparently.

I agree with most of what you said actually.

The only thing is for me is i do think a pitcher did his job if his team scores 9 runs for him if he gives up 5 runs..

things happen in a 9 run lead...you have a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs you dont care if he scores. You also would rather have a guy hit a homer out the park then walk him when one guy is on base. It could be argued that a pitcher trying to keep his era in the 1.00-2.00 range in a 9-0 game may risk giving up a HUGE inning if he doesnt take the sure outs.

Even if its only a 1% chance that you give up 10 runs, i wouldnt risk it. Id rather give up 5 runs for certain and nothing more if up 9 runs than have a 1 percent chance to give up 10 runs with the attempt of keeping my ERA down to the 1-2 range


I know i am focusing on extreme outliers. i just trying to help out the pitchers that focus on the team wins then their era in all of the samples in between.

If Dodgers end up winning game 5 Kershaw could conceivably be top 5 guy for MVP of the series (would go to Janson.Turner )...thats not exactly terrible

[bravos4evr]

you have a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs you dont care if he scores. You also would rather have a guy hit a homer out the park then walk him when one guy is on base. It could be argued that a pitcher trying to keep his era in the 1.00-2.00 range in a 9-0 game may risk giving up a HUGE inning if he doesnt take the sure outs.

true you might not be too concerned if he scores, but it would be much better if he didn't. and no, I would not rather a batter hit a bomb than walk, the odds of scoring on first with no outs isn't all that high, the odds of scoring with a HR are 100%!


sure a pitcher can "skate by" giving up 5 runs, but I wouldn't feel to confident about his next playoff start. I want pitchers to dominate and keep runs off the board if it's 10-0 or 1-1.

[chaddurbin]

feels like the last few posts could be jack morris' argument for his hall of fame candidacy...which i'm not a fan of.

as for kershaw, i'm about as close to the situation as possible living in socal. there are many reasons why he's not as dominant as REGULAR SEASON KERSHAW...sure there could be some physiological or mental hurdle, but it could also be the SSS, leaky bullpen, short rest, him being so great he has a longer leash where lesser pitchers wouln't repeatedly turn over a lineup a 3rd time on 3 days rest etc.

i don't remember him being hit hard much, just some weird 7th innings haven't looked at his number closely but his OPS-against in the playoffs shouldn't be a big jump off from his regular season. the start in washington to open the series was the first time i could remember seeing him labor in forever and thinking this is not peak kershaw.

as is we're all hands on deck today...i still feel urias should've started game 4 at home and have a fresh kershaw for game 5 today in washington...but maybe the FO is thinking ahead if they can get by wash to have kershaw pitch 2-3x vs the cubs.

Really rooting for a Cubs v. Indians series. 176 years of combined futility (Cubs last World Series win 1908, Indians 1948) . Not likely to see that again in our lifetime, unless you live to be a 177 year old Mariners fan

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

feels like the last few posts could be jack morris' argument for his hall of fame candidacy...which i'm not a fan of.

as for kershaw, i'm about as close to the situation as possible living in socal. there are many reasons why he's not as dominant as REGULAR SEASON KERSHAW...sure there could be some physiological or mental hurdle, but it could also be the SSS, leaky bullpen, short rest, him being so great he has a longer leash where lesser pitchers wouln't repeatedly turn over a lineup a 3rd time on 3 days rest etc.

i don't remember him being hit hard much, just some weird 7th innings haven't looked at his number closely but his OPS-against in the playoffs shouldn't be a big jump off from his regular season. the start in washington to open the series was the first time i could remember seeing him labor in forever and thinking this is not peak kershaw.

as is we're all hands on deck today...i still feel urias should've started game 4 at home and have a fresh kershaw for game 5 today in washington...but maybe the FO is thinking ahead if they can get by wash to have kershaw pitch 2-3x vs the cubs.

Can you imagine the sh*t the manager and front office would have taken if they held Kershaw out of game 4 and were eliminated? I am sure nobody was thinking ahead, they were facing an elimination game and did what all teams would do, go with their best pitcher on short rest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OPS .564 regular season .658 post season.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you imagine the sh*t the manager and front office would have taken if they held Kershaw out of game 4 and were eliminated? I am sure nobody was thinking ahead, they were facing an elimination game and did what all teams would do, go with their best pitcher on short rest.

well, sure, but the thing is they had to win two games to make the next rd and the argument is will a regular rest Urias in 4 and Kershaw in game 5 be better than a short rest kershaw in game 4 and a short rest Hill in game 5?

an argument can be made that the former was the better option.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you imagine the sh*t the manager and front office would have taken if they held Kershaw out of game 4 and were eliminated? I am sure nobody was thinking ahead, they were facing an elimination game and did what all teams would do, go with their best pitcher on short rest.

Exactly. If Urias pitches game 4 there would not have been a game 5. Kershaw was their only hope and a gamble at that given his postseason history. The team itself is not the same in postseason but aside from a great strike out to walk ratio Kershaw is absolutely not the same dominant pitcher that he is during the regular season.

I like Rich Hill tonight if the Dodgers can give him a few runs.