Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

John, good post. As I recall saying to someone years ago who was stat oriented in discussing Kershaw and his post-season woes, we aren't just dealing with APBA cards where players inevitably regress to their mean, we're dealing with people.

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.

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Still somewhat subjective, but I'll bet his catchers would have a worthwhile opinion as to his stuff and location in post-season vs. regular season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Still somewhat subjective, but I'll bet his catchers would have a worthwhile opinion as to his stuff and location in post-season vs. regular season.

But here's the thing. In a number of the games I saw where I felt he wilted under pressure, he was cruising along looking very much like his Cy Young dominant self, then just had a massive meltdown. I recall that twice, I believe, in the 7th inning against the Cardinals. Other games as well. So it's not like he just pitched poorly, it's more that he reached a point where he couldn't handle it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But here's the thing. In a number of the games I saw where I felt he wilted under pressure, he was cruising along looking very much like his Cy Young dominant self, then just had a massive meltdown. I recall that twice, I believe, in the 7th inning against the Cardinals. Other games as well. So it's not like he just pitched poorly, it's more that he reached a point where he couldn't handle it.

I was a pitcher/catcher in college and believe me, a catcher can tell when his pitcher starts to break down mentally, or when he begins to tire. Sometimes hitters hit quality pitches and to the average fan, it looks like the pitcher is losing it when he's actually still sharp. And vice versa.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I was a pitcher/catcher in college and believe me, a catcher can tell when his pitcher starts to break down mentally, or when he begins to tire. Sometimes hitters hit quality pitches and to the average fan, it looks like the pitcher is losing it when he's actually still sharp. And vice versa.

Clayton is such a good guy that I imagine anyone who ever caught him, played with him, or managed him would never say anything against him. So we may never know. It would be a shame if his legacy is more about his post-season than about his dominant regular seasons.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But here's the thing. In a number of the games I saw where I felt he wilted under pressure, he was cruising along looking very much like his Cy Young dominant self, then just had a massive meltdown. I recall that twice, I believe, in the 7th inning against the Cardinals. Other games as well. So it's not like he just pitched poorly, it's more that he reached a point where he couldn't handle it.

Or quite possibly, his manager managed him differently in the post season than in the regular season. We certainly see managers, especially today, manage their pitching staffs differently in the post season than in the regular season - because they are managing for five or seven games, not 162.
I can imagine that when you have a pitcher as dominant in the regular season as Kershaw, if he gets in a tight spot in the post-season, there may be a temptation to leave him in a bit longer and let him work through it. Not all pitchers, but one that got you this far. A manager/pitching coach looks down at the bullpen and asks himself - 'Who do I have that is better than Kershaw at this point?' Dance with who brung ya. If I'm a manager, I want my best pitchers throwing more innings in any postseason series.
I too had noticed the same thing with Clayton - great start to a game and then one bad inning. If it was the regular season, maybe he would have been pulled instead of staying out on the mound.