I tend to think SSS is largely at play here with a bit of bad luck on BABIP and perhaps a little more aggressive approach by batter's faced in the playoffs.

career (regular season)

K/9: 9.81 BB/9: 2.44 HR/FB: 7.0% BABIP: .271 ERA: 2.37 FIP:2.55


career (playoffs)

K/9: 11.20 BB/9: 3.07 HR/FB: 10.7% BABIP: .311 ERA: 4.83 FIP: 3.04




this tells me that he's getting a little bit unlucky on balls in play(either by placement or bad defensive range behind him) and plays a little more to league avg in HR/FB as his K's go up as do walks, but not so much as to be a problem really.

If he were to have say 60 more playoff games I would expect to see his era and fip closer toward his regular season avg.

A team facing elimination in game 4 is, rightly, focused not on the best chance to win two but the best chance to stay alive and worry about game 5 if they get that luxury. You don't start a 19 year old with 5 lifetime wins in an elimination playoff game, IMO, not when you have an elite HOF pitcher available even if he is on short rest.

this isn't entirely true tho (tho this is the way most people would view it)

a loss in game 4 or game 5 equals the same result, no advancement in the playoffs. true one must win game 4 to reach game 5, but the numbers of a 3 days rest Kershaw and Hill are not better than the numbers of a full rest Urias and Kershaw. (not to mention that in this age of bullpen specialization, Urias really only needs to go 4 or 5 to provide good value. ) It's tough to get past must win two vs must win one, but in some cases (like the most recent one) it was probably the correct call to save Kershaw for game 5. regardless of the result of game 4

I tend to think decisions should be made based on giving a team the highest % chance of a favorable result and not on whether or no the fanbase or media is going to get angry if the end result is not what they had hoped.


Dave Cameron of Fangraphs and ESPN presents a pretty good argument here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-d...t-julio-urias/

Urias is a 19 year old kid with five wins to his name. No way, no how. Forget all this fangraphs stuff, use some common sense. :)

Yea basically you need 2wins, the better % would have Kershaw starting game 5, hill/urias in front of a hostile crowd seems like another disadvantage on top of starting Kershaw game 4. I'm sure the front office know all this so they're taking a short-term hit in case they get thru.

If you don't win the first game, your odds of winning the second game are zero. The immediate issue is not maximizing your chances of winning two, it's maximizing your chances of winning one and getting to the final game. This seems obvious.

looking with hindsight that the dodgers won...but starting kershaw on 3 day rest over urias (who is a very capable pitcher and even better at home) was a marginal upgrade. i felt urias could've held his own against gio gonzalez and at worse was 50/50. with a tired kershaw dodgers are 55% to win? scherzer over a short-rest hill is a big advantage...whereas with a fully-rested kershaw on the road for game 5 you could make the case kershaw might have the advantage like game 1.

but whatever it's done with i'm not going to belabor the point.

Well Kershaw got the save tonight on one game rest

if Kershaw gives up a double then Janson gets the Loss with 2 earned runs and Janson's era goes through the roof even though he was terrific.

inherited runners scoring matters in a short sample size..

Kerhaw now has more post season saves than koufax


There was a graphic in the 9th inning when kershaw entered the game saying Kerhaw had 19ks in 11 innings or something to that effect and that the Dodgers won BOTH of his starts..(zero mention of his era)

so now his team won both of his starts and he gets a key save retiring Murphy and this year so far is supposed to support his bad history of the postseason? Yeah right, this year his postseason has not tarnished his legacy at all.

on to the next round.....and who cares about using kershaw/janson for 2 plus inning and the impact in game 1 versus cubs...if the dodgers dont win game 5 then season is over anyway

Longest 9 inning nlds game ever. I'm exhausted. Go Doyers!

Los Doyers!
 

So exhausted too but now I can't sleep. Watch out Cubbies...:eek:

I agree with this fully. Sure it's less than ideal to make compromises for a potential game 5, but when facing elimination you have to put all focus on the next game, plain and simple.

I think metrics also tend to ignore human considerations, and these guys are all very human. I remember a 19-20 year old Rick Ankiel being thrust into the post season spot light as a rookie, throwing 4-5 wild pitches and never recovering as a pitcher. Some guys can handle it (Bumgarner went 8 shutout innings in the WS his rookie year at age 20), some guys maybe need a little more seasoning. All of that (and more) and the numbers factor into these guys' decisions.

(NOTE: typed the above hours ago then lost internet on a plane... just finished game. Wow. Even as a Giants fan, I must say that was a manly showing by Kershaw)

I do think Peter will now agree with just 2 out being made in the 5th game and now looking at Kershaw's performance as a whole, (dodgers won both of his starts, and gets huge save with 1 day rest) that THIS years postseason at the current time for kershaw is not a huge black mark on his career nor is it continuing to be for THIS year....thus far..

I am glad he got the save and he did it with authority. Hopefully it will be a turning point for him. I still don't think he pitched anywhere near to his ability in the two prior games.

right but not a black mark either. I think you made your post a little premature. All the newspapers talk about 'Kershaw saving the Dodgers' I really dont think people will care about what his ERA was for this series and again since the Dodgers won his starts, thats why there was a game 5. Getting Ws matter more than ERA when you look back at history. Kershaw could of lost game 1 and 4 and given up just 2 runs in both games and had a 2.00+ era but thats not as good as he looks right now..


Need to let the postseason play out.

Gutsy move with Jansen... outside the box worked well for Roberts

getting 2 outs may seem mundane, but twitter reactions to kershaw from some of the best baseball writers like law cameron keri olney passan lindberg etc. etc. they knew the bad playoff kershaw was a B.S. narrative.

personally i'm not sure the 2 outs changed anything one way or another, but it got us thru to the next round and anything could happen...cubs huge favs tho fully rested and all-around just a far superior team in all facets.

well it was 2 outs with the arguably the best hitter at the plate with 2 runners on in a 1 run game where dodgers were desperate to hold on, we all saw what the lesser pitchers for the Dodgers were doing and the crowd was pumped for the home team Nats...

there were a ton of blown saves in the playoffs thus far with far more breathing room..

Metrics do not ignore "the human side" any more than batting avg, era or RBI's do. It's just a better, more accurate representation of statistics than the old baseball card stats. That's it. They are just stats. And just because something gives you a better chance at winning doesn't mean the results will pan out, but I would always prefer to increase my overall % rather than decrease it if given the opportunity (which is why I loathe so many mgrs who manage with their "gut" instead of data)

to be honest,the majority of baseball writers are still stuck in the 19th century and write for the mass audience who isn't very smart about the game.

getting two outs just isn't that big of a deal. (which is why closer is the most overrated and overpaid job in baseball)

Ask the San Franciso Giants!..

but i did post a long time ago that closers shouldnt be in the same hall of fame as starting pitchers.....kershaw can get saves, but lets see a closer pitch 5-6 scoreless in an elimination game.... so i agree with you about the overrated issue

they are relievers because they couldn't cut it as starters...turning over a lineup 3x consistently is way harder than facing some random 6-7-8...that is why zach britton can't be a CY YOUNG candidate to me.

just found this article today talking about kershaw's playoffs clutchness and how he's a victim of being CLAYTON KERSHAW (spoiler: he's clutch)

https://theringer.com/clayton-kersha...610#.28z8dbf8r

you can cherry pick anything to try and prove a point, but the evidence is that every year a handful of guys become closers, save 30+ and then disappear again. Good relievers are good and can close, or pitch whenever,bad relievers can have good years but eventually become bad again. I think too often people have confirmation bias when it comes to relief pitchers and their performance.

same as starting pitchers..some are great for a year or 2 then disappear as well

sometimes it only takes a 2h of the year to implode

my comparison is HOF starting pitchers versus HOF closers so there is no cherry picking...i just can see the HOF starting pitchers doing a better job at closing then the closers could ever do as starting pitchers.

they are different jobs tho..... (tho I agree relievers should have a much tougher path to the HOF, and generally they have)


relief arms are the most volatile position in baseball from one year to the next, heck from one month to the next! Guys will post the best numbers in MLB and then be awful the following season. It's a tough gig.

or a guy like Rodney who can be a all star 1h and wasnt even roster worthy the 2h of the year

but same has happened with starting ptichers.... think the path should be much much tougher if any path for a reliever to be in the HOF..

its like special teams in football, you can be an all pro one year than cut the next year if you are a gunner etc..

Was totally wrong about Cleveland.... They're scrappy! Toronto will not beat Cleveland playing 2-1 3-2 games. They need to take advantage of the fact that Carrasco and Salazar out.

If a team is going to beat Cleveland, they had better score some runs in the first 5 innings or so because when that bullpen takes over...

Hats off to Cleveland but the Jays aren't playing anywhere near the level they are capable of.

I currently don't have a good feeling about this series and unless the Jays get it together quickly, I can see Cleveland winning both games in Toronto completing the sweep. :(

kershaw comes through again
 

Now the short sample size is starting to return to the normal form for kershaw with his 1-0 victory

You will see the news outlets saying the dodgers won all 3 of his starts. Like i said, people focus on the individual and team Ws....

No way the Washington series is a blemish at all to his legacy with the key save and he was in line for two Ws.......

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

Hmmm....you could be on to something, actually. I just realized all of the Dodgers' wins this season came with Kershaw on the team...and most of those he was in the dugout.

I dont think anyone has ever questioned the performance of Kershaw during the regular season. The issue on this thread has been the postseason.

You can say the same thing about Koufax being in the dugout for most of the dodger wins....

I guess you are the first. Hmmm, You may be onto something......being wrong.

Now you, too, fear the Indians of Cleveland. (see my first post on thread)

:)

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

you had said THIS year was a black mark though. Its obviously a short sample size when so many inherited runners scored and his recent performance on short days rest gives more credence to give him the benefit of the doubt on the past performances. His era is probably now close to 2.50 if only half of the inherited runners scored during the postseason

You were provided with many stats on the past performances that showed the amount of runs scored was not usual given the metrics in play. The recent performances are showing the numbers evening out.

Your quote was "The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career"

Lets face it, the narrative has changed. He has pitched in every post season victory this year for the Dodgers. I just dont see the Huge Black mark when you made that post, when he won the first 2 games he started which helped him earn another start in the second round and another victory. I mean it only took one more start to show right now he is having a TERRIFIC postseason.

You are allowed to not have as good numbers against 100 win teams overall then you do when you face the Braves/losing teams this year in the regular season. Postseason stats against elite teams are not expected to be as good as they are against the regular season teams.

The #1 mistake fans make is they look at results and then deduce the quality of a decision made prior to said result in which to judge it's merits. But, that isn't really fair, a decision is either the right one or not at the time it is made, regardless of the results.

If you choose to leave a RHP in to face a lefty masher and he pops up, it might be the result you wanted but it was not the correct decision to make.


Take Kershaw's relief appearance for example. In an age where arms fall of left and right AND he had a back injury, bringing him out to close the game was silly and seemed more like a stunt than anything else. It's also a slap in the face to the pen. You pay these guys to finish games, if you aren't going to let them do that ,then why are they on the roster? If he ends up injured or get's lit up in his next start.... Dave Roberts will have a lot to answer for

Show me some statistics that back that up, because I could equally posit that hitters won't do as well against elite teams with better pitching staffs, and you end up chasing your tail.

Im going to take a wild guess that facing a 100-95 win teams with their #1 pitcher usually more than once and #2 (more than once sometimes )and #3 pitchers aer harder then facing teams that won 65-80 games and many of those games are facing those teams #4-#5 pitchers. In addition i going to assume facing a 95-100 win team lineup (starting lineup most of the time) will be tougher than 65 win lineups who also give off days during the regular season to starters and also use AAAA call ups who cant hold a full season job.

Just quick checking with a large sample size..i see roger clemens regular season era 3.12 and playoffs was 3.75 more than half a run higher, Chipper jones hit .303 for regular season and .287 in the post season..

kershaw's era would be in the mid 2s if half of the inherited runners didnt score and it may only takes another game or 2 for him to have an elite post season era.....thats a long way away from the conversation being they he has been terrible in the postseason

Andrew Niller:
 

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.

Yep. I don't know if it's Cleveland's pitching or if the Jays are in a slump, or maybe a combination of both but at this point, I'd say the Jays are done and are likely going to ge swept.:(

They look off in every which way, hitting, fielding, everything. Something is up with that club, definitely not playing like they are capable of.

So according to you both pitchers and batters do worse in the postseason? That makes no sense at all, can't have it both ways.

Why stop there, Watson could also replace the catcher and select the best pitch and location for each situation.

Jays offense has gone back into a deep sleep apparently.

appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

well your assertion here is incorrect though, playoff starts don't come all in a row like the regular season, they are spread out over many seasons so to do what you say is by it's very nature "cherry picking"


Very few, if any, players collect enough at bats or appearances in the postseason to provide enough data not tarnished by sample size. I mean, it's hardly fair to look at 60 inning and compare it to a career of 2000 innings because we know that the larger the sample the greater the stability of the numbers.


Go back and look at my post that compared Kershaw's regular season to playoffs, he's done pretty much the same thing just with worse results in BABIP and HR/FB this signals that it is most likely poor luck and sample size at play here.

What is it that they say in investing? Past performance does not guarantee future results. Same with stats. You can use the odds, or can ignore them when you deem appropriate. I don't think Ian is saying any different (though I know he can speak for himself).

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone. :D

As I posted before his OPS against is 100 points or close to it higher in the post-season. Want to spin that away too? :)

I guess by your logic we should throw out all the legendary great post season performances too, like Mathewson, Gibson, etc. Just coincidence from small sample sizes that they pitched their best games under that pressure. Could just as easily have pitched their worst games.

You remind me of a poli sci professor I had in college. He was obsessed with data, his life's work was to come up with equations for predicting the likelihood of wars at any given time. Human considerations had nothing to do with it.

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim. I'm sure these intangibles exist and make a small impact, but being that there "optimizations" that can be made, wouldn't you prefer a mgr who understands them and utilizes them as much as possible?

Argument from incredulity.....

any given performance can be good or bad, to claim that said performance is a reflection on a person't ability as an entire is fallacious. (ie: "Kershaw is a bad playoff pitcher") Those players you mentioned had great playoff numbers, but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

Clutch is a myth as a skill, the numbers bare this out, good pitchers pitch good, bad hitters hit bad, in any given start a bad/good player can do lots of different things with lots of different results, but the data says that when the sample size reaches a certain threshold they will perform at or around their career averages.

OPS against is a flawed stat as it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP (and ignores BABIP)


Baseball is a results game, it has statistics that tell us how people performed. If you ignore the facts in favor of whim or emotion you are guilty of confirmation bias and an argument based on this isn't worth the paper it's written on. btw, your poly-sci comparison is also a fallacy as predicting the likelihood of a war is not the same as studying the results of a baseball game. you use stats, you just don't use the new ones, but it's the same thing just more refined.


ETA: after his last start Kershaw's FIP in the playoffs is 2.92 (vs 2.55 for his career) his xFIP (park and league adjusted) is now 3.09 (vs 2.92 for his career) he is striking out 1 more per 9 in the playoffs, walking only .5 more per 9 he has been hurt by BABIP and HR/FB which shows he has been unlucky


this year his slash line looks like this 3.72 ERA 1.18 FIP 2.99 xFIP vs a regular season of 1.69 1.80 2.28 so pretty close to normal (and we would expect it to be a tad bit higher due to the overall quality of competition.



remember how everyone though Big Papi was "clutch?" carer wRC+ 140, in playoffs? 144, career wOBA .392, in playoffs? .398 not much difference at all.


Derek Jeter? 119 wRC+ career, 121 in playoffs

Jack Morris? career era and fip of 3.90/3.94 in playoffs 3.80/3.74

As it is also to dismiss the "intangibles" when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim, right? :)

I don't have a dog in the remaining fights, and realize that many many people are pulling for the Cubs, and it would be a great story for baseball of course, but I've been a little surprised by the level of . .. well, arrogance . . shown by a large segment of Cubs nation. Like its a foregone conclusion that its all done and over and the trophy is on its way to Wrigley Field. Newsflash: it doesn't matter how many games you win the regular season. It's which team gets hot at the right time. Cubs may well go on to win the whole shebang, but I would have thought that fans of a franchise with the Cubs history wouldn't be running out quite yet to get the Championship tattoos.

not at all, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I bare no burden to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to the positive

If you say you have an invisible dragon in your garage I can try and ask question to ascertain the truth, but I carry no burden to prove it DOESN'T exist. You are obligated to prove it does or your claim can be dismissed as nonsense.

Perhaps the sample size was not large enough, eh? ;) At least if you are going to use statistics, use meaningful ones. Not every at playoff AB is a 'clutch' AB, is it?

But it does get back to the point. Good managers use stats. Better managers know when to ignore the stats, more based on the 'flow' of the game than just 'gut feel', as you would propose. To level set though, I would really LOVE to see an analysis of managers decisions that went against 'conventional wisdom' or the what the stats said and see how they fared. How did those that deviate from the stats fare in crucial situations? Until someone can provide a meaningful comparison, the rest is just hand waving.

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me. :)

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

You seem to think baseball is like a giant APBA game where given enough at bats or innings pitched all players will approach the stats predicted by their cards. Every game is the same, and players are essentially fixed in their abilities, and over time everyone will regress to their mean (if I am using that term correctly, I forget my statistics). I don't buy it; to me even if I can't prove it statistically I can confidently say there are players who perform better or worse under the pressure of big games or situations and anomalies are not just sample size. In other words, I don't buy this reductionist approach. Yeah, I am sure you can identify some logical flaw in the argument, but I think you are making some unwarranted a priori assumptions as well.

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken! :D

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

He didn't pitch that badly, 2 runs 4 hits in 5 innings. I can understand Francona wanting to close this thing out, and his aggressive managing has largely paid off recently. I probably would have saved him for the next game but I think it's difficult to criticize the decision too harshly.

Heard an interesting take today.

Going into the playoffs, beware of the team with the biggest chip on their shoulder. The Indians may not be the best team on paper, but they do have the biggest chip on their shoulders. And that goes a long way.

This brings the human element back in the game, and players / teams who rise to the occasion.

I can't imagine you really believe all this stuff... or at least I'll tell myself that in hopes of not getting fully hooked. I also cannot imagine you believe the "clutch is myth".

The beauty of postseason anything is that once these guys reach their sport's respective pinnacles, they have to perform, right then a there. No BS about small sample size. Would you argue that Madison Bumgarner's 0.25 ERA over 36 innings in WS play is too small to matter? or his 18 scoreless innings in winner take all Wild Card games (2 complete game road shut outs). Or on the flip side when some other Cy Young worthy guy like David Price gets blasted over a similar post season sample size?

Sure you can argue that these guys' playoff sample sizes are too small to judge, and were they perhaps to get 162 games of postseason, they'd eventually perform to their career averages. I think that argument is BS, but I'll humor it. Sure some guys like Jeter are incredibly consistent, post season or regular (that's great), but there are also some that clearly fold while others rise. Check out guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Matt Cain, Timmy, Javier Lopez, Jeremy Affeldt, etc... all who's post season #'s far exceed regular. Anyway, the problem with the small sample size argument is that many of the guys in the post season (this year included) will probably NEVER get another chance to perform. That's one of the beauties of these moments... Howard Emke, Don Larsen, Francisco Cabrera.. this post season, Conner Gillaspie. Some guys step up that moment and grab it. It doesn't matter, and is not even worth arguing that sample sizes are too small, or that performance would have evened out over a longer duration, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THOSE EXTRA GAMES!!

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

With regards to intangibles and team chemistry, I think there's a lot there and though again probably nothing that can be proven via baseball's metrics. That doesn't mean they're not important, even essential to a team's success, just that mathematics don't yet understand. There are players who time and time again not only rise to the occasion, but help bring others around them along for the ride. Not to keep coming back to the Giants, but MadBum vs the Mets is a prime example. The guy is napping on the bus to CitiField, is dead calm before, during and even after the game. I think his calmness feeds into other players' confidence. Joe Montana breaking the ice by spotting John Candy before his game winning 92 yard TD drive in SB XXIII is another prime example. On the flip side, there are examples like the aforementioned Nick Anderson, or what I watched this year in SF with Santiago Casilla and an eventual meltdown within the entire bullpen. Funny thing about that latter, the SF bullpen was pretty good in every inning but the 9th. You think those guys weren't affected by the pressure the came with that moment?? And do you think it's not important that a manager can try to wade through these very human emotions (flaws or strengths), in addition to statistics, to determine who's best and when?

Re- chemistry, Matt Duffy wrote a nice little article on Derek Jeter's web site. He said that when he made the jump to the Giants straight from AA ball, there was no hazing. Instead he was immediately engaged by all star caliber players like Hunter Pence who went out of their way to make him comfortable. That comfort showed early in his MLB career as he was confident enough to try (and succeed) to score from 2nd on WP to tie game 2 of the NLCS in the 9th. This is a late season call up, a rookie who barely made the postseason roster, and was put in to pinch run down 1 run in the 9th. If he gets thrown out at home, the game's over. If he stays at 3rd, no one thinks worse of him... yet he had the guts in that moment to take home. I think the ease he felt within that clubhouse may have gone a long way into how aggressively and instinctively he played that. Sure teams like the 1970's A's and Yankees were at each others' throats (Reggie Jackson is a common denominator) but I think most guys play better when they're comfortable (not all of course, see Barry Bonds or Kobe who needed the chips on their shoulder), and that most winning teams have had very good chemistry... though I do admit winning begets good chemistry, while losing has the opposite effect.

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

Yes you can when talking about elite guys. If they are only merely 'good' like you basically saying kershaw is compared to regular season he can still win games. An elite hitter can do worse than their regular season norms and win games. In the playoffs more so than the regular season there is also a tendency to make a lesser hitter beat you and we get the aaron boones of the world make their mark.

In terms of the Cubs being a foregone conclusion to win everything. Its like this every year in the NBA playoffs..unless its 3-0 in a best of 7, there really no reason to say who has won or lost the series until it plays out. How many times has a home team won 2 games and its suddenly 'over' for the away team who than returns the favor and they suddenly its 'over' again and then they lose the next game and so forth.

The dodgers did beat a 104 win Oakland team in 1988 (4 games to 1 ). I do no think that 1988 Oakland team was worse than this cubs team and it can be argued that this years dodgers team is better than the 1988 team. Mcgwire and Canseco were terrible in that world series.

Lets see the series play out. Kershaw certainly has the chance to add to his now post season legacy.

man you forgot to mention Jon Starks as well...

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in. :D

I would suggest that you watch Kershaw's games instead of just looking at stats. Kershaw's ERA is high because he has been shelled. When you give up a series of hard hit balls, your BABIP is going to be higher. He is not giving up 4, 5, 6 runs in innings because other teams have been lucky. It has been because Kershaw has pitched poorly and the other team has pounded him.

I'm not sure how you come up with luck involving giving up more HRs. Again, it is Kershaw making mistakes and getting pounded. What HR that he allowed was bad luck?

It is funny that you claim someone else's post is "myth" because your claims about Kershaw are myth. BABIP is influenced by defense and how hard balls are hit much more than luck. The highest BABIP for a season: Babe Ruth. The highest BABIP for a career: Ty Cobb. I guess you think those guys weren't very good, they were just the luckiest players of all time. However, if you watch the innings where Kershaw has given up runs, it is not because of weak seeing eye singles or bloop hits, it is because of a series of hard hit balls. There is no bad luck involved, in fact it would be Kershaw who would have had to have been incredibly lucky to have not given up big innings.

This article might explain it a little better in the context of false claims this season that the Cubs staff has been good because of luck and defense.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...heir-own-luck/

That leads to a larger takeaway from our models: Leaguewide, the impact of pitchers’ contact management is more than twice that of defense, which seems to contradict the traditional defense-independent pitching theory that most pitchers have little ability to prevent hits on balls in play.

Still, we can conclude that the Cubs’ historically low BABIP through their first 69 games isn’t merely luck. One way or another, the Cubs have earned a lot of those outs.

Guess the Indians weren't too worried after all. :D

Great job by their starting pitcher today! Well deserved win by the whole club.

Good luck in the World Series. :)

I think we would of seen what would have happened if Urias started instead of Kershaw pitched in the National series....giving up the first runs of the game always the toughest...putting up early zeros means a lot even if you give up runs later on when your team is already ahead

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

ok, lots to go through here so give me second to break it all down:

A-yes ,Bumgarner's performance is good, but claiming he is wired differently is not backed up by evidence of a large enough sample size to be legitimate. You can rant about it all you want, but this is a fact. Stop looking at things through fan colored glasses and look at it scientifically


B- clutch situations happen certainly, but clutch as a skill possessed by some player's and not other's does not. This is a fact based upon thousands of pieces of data. People point to Jeter or Papi or any other player, but this is confirmation bias and recency bias. You look at their numbers in the postseason and in high leverage situations, it ends up right around their career numbers. This has been endlessly analyzed and found to be true. Certain player's being "clutch" is a myth. as sure a myth as Bigfoot or Chupacabras.


C-Matt Duffy thing: anecdotes, while nice, are not evidence (nor is the plural of anecdote, evidence) team chemistry exists, but there is no evidence that it is required to perform well as too many teams who had player's who hated each other have done well (late 70's Yankees, 2000's Giants) Plus, when you consider how much expanded playoffs has increased the level of randomness into the results, I would say that chemistry means less now than ever before


D-the thing with fans is, we like to believe stuff is true about player's we like/hate , the media knows this and thus these myths get created about players that aren't true like "he's clutch" or "he's not" or "he's a postseason monster"....etc this is called CONFIRMATION BIAS, and it drives 99% of the bad information out there in sports land. Combine that with RECENCY BIAS (the idea that a person feels recent events are signals of a greater effect that must be changed, like when people say 'player ABC isn't hitting move him in the order" after 4 games. In the regular season you would never do this. But people get kinda silly in the playoffs.


E- I find it amusing that so many people these days have become anti-intellectual to the point where they refuse to acknowledge new data in favor of old beliefs. (not saying you in particular, but some on this board surely) Time moves on, better information comes with it, better methods, better tools, better data. That's all modern metrics are They take the same game and dig inside the old stats to create new and better one's that increase our understanding of it! it isn't just a bunch of nerds like so many a-holes like to say. EVERY SINGLE TEAM in baseball is doing this to one level or another. Why? Because it works, and to ignore it is to be left behind.

Well, that has to be the silliest or most ass-backwards opening statement I've seen today. If something can be proven, would there be any point to even debate it?

In other words, wouldn't debating something that is proven be the height of pointlessness?

I wish my 2 posts from yesterday didn't get lost in the cloud, but anyway...

The point is not having blind reliance on ANY metrics, but knowing when to ignore or go against those metrics. It isn't as much intangibles or gut instinct as it is to considering circumstances that aren't measured by said metric. It is more akin to having too many variables that metrics can't take into account in any given situation.

Feel free to provide any metric and situation, and I can easily provide a dozen variables that would affect a manager's decision to go against the *ahem* proven metric.

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

Just another form of your a prior assumption -- who says only that which can be conclusively resolved is worth debating?

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

This guy kills more rally's at the plate than preventing opponent runs.

Totally agree. It's fine and dandy to use advanced metrics. To ignore them would be a mistake, but they are just a piece of the puzzle. There are a whole lot of other things at play, and though many may not be "provable", they are still factors in the end result.

To Taylor's point there are any number of circumstances that can and should also play into a manager/coach's decision making beyond just statistics. These may be "in game" related, as in maybe a SP has great numbers vs a hitter, but has gone 8+, walked the guy before and you can tell his mechanics are breaking down as he tires. There could also be a near infinite number or personal considerations... maybe you find out the guy was out partying the night before, or is in the middle of a nasty divorce, or any number of other things that may distract him. Zach Grienke was DL'd due to social anxiety. If you knew this, wouldn't you at least consider it before throwing a guy into a high leverage situation, even if all past statistics show you should? Maybe the stats win out in your thought process, but I'd prefer to consider everything, even if its not all empirical.

Bravos4ever-- to your point C about clutch players, I completely disagree. I had even used Jeter as an example of a guy whose post season stats were very similar to his regular but this is in no way universal in baseball. And frankly, I think maintaining your level of play in high pressure situations against the best either league has to offer is "clutch" in its own right. There are also clearly players whose post seasons have far exceeded their regular season performance, prime example- Reggie Jackson (looking at WS stats). There are also players who consistently floundered in the postseason. With exception of an incredible 2002, Barry Bonds is a guy who comes to mind as an example MVP/HOF caliber of a guy who repeatedly did not perform in the postseason.

I think you would have to agree that confidence in any given moment (AB, executing a pitch, etc) is really important to your own performance (guessing you played some ball at some level, and hopefully can relate). Clearly Reggie felt comfortable and confident in the WS, and am sure his repeated high performance further reinforced this throughout his career (mentioned 2010, 2012, 2014 Giants pitchers fall into this category too). Bonds on the other hand failed to deliver in October (90, 91, 92, 97, 2000) and would guess his repeated under performance ate at him, which in turn may have affected his play. These guys are not robots, are not fully defined by their stats, and will respond to different situations in all kinds of different ways.

Yeah, that's why the Braves were willing to let him go.

His stance has always looked very uncomfortable. I hope he can spend the off-season re-inventing his approach.

He's built just like Kris Bryant...perhaps he can try that.

With that same kind of 'leverage' (as a tall player), he should be launching!

debates on sports
 

Humans crave certainty, predictability, and rationality. Evidenced lots of places (religion, economic theory, physics, conspiracy theories like that Oswald couldn't have been a lone gunman, because it bespeaks randomness and disproportionality for a nobody to kill the leader of the free world).

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.