baseball playoffs

[1952boyntoncollector]

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...

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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...

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[bravos4evr]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

[clydepepper]

As hard as it is to believe, it appears that Andrew Miller was actually HIDDEN as a member of the New York Yankees!! AMAZING!!

His Stats so far this post-season:

5G - 9IP - 4H - 2BB - 20K - 0.00 ERA

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

yet again, further evidence the narrative has changed on Kershaw not being a a good playoff pitcher...its been 3 or so straight years now where he has been good to great......whip will be 1.08 around and era will be in the 3's when this year is over.

guy has won 8 postseason games now..plus had the lead in several others in which the bullpen blew or left in a tie situation........

the narrative of him not being a good playoff pitcher has changed....


He is 6-1 with a save right now since 2016.... ....... need to talk david price if want to talk playoff issues....the ship has sailed on kershaw

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

yet again, further evidence the narrative has changed on Kershaw not being a a good playoff pitcher...its been 3 or so straight years now where he has been good to great......whip will be 1.08 around and era will be in the 3's when this year is over.

guy has won 8 postseason games now..plus had the lead in several others in which the bullpen blew or left in a tie situation........

the narrative of him not being a good playoff pitcher has changed....


He is 6-1 with a save right now since 2016.... ....... need to talk david price if want to talk playoff issues....the ship has sailed on kershaw

You were saying..

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You were saying..

So you were not impressed with his 3 innings of work last night?

[frankbmd]

...the ship has sailed on kershaw

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You were saying..

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

So you were not impressed with his 3 innings of work last night?

Flat earth proponents presume that Kershaw and Grandal sailed to the edge of the earth last night and were unable to tack.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You were saying..

I was saying the narrative has changed on kershaw. Game 5 the biggest game of the series thus far with teh brewers 7 innings only 3 hits and 9 ks.....of course it helps when your teams doesnt allow unearned runs or catcher allows 3 passed balls and other issues that cause runs to be 'earned' but caused by defense.

Heck even the run he allowed today probably not scored if they take the out on the pitcher instead of letting the ball go foul..


The narrative has changed on the playoff performance of kershaw...

[Peter_Spaeth]

He came up huge today.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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.

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.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

....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.

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.

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.