baseball playoffs

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

pitcher numbers don't become predictive until they reach around 350-400 innings. The playoffs are individual sets of series where performance is magnified. So Kershaw's good starts get muddled by bad starts and because they exists over several different seasons they don't really tell us much information at all. It's not like he pitches 18 starts over one playoffs,and it's really not fair to look at it this way. It really needs to be judged year by year, and with a grain of salt because of the randomness of hit sequencing and other things like defensive issues. (that may not result in errors thus clouding ERA in any given playoff series or season)
)

The playoffs are NOT the regular season, and a pitcher doesn't get 33-34 starts to generate "predictive" numbers. In a 5 or 7 game series, the best may get 2-3 shots to prove their worth, and in an elimination game he better be nearly perfect.

The regular season is the regular season, while the playoffs are a totally different animal, requiring a different set of tactics for the short series.

It takes something well beyond pure numbers to take the ball and dominate in an elimination game. Conversely if a lights out, regular season staff ace gets blasted, goes 0-2, loses an elimination game, I'd guess the argument that "it wasn't a large enough sample size" doesn't carry much weight in his clubhouse.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

The playoffs are NOT the regular season, and a pitcher doesn't get 33-34 starts to generate "predictive" numbers. In a 5 or 7 game series, the best may get 2-3 shots to prove their worth, and in an elimination game he better be nearly perfect.

The regular season is the regular season, while the playoffs are a totally different animal, requiring a different set of tactics for the short series.

It takes something well beyond pure numbers to take the ball and dominate in an elimination game. Conversely if a lights out, regular season staff ace gets blasted, goes 0-2, loses an elimination game, I'd guess the argument that "it wasn't a large enough sample size" doesn't carry much weight in his clubhouse.

this is just gibberish..... look, sports measure performance via statistics, it's what we have to look at, all the "he's got guts" or "he's a choker" in the world has no veracity, nor any predictive ability and is thus worthless. It's just confirmation bias or recency bias in a smug hat.

What I'm saying is, "clutch" isn't a skill. (and this is a fact by the way, not my opinion)

Plus, your point that the playoffs are different is correct. It's results are LESS reliable and predictive because of the nature of their small sample size and fractured nature (only 3 series played a year if you are good enough to make it every year)


In modern day postseason where 10 teams make it yet only play 3 series (plus that dumb one game play in ) the playoffs are very much a crapshoot. In fact, it's so different from the regular season as to be nearly a pointless waste of time other than making TV revenue.