Clayton Kershaw

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If he retires now, he's absolutely a Hall of Famer.

We're giving far too much credit to guys who had long careers. Longevity should be a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as dominance. Clayton Kershaw has been, hands down, the best pitcher in the game the last six seasons. And he was pretty darned good the two before that amazing six year run. And, like Koufax, he had inarguably his best season at the end. If this is it for Kershaw (it won't be), he's one of the greatest to ever play his position. That he dominated at a ridiculous level as a left handed pitcher only adds to his stature.

He was a rookie at 20, and had a 4.29 ERA. In the eight seasons since, he's never had an ERA above 3.00. He's led the league in ERA five of the last six seasons, and the one he didn't lead, his ERA was 2.13. How good has he really been? Through the history of baseball (with complete statistics going back to 1901, so 115 years of the sport), only two pitchers have been more dominant through their first nine seasons (1,000 innings pitched, minimum): Walter Johnson and Pedro Martinez.

Career ERA + through nine seasons:

Walter Johnson 176
Pedro Martinez 168
Clayton Kershaw 158

Then, let's look at FIP. Again, FIP (fielding independent pitching) measures only the things a pitcher can control: home runs surrendered, hit batsmen, walks, and strikeouts. Through nine seasons, Clayton Kershaw ranks 32nd of all starting pitchers in FIP (again, 1,000 innings pitched, minimum).

But here's the caveat. All thirty-one pitchers on the list ahead of Kershaw played in the dead ball era, when home runs were rare. They should have a lower FIP metric than Kershaw because the game was different. This means that, when considering only things a pitcher can control, eliminating things like wins, runs allowed, hits allowed, etc, all of which the team behind the starter can heavily influence, Clayton Kershaw is the best starting pitcher of the modern era. Not top ten. Not top five. Number one.

2,000 innings pitched, or 3,000 innings pitched is some arbitrary number picked out at random because people like nice ever numbers. 3,000 hits. 3,000 strike outs. 500 home runs. As if Frank Robinson would be judged differently if he'd somehow managed 57 more hits to reach 3,000, or Fred McGriff would suddenly be a Hall of Famer if he'd hit 7 more home runs. Clayton Kershaw has thrown 1,732 innings in the Major Leagues, more than enough time to demonstrate how he throws the ball, and more than enough time for Major League hitters to adjust, if they could, and improve their fortunes against him. Nine years into his career, not only have they not figured him out, but Kershaw is getting better. In the past six seasons, he's won an MVP, three Cy Young Awards, and he's finished second and third in the voting once each. If the season ended today, he'd be a unanimous Cy Young winner for 2016.

Look at his past three seasons, and how spectacular his numbers are. 48-12 (an .800 winning percentage), 1.92 ERA, 552 IP, 13 CG, 8 SHO, 685 K, 82 BB, 190 ERA +, 1.85 FIP, 0.839 WHIP, 11.2 K/9 IP, 1.3 BB/9 IP, 8.35 K:BB.

Look at his Hall of Fame metrics:

Black ink: 65 (16th all-time), average HoF 40
Gray ink: 154 (92nd all-time), average HoF 185
Hall of Fame Monitor: 123 (64th all-time), average HoF 100
Hall of Fame Standards: 46 (48th all-time), average HoF 50

He's already met the Black Ink and Hall of Fame Monitor metrics in nine seasons. He's 4 points off the Hall of Fame Standards, and 31 points off of Gray Ink. All in, being accurate, 8.5 seasons as a starter.

I don't see an argument that could be made keeping Kershaw out of the Hall of Fame. He's simply one of the most dominant starters the game has ever seen. If the Hall of Fame rewards true excellence, how can he be kept out?

A- awards are a meaningless measurement as they are based on the opinions of people who often make awful judgments (see the gold glove for example)

B- 2000-3000 innings isn't some arbitrary number, it's a solid gauge to use due to the number of prior pitchers in the HOF. If you don't set some sort of standard what then? put in a guy who had 3 great seasons then his arm fell off?

C- Longevity matters, I can see the Koufax argument being made for Kershaw (even if I am not 100% sold on it ) but at the same time supporters of it must admit that it is hedging the bet as the player never had to deal with the inevitable decline once 31-32 rolls around which makes a player's numbers appear better than they might have otherwise. The larger the sample size the more it tends to regress toward the mean, peaks are nice and all, but tend to only be used by people who have an agenda so they can ignore all the other stuff they don't like. It's also why Pedro isn't a top 10 pitcher. cherry picking the parts of a career you like and ignoring the other parts is intellectually dishonest.

D- to buttress above, who was more valuable in his career? a guy who pitches 10 years with an amazing 8 year peak? or the guy who pitches 18 years without ever posting sub 2 WAR seasons even in his late 30's and early 40's?

[the 'stache]

A. No, Awards are not meaningless. They have merit. Just because sometimes they've gone to the wrong player, based on analysis with newer tools, does not completely invalidate the awards that have been handed out, especially the MVP ad Cy Young votes. Gold Gloves are more subjective; until recently, voters have not had a great set of metrics to draw knowledge from. I would assume that with early Gold Gloves (and, apparently, when it came to Derek Jeter), reputation and bias played a large role. And even now, defensive metrics are not what I would consider great. But voters weigh things like Cy Youngs and MVP awards, right or wrong, in considering induction to the Hall of Fame. And there have not been a lot of pitchers with more than three Cy Young Awards.

Say he didn't win in those three seasons. He only finished second, or third. That's five top three finishes in five years, and an historic half season in 2016 where he was the best in the game. When examining his numbers, he still clearly deserves heavy consideration for Cooperstown.

B. Where did I say that there should not be some standard? Did you read what I said? 3,000 is the benchmark for hits. Does a great player who ended his career 50 hits short of 3,000 hits get excluded because he came up short? Does a good, but not great player automatically get into Cooperstown because he got 500 home runs? You're going to see fewer and fewer players hitting 300 wins, or 3,000 hits, going forward. These old benchmarks are becoming less important with today's advanced evaluation methods.

C. Of course longevity matters. I didn't say it didn't. But longevity alone does not merit induction to the Hall of Fame.

Anybody who plays 18 years in the Major Leagues has obviously done something right. Making the Majors, alone, is hard. Playing nearly two decades is a feat in and of itself. It means some team, or teams, thought you could contribute enough where the team would be improved. But a long career of good play should not warrant a place among the immortals. Jim Kaat played 25 years. He was obviously good enough to stay in the bigs. He won 283 games. Hell, if a few things had gone differently for him, he might have crossed that magical 300 win threshold (meaning you'd automatically put him in based on your "solid gauge" argument, right?") But the guy was never a truly great pitcher. He had a couple very good seasons; finished in the top 5 of the MVP once, and 4th in a Cy Young vote. But I don't see a lot of greatness. Every player being considered for baseball immortality needs to be carefully examined. As I have said repeatedly on this forum, context is everything. A pitcher that only wins 140 games might warrant induction if he dominated the game, but played on an average team. So, too, might a guy that got 3,000 hits not warrant induction if he played 22 years, and averaged only 140 hits a season.

And I don't see any cherry picking when it comes to Pedro Martinez. He was the best pitcher in the game, and pitched at an historic level, for seven seasons. And for two years after that, he was still a top ten pitcher in the Majors. That's about a decade of greatness. This isn't Dwight Gooden in his first couple of years, we're talking about. Martinez had a 213 ERA + from 1997 to 2003.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

A- awards are a meaningless measurement as they are based on the opinions of people who often make awful judgments (see the gold glove for example)

B- 2000-3000 innings isn't some arbitrary number, it's a solid gauge to use due to the number of prior pitchers in the HOF. If you don't set some sort of standard what then? put in a guy who had 3 great seasons then his arm fell off?

C- Longevity matters, I can see the Koufax argument being made for Kershaw (even if I am not 100% sold on it ) but at the same time supporters of it must admit that it is hedging the bet as the player never had to deal with the inevitable decline once 31-32 rolls around which makes a player's numbers appear better than they might have otherwise. The larger the sample size the more it tends to regress toward the mean, peaks are nice and all, but tend to only be used by people who have an agenda so they can ignore all the other stuff they don't like. It's also why Pedro isn't a top 10 pitcher. cherry picking the parts of a career you like and ignoring the other parts is intellectually dishonest.

D- to buttress above, who was more valuable in his career? a guy who pitches 10 years with an amazing 8 year peak? or the guy who pitches 18 years without ever posting sub 2 WAR seasons even in his late 30's and early 40's?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

A. No, Awards are not meaningless. They have merit. Just because sometimes they've gone to the wrong player, based on analysis with newer tools, does not completely invalidate the awards that have been handed out, especially the MVP ad Cy Young votes. Gold Gloves are more subjective; until recently, voters have not had a great set of metrics to draw knowledge from. I would assume that with early Gold Gloves (and, apparently, when it came to Derek Jeter), reputation and bias played a large role. And even now, defensive metrics are not what I would consider great. But voters weigh things like Cy Youngs and MVP awards, right or wrong, in considering induction to the Hall of Fame. And there have not been a lot of pitchers with more than three Cy Young Awards.

Say he didn't win in those three seasons. He only finished second, or third. That's five top three finishes in five years, and an historic half season in 2016 where he was the best in the game. When examining his numbers, he still clearly deserves heavy consideration for Cooperstown.

B. Where did I say that there should not be some standard? Did you read what I said? 3,000 is the benchmark for hits. Does a great player who ended his career 50 hits short of 3,000 hits get excluded because he came up short? Does a good, but not great player automatically get into Cooperstown because he got 500 home runs? You're going to see fewer and fewer players hitting 300 wins, or 3,000 hits, going forward. These old benchmarks are becoming less important with today's advanced evaluation methods.

C. Of course longevity matters. I didn't say it didn't. But longevity alone does not merit induction to the Hall of Fame.

Anybody who plays 18 years in the Major Leagues has obviously done something right. Making the Majors, alone, is hard. Playing nearly two decades is a feat in and of itself. It means some team, or teams, thought you could contribute enough where the team would be improved. But a long career of good play should not warrant a place among the immortals. Jim Kaat played 25 years. He was obviously good enough to stay in the bigs. He won 283 games. Hell, if a few things had gone differently for him, he might have crossed that magical 300 win threshold (meaning you'd automatically put him in based on your "solid gauge" argument, right?")

A.

I don't put much stock in awards. Writers do, because they vote for them, but I think it's pointless twaddle as far as gauging HOF worthiness. You either have the numbers or you don't.

we have learned that pitcher wins is a pretty lousy stat so no,I don't put much stock in the magical "300 " wins and because we now know that the 3000 hit threshold is also kinda pointless as far as gauging a hitter's quality, I don't put much stock in that either. I would rather have Jim Thome or Frank Thomas's bat over Tony Gwynn or Pete Rose because they were better hitters (and power matters) It's like the argument FOR McGriff, people say he should get in because he has 493 HR's, but i don't think he deserves to be in because he is 31st in 1b WAR all time, 36th in wRC+ for 1b all time yet is also 13th in plate appearances. and his 57 career fWAR just isn't high enough for me. (but I think Kaat deserves to be in as he is the Eddie Murray of pitchers, really good for a really long time)


I am a "small hall" guy, iMO there are far too many guys in that don't deserve it (Jim Rice, Mazeroski...etc) so no, I probably wouldn't vote for Kershaw due to his short career, and tho he has been good, it would be tough for me to vote for a guy with so few innings pitched. but ymmv

[howard38]

I agree with Nick that awards should not be considered when voting for the HOF. The stats already tell you if a player had a great season and a voter that considers both stats and a resulting award is, in a way, giving extra credit to the player for that season. On the flip side, a player that should have or could have won an award but didn't is unfairly penalized by voters. An example is the aforementioned Jim Kaat. That he never won a Cy Young award was as much a result of bad timing as it was the quality of his pitching. If Cy Young voting had been overhauled in 1966 instead of 1967 he would have won the AL award that year, probably unanimously. It still wouldn't make him a hall of famer but he likely would have received more votes.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I don't put much stock in awards. Writers do, because they vote for them, but I think it's pointless twaddle as far as gauging HOF worthiness. You either have the numbers or you don't.

I don't really disagree with you. Awards like the MVP and Cy Young make for nice debate fodder; they also make for good looking bullet points on ESPN graphics, etc. Often, yes, the award goes to the most deserving player, and it highlights their accomplishments. That is where I feel the award has merit. A truly standout season should be recognized. But as we've seen, the best player doesn't always get the prize; the system is hardly infallible. Voters are human, and things like politics, biases, allegiances to a franchise, etc can all color a vote.

For me, an award like the MVP is the starting point in my examination.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

we have learned that pitcher wins is a pretty lousy stat so no,I don't put much stock in the magical "300 " wins and because we now know that the 3000 hit threshold is also kinda pointless as far as gauging a hitter's quality, I don't put much stock in that either.

Again, I agree with you, especially when it comes to pitcher wins. I look at somebody like Kershaw, and scratch my head wondering how he doesn't have more wins than he does. Obviously, the team around him is not near the level of greatness he is. And, that team lets him down far too often. He's had to pitch almost flawlessly to get many of the wins he does have.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I would rather have Jim Thome or Frank Thomas's bat over Tony Gwynn or Pete Rose because they were better hitters (and power matters) It's like the argument FOR McGriff, people say he should get in because he has 493 HR's, but i don't think he deserves to be in because he is 31st in 1b WAR all time, 36th in wRC+ for 1b all time yet is also 13th in plate appearances. and his 57 career fWAR just isn't high enough for me. (but I think Kaat deserves to be in as he is the Eddie Murray of pitchers, really good for a really long time)

I'd agree on the first point, at least. Old thinking was that batting average is king, and while a hit is still better than a walk, Thome, while having a career average some 60 points below Gwynn, had a higher career OBP because he walked so much. When you consider Thome's power, that's remarkable. I guess I'll say that I'd take all four of them in my lineup because they could do different things well. Give me Gwynn in his prime to lead off, Rose second, Thomas third, and Thome batting cleanup, and that's a hell of a formidable top half of the order.

You'll never convince me about Kaat, though. I don't know if I'd call him really good. He had three seasons with an ERA + over 130, and another at 129...in 25 years of baseball. And his best season by ERA +, 157, was in 1972 when he made only 15 starts. He was a good pitcher who had a couple of strong, if unspectacular seasons. I mean, look at the prime years of his career. Here's what I see:

1963, age 24, 87 ERA +
1964, age 25, 112 ERA +
1965, age 26, 126 ERA +
1966, age 27, 131 ERA +
1967, age 28, 115 ERA +
1968, age 29, 107 ERA +
1969, age 30, 106 ERA +
1970, age 31, 107 ERA +
1971, age 32, 107 ERA +

If a 100 is league average, he's 6-7% better than the league average starter in a lot of those seasons. For that nine year span, his ERA + is only 112. That's not what I would call Hall of Fame-worthy.

You say McGriff's career 57 fWAR isn't high enough for you. Well, Kaat has a career 45.3 bWAR, and a 70.9 fWAR, for a guy that played 25 years, seems low to me, too.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I am a "small hall" guy, iMO there are far too many guys in that don't deserve it (Jim Rice, Mazeroski...etc) so no, I probably wouldn't vote for Kershaw due to his short career, and tho he has been good, it would be tough for me to vote for a guy with so few innings pitched. but ymmv

Kershaw has been better than just good. He's been phenomenal.

I do agree that there are far too many players in Cooperstown as it is, though I'm not sure if I'd boot Mazeroski. I think the best to ever play a certain position, defensively, should be in. Metrics won't support that argument, but I think historic defensive metrics are pretty piss poor.

[bravos4evr]

You say McGriff's career 57 fWAR isn't high enough for you. Well, Kaat has a career 45.3 bWAR, and a 70.9 fWAR, for a guy that played 25 years, seems low to me, too.

well, that's why I compared Kaat to Eddie Murray, neither were super dominant players, and both played a long time and accumulated WAR (70.9 for Kaat, 72.1 for Murray) I tend to think that most guys who go over 60 career WAR at least deserve a long look.

I do agree that there are far too many players in Cooperstown as it is, though I'm not sure if I'd boot Mazeroski. I think the best to ever play a certain position, defensively, should be in. Metrics won't support that argument, but I think historic defensive metrics are pretty piss poor.

I can see that argument ,at least for the "up the middle" positions and 3b as they require more defensive skill. But will the voters put in Andruw Jones? 67 career fWAR, better hitter than Ozzie or Maz or Brooks and is the most dominant defensive player in the modern era of defensive stats. (not to mention has counting stats like 434 homers and 1300 RBI's that the voters like) I think he should get in, but I don't think he will, and all of a sudden the "good glove" vote starts to look a little suspect.

[Tabe]

If Kerhsaw were able to somehow get an inning in next year and then have to retire to meet the 10-year requirement, I say he's a HOFer. He's already had more excellent seasons than Koufax. Koufax had 5 plus 1 very good season. Kershaw has had 8 excellent seasons. Koufax had a career 131 ERA+ - Kershaw is at 157. Kershaw led the MAJORS in ERA four straight seasons. NOBODY has ever done that other than Kershaw. Kershaw's ERA away from Dodger Stadium - 2.83. Koufax's ERA away from Dodger Stadium - 3.38 in a far easier time.

None of that should be taken as a knock on Koufax. Rather it's testimony to Kershaw's greatness.

[Dewey]

Hurry back, Clayton. We'll keep the light on.

[the 'stache]

The counting stats look good until you see his career OPS + of 111. Everybody and their mother were hitting home runs in that era. His offensive performance, relative to the other hitters in his league, wasn't all that great.

Still, he was a center fielder doing this. So, I don't know. He doesn't scream Hall of Famer to me.

And as far as Maz goes, he wasn't just a good glove. He's the best to ever play the position. Honestly, I think his dWAR is a bit low, too.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I can see that argument ,at least for the "up the middle" positions and 3b as they require more defensive skill. But will the voters put in Andruw Jones? 67 career fWAR, better hitter than Ozzie or Maz or Brooks and is the most dominant defensive player in the modern era of defensive stats. (not to mention has counting stats like 434 homers and 1300 RBI's that the voters like) I think he should get in, but I don't think he will, and all of a sudden the "good glove" vote starts to look a little suspect.

[the 'stache]

And comparing Kaat and Murray is not a fair comparison. For his career, Kaat was 8% above league average for pitchers with a 108 ERA +.

Murray, for his career, was 29% above league average as a hitter with a 129 OPS +. And if you eliminate the late part of his career where his numbers tanked, he's even better. From 1977 to 1990 (14 seasons, and 9,125 PA's, a full career for many players), his career OPS + was 140. 40% above league average for a decade and a half is pretty dominant. To compare to a modern player, Ryan Braun has a career 141 OPS +. If you were a GM in today's game, and could add Braun to your lineup, and get his career average offensive production, you'd flip and speak in tongues to get him. Well, that's what Murray was for the vast majority of his career. A dominant offensive force.

The peak of his career, 1981-1985, was pretty spectacular, given the era. His 162 game averages for that five year span: .304 AVG, 105 runs scored, 183 hits, 33 doubles, 120 RBI, 87 BB vs 83 Ks, and a slash line of .390 OBP/.530 SLG/.920 OPS. A 155 OPS + is pretty damned good in any era. The counting stats aren't as eye popping because there just wasn't a lot of offense in that era. Context is everything. Andruw Jones had a 136 OPS + the season he hit 51 bombs. That looks impressive next to Murray's best season of counting stats (33 home runs in 1983). Yet Murray's 156 OPS + blows Jones' out of the water. Why? The era. Between 2000 and 2009, there were 12 50 home run seasons, and 42 seasons of 40 or more. Between 1980 and 1989, there wasn't a single 50 home run season, and 13 seasons of 40 or more home runs.

Murray was pretty dominant.

There were 140 batters to amass 3,000 or more at bats between 1980 and 1989. Murray had the 8th highest OPS + of those 140 batters. Only two batters in all the Major Leagues had more home runs in the 1980s than Murray's 274: Mike Schmidt hit 313, and Dale Murphy hit 308.

I think you're under-appreciating how good Murray really was.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

well, that's why I compared Kaat to Eddie Murray, neither were super dominant players, and both played a long time and accumulated WAR (70.9 for Kaat, 72.1 for Murray) I tend to think that most guys who go over 60 career WAR at least deserve a long look.

[bravos4evr]

I don't like baseball reference so I don't use their stats. value is value, 72 WAR is 72 WAR and Murray and Kaat were worth the same yet only 1 is a HOF'er?