baseball playoffs

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate.

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?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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.

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

[KCRfan1]

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

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

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by tschock

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.

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.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

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

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!

[MCoxon]

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.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

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.

this is probably wrong, i mean analytics is all about most of these things...ie the cubs' defensive positioning to suppress #3 and #4 of babip avg, the dodgers stacking 15 left-handed hitters against a rhp. these are meant to combat against some of the luck and randomness. don't know if you can ever quantify "clutch"...but there are stats about players' performance after the 7th in a game where run deficit is 2 or less, we're kind of getting there?

what computers can't analyze is the emotional impact of a hostile crowd in the brightest october lights and our physiological reaction to these stressors. in some of arod's postseason abs you can just tell he'd have no chance, or me personally with yasiel puig judging by his body language he's just gonna flail at 3 pitches with the bases juiced bottom of the 8th trailing 4-2...like he'd rather be in jamaica right then.

and this is where the analytics fanboy in me gets confused sometimes...by the number of course you'd rather have arod in there than slappy mcslap david eckstein or angel pagan...but just going by the eye test at least those guys won't shrink up and battle thru the at bat. that's where the great divide is atm and the 2 sides of grit/attitude vs. computer/analytics can't reconcile.

[chaddurbin]

re: kershaw being hit hard in postseason...i remember most of his starts, can't recall many instances where he was really hit hard. i do remember him giving up a 2-run bomb matt adams bottom 7th in st louis pitching on 3-days rest where if the dodgers had a better bullpen he should've been lifted after 6...and that wacky game against wainwright where each SP gave up like 6-7 runs it was alot of dinks and dunks and people were wondering if the cards were stealing signs.

re: urias start at home vs cubs being comparable to a would've been start game 4 against washington. this is silly, totally different circumstances cubs are pretty good against lefties their best hitter is rh bryant vs a depleted washington roster where both their best bats murphy harper were lefties and the biggest rh threat was werth.

i'm not too result-oriented you trust the process/preparation and make the best decision in the moment with the data you have. a bad decision leading to a positive outcome doesn't mean you should repeat that mistake. i thought the complexion of the cubs-dodgers series changed on that agon out call at home...dodgers should've been up 1-0 with 2 runners on instead of what happened. but it wasn't a surprise the cubs finally woke up, i mean the dodgers are down to 2.5 good pitchers and the cubs are stacked.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

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.

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

this is probably wrong, i mean analytics is all about most of these things...ie the cubs' defensive positioning to suppress #3 and #4 of babip avg, the dodgers stacking 15 left-handed hitters against a rhp. these are meant to combat against some of the luck and randomness. don't know if you can ever quantify "clutch"...but there are stats about players' performance after the 7th in a game where run deficit is 2 or less, we're kind of getting there?

what computers can't analyze is the emotional impact of a hostile crowd in the brightest october lights and our physiological reaction to these stressors. in some of arod's postseason abs you can just tell he'd have no chance, or me personally with yasiel puig judging by his body language he's just gonna flail at 3 pitches with the bases juiced bottom of the 8th trailing 4-2...like he'd rather be in jamaica right then.

and this is where the analytics fanboy in me gets confused sometimes...by the number of course you'd rather have arod in there than slappy mcslap david eckstein or angel pagan...but just going by the eye test at least those guys won't shrink up and battle thru the at bat. that's where the great divide is atm and the 2 sides of grit/attitude vs. computer/analytics can't reconcile.

confirmation and recency bias can skew your eye and opinion tho, this is why the numbers are best because they don't lie or care about situational opinions.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

wtvr makes you happy booboo

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ugh, that Dodgers game. Spin time for Clayton post-season defenders, I guess.

[KCRfan1]

Looking forward to the Series!

Should be fun!!!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

It's just small sample size booboo.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ugh, that Dodgers game. Spin time for Clayton post-season defenders, I guess.

If kershaw wins the game hes the post season MVP (if they gave out an award today after the win) out of all players on all teams this year thus far so its not like this year was a black mark on his post season when his team won all but 1 of every postseason game he played in the postseason.

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

Anyway, dodgers werent winning the game anyway scoring zero runs but if want to say its all kershaw's fault the kershaw haters will say that.

Hendricks gave up 1 run in 2 starts and he lost as many games in the Dodgers series as Kershaw did the entire postseason...

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

If kershaw wins the game hes the post season MVP (if they gave out an award today after the win) out of all players on all teams this year thus far so its not like this year was a black mark on his post season when his team won all but 1 of every postseason game he played in the postseason.

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

Anyway, dodgers werent winning the game anyway scoring zero runs but if want to say its all kershaw's fault the kershaw haters will say that.

Hendricks gave up 1 run in 2 starts and he lost as many games in the Dodgers series as Kershaw did the entire postseason...

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Next spinner?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Next spinner?

tough critic. Kershaw's opposing pitchers in the cubs series gave up a total of 1 run in 2 games and Dodgers won 1 of those games. Tough to win 2 games when your team scores 1 run in 2 entire games.

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

tough critic. Kershaw's opposing pitchers in the cubs series gave up a total of 1 run in 2 games and Dodgers won 1 of those games. Tough to win 2 games when your team scores 1 run in 2 entire games.

You can't give up 5 runs in 5 innings. If he lost 1-0 then get on the offense (which was anemic almost every game) but he got shelled again, Mr. Spin.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

You can't give up 5 runs in 5 innings. If he lost 1-0 then get on the offense (which was anemic almost every game) but he got shelled again, Mr. Spin.

right it not good giving up 4 earned runs in 5 innings. (7 hits in 5 innings against Cubs ) but he did also throw a 1-0 almost shutout on 2 hits as well in a game only he wins....its not like he sucked this postseason with the other 2 team wins on short rest and the save etc. If the post season results were like they were in the past like they were this year, he would be considered a good/great post season pitcher. Career not over yet, we will see..

if he lost 1-0 he still would of lost an elimination game, mr spin..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right it not good giving up 4 earned runs in 5 innings. but he did also throw a 1-0 almost shutout as well in a game only he wins....its not like he sucked this postseason with the other 2 team wins on short rest and the save etc.

if he lost 1-0 he still would of lost an elimination game, mr spin..

You are missing the point. If he lost 1-0 everyone would agree he pitched a great game. If he was 0-10 lifetime in the post-season with a 2.00 ERA nobody would be suggesting he had a post-season choking problem. The fact is he has pitched too poorly too often in the post-season to keep spinning his problems as small sample size, leaky bullpen, short rest, whatever.

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right it not good giving up 4 earned runs in 5 innings. but he did also throw a 1-0 almost shutout as well in a game only he wins....its not like he sucked this postseason with the other 2 team wins on short rest and the save etc.

if he lost 1-0 he still would of lost an elimination game, mr spin..

His ERA this postseason was 4.44. Good thing he had the shutout! He did hit .286 they may want to use him next year as a pinch hitter.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are missing the point. If he lost 1-0 everyone would agree he pitched a great game. If he was 0-10 lifetime in the post-season with a 2.00 ERA nobody would be suggesting he had a post-season choking problem. The fact is he has pitched too poorly too often in the post-season to keep spinning his problems as small sample size, leaky bullpen, short rest, whatever.

right but this season isnt a black mark, thats my point which i think you agree..plus he did win 1-0 this year which isnt winning 9-4.....only he wins that game (harder to win 1-0 then win 15-0) which you said his performance was amazing i believe plus the only game out of 5 he appeared in that they lost his team scored 0. If he replicates this every year from here on out it the narrative will have changed and the needle has already moved.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

His ERA this postseason was 4.44. Good thing he had the shutout! He did hit .286 they may want to use him next year as a pinch hitter.

if a 4.44 era means my team wins 3 out of 4 games i started and i also get a key save ill take it. Man only hitting.286 hitting, good thing he made an out last game who he would be batting over .300!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

right but this season isnt a black mark, thats my point which i think you agree..plus he did win 1-0 this year which isnt winning 9-4.....only he wins that game which you said his performance was amazing i believe plus the only game out of 5 he appeared in that they lost his team scored 0. If he replicates this every year from here on out it the narrative will have changed and the needle has already moved.

4.44 booboo. No, he needs to dramatically improve in the future to change the narrative. It's not about wins, it's about pitching well which more often than not puts your team in a position to win.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

4.44 booboo. No, he needs to dramatically improve in the future to change the narrative. It's not about wins, it's about pitching well which more often than not puts your team in a position to win.

I think everyone would agree he was considered a major star in the dodgers/Nats series. He would of been given the mvp of that series or do you disagree. Noboday cares about era . Its about wins not era.

If you agree he was MVP of the Nationals series then obviously era doesnt matter.

His era was 3.00 in the cubs series and whip was .83 .who care about those good number he lost..

In addition Baez won NL series MVP against the dodgers and went 1-6 with zero runs/rbis against Kershaw.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Guess you didn't like Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young with a 13-12 record then. His 2.27 ERA was unimportant, right?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Guess you didn't like Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young with a 13-12 record then. His 2.27 ERA was unimportant, right?

You talking about regular season where stats matter more. If you want to cite regular season, how has Kershaw done in the regular season

Plus how many post season games as Felix's team won when he pitched.


So you agree Kershaw would have won MVP for the national/dodgers playoff series...enough said..

[Peter_Spaeth]

..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Guess you didn't like Felix Hernandez winning the Cy Young with a 13-12 record then. His 2.27 ERA was unimportant, right?

Livan Hernandez won the world series MVP and his era was 5.27 , (whip 1.829) i guess era was really important there. His team winning i guess meant nothing. He didnt even pitch in game 7 of that series

at least he struck out 1 guy every 2 innings, oh wait that is bad too..

I could drop the mike after this post.

[botn]

Dang...Jake is getting beat up here as badly as Kershaw did during the postseason.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Dang...Jake is getting beat up here as badly as Kershaw did during the postseason.

Yeah i getting beat bad.. you probably the guy that says Trump/clinton did great in all the debates (maybe he/she did or didnt, i not have any political views to share, but showing you can say one thing but there are going to be people that disagree)


Also If you think ERA matters when Livan Hernandez won world series MVP with an over 5.00 era maybe the higher the better. His whip was 1.829 as well.

I dropping mike now, have a good rest of the weekend.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's just small sample size booboo.

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"

That's an argument ad hominem, no? Or is it ad ursum?

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I dropping mike now, have a good rest of the weekend.

Ya dropped far more than that, sport.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Ya dropped far more than that, sport.

Yeah dropping knowledge.. good one by the way!

[tschock]

Oh yeah? Just all you Dodger and Kershaw haters wait til next year!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

Oh yeah? Just all you Dodger and Kershaw haters wait til next year!

I love Kershaw. The best pitcher of his generation and, from all one can see, a truly outstanding young man. I am just not deceiving myself into thinking he doesn't have a post-season problem.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

If you think that a 4.44 ERA out of the guy who is supposed to be your best pitcher was good, then we were definitely watching different post seasons. That is what you would expect out of a #4 or 5 starter. It is bad when it is a future hofer.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Just gotta correct, Bum didn't lose in the LDS, he got touched up for 3 (all on Arrietta HR) runs over 5 innings, but the Giants eventually won 6-5 in 13 innings. Those 3 runs represented the first runs he's ever given up in an elimination game. His prior scoreless stretch in elimination games included, a 9 inning CG SHO in the 2014 WC game, 5 scoreless innings to close Game 7 of the 2014 WS and another 9 inning CG SHO in the 2016 WC game.

Add onto that a WS record that includes--- 8 SHO innings in the 2010 WS (as 21 year old rookie), 7 SHO innings in the 2012 WS, then in 2014-- 7 innings w/ 1 ER in game 1, a 9 inning CG SHO in game 5, and the 5 SHO innings to close game 7. It's pretty amazing in its totality. Kershaw destroys Bum's regular season statistics and he's a likely a HOF, but he doesn't come close to touching Bum's record in October.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Just gotta correct, Bum didn't lose in the LDS, he got touched up for 3 (all on Arrietta HR) runs over 5 innings, but the Giants eventually won 6-5 in 13 innings. Those 3 runs represented the first runs he's ever given up in an elimination game. His prior scoreless stretch in elimination games included, a 9 inning CG SHO in the 2014 WC game, 5 scoreless innings to close Game 7 of the 2014 WS and another 9 inning CG SHO in the 2016 WC game.

Add onto that a WS record that includes--- 8 SHO innings in the 2010 WS (as 21 year old rookie), 7 SHO innings in the 2012 WS, then in 2014-- 7 innings w/ 1 ER in game 1, a 9 inning CG SHO in game 5, and the 5 SHO innings to close game 7. It's pretty amazing in its totality. Kershaw destroys Bum's regular season statistics and he's a likely a HOF, but he doesn't come close to touching Bum's record in October.

there was nothing for you to correct. I never claimed to compare their past history in the postseaon.

i clearly was talking about this years postseason. If the Giants score zero in his last start than Bum loses and he was in line to lose. My post doesnt say he lost it notes that the pitching lines were very close for each of these big guys in their last games against the cubs. This thread has been about THIS postseason not being a black mark on kershaw's postseason.

Everyone seems to agree that Kershaw would of won MVP of the Nats/Dodgers series and Kershaw went 1-1 in 2 games versus the cubs in which his team scored exactly 1 run. Thats not remotely close to a bad postseason THIS year. There was no postseason problem for Kershaw this year is all i am saying. You are allowed to lose 1 game in 5 games (and be a big part in 4 wins, one of which was 1-0) and the 1 game you lose your team scores zero.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I not talking about last year, i talking about this year. If the Giants score zero this year than Bum loses and he was in line to lose. His pitching line was very close to Kershaw THIS postseason in his last start against the cubs. This thread has been about THIS postseason not being a black mark on kershaw's postseason. There was nothing for you to correct

If any team scores no runs and their pitcher doesn't toss a shutout, he loses. Not sure your point.

BTW- Bum's ERA THIS postseason was 1.93 over two starts. IF we're allowed to use these "ifs"... if his BP can get 3 outs in the 9th of game 4, Bum may have another opportunity to go legend in game 5, as the potential first/last guy out of the pen after Cueto. That said, I think 1.93 in 2016 is pretty impressive in its own right.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

If any team scores no runs and their pitcher doesn't toss a shutout, he loses. Not sure your point.

BTW- Bum's ERA THIS postseason was 1.93 over two starts. IF we're allowed to use these "ifs"... if his BP can get 3 outs in the 9th of game 4, Bum may have another opportunity to go legend in game 5, as the potential first/last guy out of the pen after Cueto. That said, I think 1.93 in 2016 is pretty impressive in its own right.

Life is about opportunity. 1.93 era or not, Kershaw had a better postseason then Bum THIS year. Maybe if Bum had the chance, things could of been different. If kershaw pitched game 1 versus the cubs maybe things are different too but it doesnt matter. Going by the actual games pitched in THIS postseason kershaw did more.

The point I made about a team scoring zero runs, is that teams pitcher never had the opportunity to win the game. However if you think Bum was impressive this year, then not sure how you cant be impressed with Kershaw THIS year as well in the postseason. If kershaw sucked this year than so did Mr. Bumg.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Life is about opportunity. 1.93 era or not, Kershaw had a better postseason then Bum THIS year. Maybe if Bum had the chance, things could of been different. If kershaw pitched game 1 versus the cubs maybe things are different too but it doesnt matter. Going by the actual games pitched in THIS postseason kershaw did more.

Get off it. Bum is better in the post season bar none. He's been better in each and every post season of his career, 2010, 2014, 2014, and 2016, than Kershaw has been in any single post season of his career. Look it up.

Kershaw is a stud, but seems like you're going to ridiculously great lengths to argue something that just isn't there as far as his postseason legacy (this year, and career) are concerned. In about a week, Kershaw's 2016 postseason will be forgotten forever. Aside from a couple short rest appearances, there is nothing about it that will stand the test of time.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Get off it. Bum is better in the post season bar none. He's been better in each and every post season of his career, 2010, 2014, 2014, and 2016, than Kershaw has been in any single post season of his career. Look it up.

Kershaw is a stud, but seems like you're going to ridiculously great lengths to argue something that just isn't there as far as his postseason legacy (this year, and career) are concerned. In about a week, Kershaw's 2016 postseason will be forgotten forever. Aside from a couple short rest appearances, there is nothing about it that will stand the test of time.

agree with most except in 2016. We will agree to disagree that Mad Bum had a better post-season than Kershaw in 2016.

[chaddurbin]

rooting for clev...but cubs in 5.