Clayton Kershaw

[steve B]

I like the three paths thing, I think it's fairly accurate.

I also think we all use (And in some cases invent) stats to attempt making difficult comparisons. So the old stats sort of work, and newer ones like WAR also work. The relative success of teams using newer stats seems to support those stats, most of which I haven't really gotten into.

All stats have some failings, things they don't and in many cases can't account for.

One of the things that's come to fascinate me about sports are what are usually called the "intangibles" Stuff that just can't be readily handled by stats.

My impressions of some of the players mentioned- all without resorting to stats, just how I recall them being a fan.
Kaat - Solid pitcher with some really good days and seasons. Lasted a long time I think because he was a reasonable negotiator who would take decent pay in return for being a player pretty much as long as he wanted.

Shilling - Also pretty solid, and a throwback who pitched a lot more innings than most modern pitchers.

Mussina- Decent pitcher, especially on a good team, and I don't really recall him pitching for a bad team, sure, the Orioles weren't the Yankees, partly because they had to play the Yankees fairly often. Could he have carried a bad team? Hard to say.

Rice - I'll admit bias here, one of my favorite players. He took a lot of heat from the press, some with reason some not. Pretty much every player in Boston does. His later years were not great, but weren't horrible. Even the better years some said he was disappointing simply because the season he had wasn't 78 (A really good maybe great season by most standards)

Glavine- Another dependable occasionally brilliant pitcher. Also a guy who kept pretty low key and went for the long view of things.

Trammell - Again, solid, durable, reliable, and constantly outshone by flashier players.

Many of the others I didn't see in their prime, or at all.

Some examples of intangible stuff?
Don Baylor - Went to the WS four straight years for four diferent teams all when he was older, and easily cut loose in favor of a younger cheaper player. But he must have had some positive effect right?

Tim Wakefield - Spotty, as most knuckleball pitchers, amazing sometimes, horrible at others. But a number of times he was asked to go out and take whatever happened over several innings to give the bullpen some rest. And hardly ever a complaint about that despite it wrecking his individual stats. How can you figure what the value that is to a team?

The modern stats I think need to be balanced with a bit of the old. The best example I can think of is the As right when modern stats were getting popular. They regularly fielded entire teams of inexpensive slightly above average players with a handful, usually pitchers who were a good deal better. And they did very well even with a lack of budget. But.......They weren't generally all that exciting. So the fans stayed away, and that's a piece of why they were stuck in the small budget category. Spending on a couple hitters who might be about the same by the numbers but might be more entertaining to watch would have served them a bit better.

Steve B

[packs]

Tom Glavine was one of the best pitchers in the league every year at the absolute height of the steroid era. Kaat led the league in wins once vs 5 times for Glavine. Kaat led the league in CG and shutouts once, as did Glavine. Glavine has 102 more wins than loses. Kaat has less than 50. They both pitched roughly the same amount of innings but Glavine played 3 less seasons. Kaat got CY votes once; granted for the first 5 seasons they only gave out one award. Glavine won 2, finished 2nd twice, and 3rd twice.

I give my nod to Glavine.

[clydepepper]

Enough about Kaat...let's get back to Kershaw:

Here's the question:

With all the time he has missed, if Kershaw comes back in the next few weeks, is his old self and the Dodgers (who have actually played better since he went down) make the playoffs, can he win the Cy Young again?

No other candidate stands out - unless I'm forgetting someone.

[packs]

I don't think Kershaw has a realistic shot at winning if he only starts 20 or so games. He's at 16 right now and if he came back I don't think he'd get more than a handful of starts.

To me Bumgarner is the CY. His ERA is higher at 2.25 but he's also pitched 50 more innings, made 10 more starts, and has the highest WAR among pitchers in the NL. Hell, other than Kris Bryant he has the highest WAR out of everyone in the NL.

[bravos4evr]

Fangraphs has Mad-Bum 5th in NL starter WAR with Thor 2nd .

But, if you go by ERA and playing on a good team...etc (stuff we all know voters look at) IMO, Hendricks has a really good shot at it. His ERA is 2.16 the Cubs are good....etc


I really think that if the Marlins make the playoffs Fernandez might deserve it. Hard to argue with nearly 13 K's/9 inn and being 3rd in fWAR. (and maybe 2nd by the time the season is over with the way Thor has sunk of late)

It's gonna be a mess,IMO, no one person is standing head and shoulders over anyone else since Kershaw's injury put him in such bad position due to inn pitched.

[Topnotchsy]

Another scoreless outing for Kershaw. ERA down to 1.65. I don't think he'll win the Cy Young (I think Scherzer should probably win it if the season ended tomorrow) but pretty remarkable.

[Griffins]

what is the minimum number of innings you need to pitch to qualify as ERA leader?