baseball playoffs

[packs]

Wins are rarely an indicator of how well a person pitches. Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with only 13 wins. ERA will tell the story and his ERA is objectively bad.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

Wins are rarely an indicator of how well a person pitches. Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young with only 13 wins. ERA will tell the story and his ERA is objectively bad.

Not getting team W's or individual 'W's i agree doesnt mean much if your stats are great. However if you ARE getting W's and team Ws, i think those W's matter more than just looking at stats. Your team is not going to win much when you are blasted in the first 3 innings and leave your start. In the event you get a lucky win or 2....it will be really hard to get 9 out of 10 team wins in your starts unless you are pitching winning baseball

Giving up 4 runs when your team is up 7 in the late innings is not much of a negative as the stats would say. Especially when you are winning 2-0 games as part of the streak etc.

Livan Hernandez won MVP of the world series with an above 5 era in the world series so era doesnt matter that much when you get Ws. You can have the best stats in the world, but if your team loses every one of your starts, you arent going to be MVP..... Era doesnt tell the whole story, plus Kershaw's era continues to go down and is under 3 in this years playoffs..

[mckinneyj]

Kershaw's regular season MO has been to dominate rather than to pitch merely well enough to win. His post season history does not mirror that. So, something has certainly differed for him in the post season (last night excepted). Perhaps he had tired by season end, perhaps the competition was better and more focused, or perhaps the pressure of having to carry a team was too great? is the pressure greater trying to get to the World Series as opposed to playing in the World Series? Dunno... but, he'll likely get another opportunity or two to further define his post-season personna.

[Touch'EmAll]

Kershaw is really darn good, not super great. He has helped the Dodgers to a heck of a year probably ending in World Series ring. Last night was a classic battle of Aces - Kershaw vs. Keuchel, fun to watch as Dodger fan. Side note - the hitters are standing soooo far back in batters box, makes it tough to sometimes determine ball/strike. Shouldn't the strike zone start at the front edge of home plate? There is quite a distance between front edge of home plate to all the way back where hitters are standing.

[packs]

I just don't think that's true at all. In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees, just two less wins than Johan Santana, who won Cy Young that year. But Randy had a 5.00 ERA. It didn't matter if the Yankees won his games. He was bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I just don't think that's true at all. In 2006 Randy Johnson went 17-11 for the Yankees, just two less wins than Johan Santana, who won Cy Young that year. But Randy had a 5.00 ERA. It didn't matter if the Yankees won his games. He was bad.

By Jake's illogic, a guy could pitch for a team that scored 10 runs a game, give up 9 a game himself and go 20-0 with a 9.00 ERA and he would be a phenomenal pitcher.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By Jake's illogic, a guy could pitch for a team that scored 10 runs a game, give up 9 a game himself and go 20-0 with a 9.00 ERA and he would be a phenomenal pitcher.

thats not my logic....when you see a guy give up 10 runs a game and his team win 9 out of 10 starts let me know. My argument is you have to pitch 'winning' baseball to have your team win 9 out of 10 starts. I will make a wild guess that if you give up 9 runs in 10 straight games in the PLAYOFFS, you arent going to win 9 out of 10 games.... Its also hard to give up 9 runs when you have 11ks in a game.

by your logic if a guy gives up 3 runs a game and his team loses all of his starts, he is great. You are going to need to win some games 3-1 as well to win 9 out of 10 games. Kershaw pitched a better game in the playoffs last year then he did yesterday. He has a bunch of great starts mixed in.

So basically if a guy wins 90 out of 100 games with your logic, that guy sucks if his era is 4+ Eventually the wins matter and the starting pitcher is only giving up non meaningful runs in the 'bad' games that he still winning....and on the few losses he is giving up the majority of the runs..

Lots of pitchers pitch great and find ways to lose.....Kershaw wins... 8 out of the last 9 playoff games his team has won.....not sure what you arguing about..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Whether a team wins is a function of two, independent things -- how well they hit and how well they pitch. A pitcher is judged by how well he pitches, not by how well his team happens to hit, or not hit, that day. I am not sure what YOU are arguing about. And to be clear if (let's just assume a complete game for a hypothetical) if Clayton wins 7-5 and another dude loses 3-2 then yeah the other dude pitched much better assuming no weird stuff like many unearned runs.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whether a team wins is a function of two, independent things -- how well they hit and how well they pitch. A pitcher is judged by how well he pitches, not by how well his team happens to hit, or not hit, that day. I am not sure what YOU are arguing about. And to be clear if (let's just assume a complete game for a hypothetical) if Clayton wins 7-5 and another dude loses 3-2 then yeah the other dude pitched much better assuming no weird stuff like many unearned runs.

Thats a short sample size. If the dude loses 19 out of 20 games and has an era of 3.5 and Clayton's teams wins 19 out of 20 games and has an era of 4.00. There is more to just what your teams scores. Clayton has to be winning many low scoring games as well as some games with some better scoring. Clayton could of given up 3 runs in 7 innings yesterday which would of been better than his current playoff era and his team could of lost 4-3. The games he needs to hold the runs down he does obviously. You cant win 8 of 9 games in the playoffs without that happening.

Plus the guy with the 3.5 era, maybe gives up more runs if his team would have scored more runs for him. You cant punish Clayton for giving up 4 runs when his team has a 7 run lead in the late innings. Plus he has so many other wins as well. Giving up some runs in exchange for no big innings has value for W's. Its not like the dodgers were down 4-0.

Just silly, i not sure what you are arguing about.

[frankbmd]

Not going to mention Kershaw in this post. Promise.

And pardon me for probably preaching to the choir.

Premise: Deadball pitchers were really good, or were they?

With all the talk about pitcher's ERAs as a measure of greatness, consider first

in 1905 when 4.1 runs were scored per team/game in the National League and
in 1905 NL teams made average of 294 errors/team for the season,and
in 1905 about 29% of runs scored were unearned, and so
in 1905 the league average ERA was 2.99

in 1955 when 4.5 runs were scored per team/game in the National League and
in 1955 NL teams made average of 142 errors/team for the season, and
in 1955 about 11% of runs scored were unearned, and so
in 1955 the league average ERA was 4.04

in 2015 when 4.2 runs were scored per team/game in the National League and
in 2015 NL teams made average of 95 errors/team for the season, and
in 2015 less than 8% of runs scored were unearned, and so
in 2015 the league average ERA was 3.90

The NL and the years chosen were done so randomly, but seem representative of the eras they represent.

Have the advances in equipment, primarily gloves, made pitchers worse due to their higher ERAs in the modern game? NO

Why then hasn't run production decreased parallel to the improvement in fielding?

Is a deadball pitcher with an ERA of 3.00 equivalent to a modern pitcher with an ERA of 3.00? NO

ERA as a stat is limited. One error early in an inning can lead to 7 or 8 unearned runs largely due to the ineffectiveness of the pitcher rather than the single error in many cases.

Using the stat to compare pitchers from different eras ain't going to work either.

Using the stat to compare a pitcher to his contemporary peers makes a little more sense, but still has its limits.

WaJo was one of the greats in his era, but who knows what his ERA would be in 2015????

I'm sure this post opens the door to a discussion of WHIPs, BLIPs and FLIPs, but I'm old-fashioned and not going there.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

thats not my logic....when you see a guy give up 10 runs a game and his team win 9 out of 10 starts let me know. My argument is you have to pitch 'winning' baseball to have your team win 9 out of 10 starts. I will make a wild guess that if you give up 9 runs in 10 straight games in the PLAYOFFS, you arent going to win 9 out of 10 games.... Its also hard to give up 9 runs when you have 11ks in a game.

by your logic if a guy gives up 3 runs a game and his team loses all of his starts, he is great. You are going to need to win some games 3-1 as well to win 9 out of 10 games. Kershaw pitched a better game in the playoffs last year then he did yesterday. He has a bunch of great starts mixed in.

So basically if a guy wins 90 out of 100 games with your logic, that guy sucks if his era is 4+ Eventually the wins matter and the starting pitcher is only giving up non meaningful runs in the 'bad' games that he still winning....and on the few losses he is giving up the majority of the runs..

Lots of pitchers pitch great and find ways to lose.....Kershaw wins... 8 out of the last 9 playoff games his team has won.....not sure what you arguing about..

yes, if a guy gives up a bunch of runs but the offense scores more, he still sucks as a pitcher. PITCHER WINS ARE NOT INDICATORS OF QUALITY PITCHING. it isn't 1935 any more, time to evolve with the times

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Not getting team W's or individual 'W's i agree doesnt mean much if your stats are great. However if you ARE getting W's and team Ws, i think those W's matter more than just looking at stats. Your team is not going to win much when you are blasted in the first 3 innings and leave your start. In the event you get a lucky win or 2....it will be really hard to get 9 out of 10 team wins in your starts unless you are pitching winning baseball

Giving up 4 runs when your team is up 7 in the late innings is not much of a negative as the stats would say. Especially when you are winning 2-0 games as part of the streak etc.

Livan Hernandez won MVP of the world series with an above 5 era in the world series so era doesnt matter that much when you get Ws. You can have the best stats in the world, but if your team loses every one of your starts, you arent going to be MVP..... Era doesnt tell the whole story, plus Kershaw's era continues to go down and is under 3 in this years playoffs..

Let’s face it. The only thing that can keep Kershaw from walking on water is a drought.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Not getting team W's or individual 'W's i agree doesnt mean much if your stats are great. However if you ARE getting W's and team Ws, i think those W's matter more than just looking at stats. Your team is not going to win much when you are blasted in the first 3 innings and leave your start. In the event you get a lucky win or 2....it will be really hard to get 9 out of 10 team wins in your starts unless you are pitching winning baseball

Giving up 4 runs when your team is up 7 in the late innings is not much of a negative as the stats would say. Especially when you are winning 2-0 games as part of the streak etc.

Livan Hernandez won MVP of the world series with an above 5 era in the world series so era doesnt matter that much when you get Ws. You can have the best stats in the world, but if your team loses every one of your starts, you arent going to be MVP..... Era doesnt tell the whole story, plus Kershaw's era continues to go down and is under 3 in this years playoffs..

Let’s face it. The only thing that can keep Kershaw from walking on water is a drought.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Not getting team W's or individual 'W's i agree doesnt mean much if your stats are great. However if you ARE getting W's and team Ws, i think those W's matter more than just looking at stats. Your team is not going to win much when you are blasted in the first 3 innings and leave your start. In the event you get a lucky win or 2....it will be really hard to get 9 out of 10 team wins in your starts unless you are pitching winning baseball

Giving up 4 runs when your team is up 7 in the late innings is not much of a negative as the stats would say. Especially when you are winning 2-0 games as part of the streak etc.

Livan Hernandez won MVP of the world series with an above 5 era in the world series so era doesnt matter that much when you get Ws. You can have the best stats in the world, but if your team loses every one of your starts, you arent going to be MVP..... Era doesnt tell the whole story, plus Kershaw's era continues to go down and is under 3 in this years playoffs..

this is total nonsense. we KNOW pitcher wins are a terrible way to judge performance and we KNOW that Livan's MVP win was stupid and a result of incompetent voting, stop using these things to push your narrative about Kershaw's playoff performance.

He has been up and down in the playoffs, but it's such a small sample size as to be pretty much pointless as a gauge. The people who claim he "chokes" are idiots and the people who try to pretend he's been amazing are also idiots.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

this is total nonsense. we KNOW pitcher wins are a terrible way to judge performance and we KNOW that Livan's MVP win was stupid and a result of incompetent voting, stop using these things to push your narrative about Kershaw's playoff performance.

He has been up and down in the playoffs, but it's such a small sample size as to be pretty much pointless as a gauge. The people who claim he "chokes" are idiots and the people who try to pretend he's been amazing are also idiots.

At what point would you be willing to drop the "small sample size" argument? I guess 22 games 18 starts and 113 innings in you still feel it isn't enough to make any judgments at all about the relative merits of his post and regular season performances, so how much more is needed in your view?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At what point would you be willing to drop the "small sample size" argument? I guess 22 games 18 starts and 113 innings in you still feel it isn't enough to make any judgments at all about the relative merits of his post and regular season performances, so how much more is needed in your view?

8 of last 9 playoffs starts with dodgers winning the game is a big enough sample size. Plus his stats are trending in the right direction and season not over yet..

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At what point would you be willing to drop the "small sample size" argument? I guess 22 games 18 starts and 113 innings in you still feel it isn't enough to make any judgments at all about the relative merits of his post and regular season performances, so how much more is needed in your view?

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)


I wish fangraphs did FIP for the playoffs, but I can't seem to find it, it would be a better thing to look at to judge Kershaw. (even tho the SSS issue still would be present)

[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.