baseball playoffs

bravos4evr · #1 10-25-2017, 05:36 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 10-25-2017, 07:40 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 10-25-2017, 11:45 PM

Quote:

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 · #4 10-26-2017, 04:53 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 10-29-2017, 06:18 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 10-29-2017, 12:42 PM

Quote:

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Twins are in the playoffs!!!	nolemmings	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	2	05-10-2015 09:17 AM
Playoffs	alanu	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	8	10-15-2012 08:56 PM
More Playoffs??	SmokyBurgess	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	1	11-23-2010 10:41 AM
2010 baseball playoffs, who are you rooting for??	bobafett72	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	40	11-01-2010 09:51 PM
Today's Baseball and the Playoffs- O/T	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	65	10-16-2006 06:11 AM