Clayton Kershaw Isn’t the Clayton Kershaw of Everything
I don’t know if Clayton Kershaw is going to win the Cy Young Award, but I know he deserves to as much as anybody else. Three years ago, he won the Cy Young by allowing a .521 OPS. Two years ago, he won the Cy Young by allowing a .521 OPS. This year, he might win the Cy Young after allowing a .521 OPS. Maybe he wouldn’t mind a loss so much; he’s already won three of these things, plus a league MVP. He’s not hurting for hardware. But then, it’s not like Clayton Kershaw likes to lose.
He is the total package, as a pitcher, as a player, as a person. On the field, he’s proven his durability. He’s turned himself into a good hitter for his position. He’s also a good defender, who’s difficult to run against. Few pitchers have Kershaw’s know-how, and few pitchers have his command. Kershaw throws what rates as one of the best fastballs in baseball. He throws what rates as one of the best sliders in baseball. He throws what rates as one of the best curveballs in baseball. He does everything, and he’s 27. There’s no such thing as an actually perfect pitcher, but Kershaw is as close as it gets. There are no meaningful weaknesses. He’s even now proven himself in the playoffs.
There’s just this one thing. This one nearly irrelevant thing, that bothers Kershaw even if it doesn’t bother anybody else. Ask anyone else, and they’d tell you that Kershaw is as good as they come. Ask Kershaw, and he’d tell you he wishes he could throw a decent changeup.
When you look back on Kershaw the prospect, on Kershaw the youngster, what drew attention was the curveball. It was supported by a good heater, but the curveball looked like it could be iconic. Back then, Kershaw had a middling changeup, and he didn’t really have a slider. In time, he picked up a slider, and he turned it into one of the best sliders, and Kershaw’s whole career took off. He’s made his name on his three primary pitches, but that fourth has just never quite died. It’s stuck around, as much Kershaw’s challenge for himself as anything.
From Brooks Baseball, here’s how Kershaw has mixed things up during the PITCHf/x era, which also covers his whole career:
That combines sliders and curves under the “breaking” label. Over time, Kershaw has thrown more breaking pitches. Over time, he’s thrown fewer fastballs. And over time, the changeup has faded, but it hasn’t disappeared. It peaked when Kershaw was a rookie, as he threw it about 5% of the time. This past year was a career low, as Kershaw threw it less than one half of 1% of the time. According to PITCHf/x, Kershaw threw 18 changeups. According to Brooks, he threw 15 changeups. According to my own video confirmation, he threw maybe 14 changeups. That’s not very many changeups. It’s also 14 more than zero.
I was led back to this Tim Brown article about Kershaw and his changeup from January 2014. Nothing has changed — as now, Kershaw was then probably the best pitcher in the game. He didn’t need a fourth pitch, but he still wanted to have it. An excerpt:
“Whaddya workin’ on?” I’d ask, every February, from the time Clayton Kershaw was a name on a list of prospects. The most promising name, but still.
[…]
We’d bat it around a little – fastball command, an emerging slider, a tighter, more obedient curveball – and then as the conversation was ending, over his shoulder, he’d say, “Changeup.”
Kershaw wanted to have a changeup, just in case. You never know when you’re going to need to make an adjustment. He also wanted to have a changeup because it was something he didn’t have, something other pitchers had, and Kershaw didn’t want to feel like there was something he couldn’t do. It was a flaw he saw, and just because everyone else was content to see stardom doesn’t mean that little blemish didn’t gnaw at him. It was one of the only things Kershaw could work to improve. Naturally, he was aware of that.
The changeup hasn’t been around much, but since Brown’s article, there’s evidence of a tweak — the changeup has gotten faster.
This is another way to know Kershaw hasn’t entirely given up. If he’d stopped trying with the pitch, he wouldn’t make adjustments to it. Kershaw has thrown the changeup harder because it’s something he’s wanted to experiment with. Maybe this combination of finger pressure and arm speed will unlock it. It hasn’t so far, but you get the sense Kershaw won’t let himself stop trying.
This year, 14 changeups, more or less. No changeups in the playoffs, but some in April, and some in September. This is where they went:
You know from the low frequency it wasn’t a reliable pitch. And you can also tell from that plot, because you see the misses up, arm-side. It’s not that all of them were bad. It’s that Kershaw didn’t trust the pitch to be good. He can trust his other pitches to be good. This is the problem, but it’s also a tricky thing to work on in a game situation.
Kershaw’s 14 changeups were thrown during plate appearances with an average Leverage Index of 0.37. Remember that a Leverage Index of 1.0 is a situation with an average stress level. A Leverage Index of 0.5 is a situation with half the average stress level. There’s one changeup with an LI of 1.5. There’s another changeup with an LI of 1.0. Then, in third place: 0.4. Kershaw was trying to hide the pitch. Or at least, he wasn’t really willing to use the pitch unless he didn’t feel like it would matter if something bad happened.
Of interest, Kershaw threw four changeups in his second start of the season. But by the time he threw his first, he’d already allowed nine hits in four innings or so, so he was probably just looking to make a change. There were seven changeups in April. There were seven after April.
Those two changeups with decently high leverage — those were thrown in the same game, to the same hitter, in consecutive trips. In an August start against the Nationals, Kershaw threw the following 0-and-1 pitch to Wilson Ramos:
The pitch was a ball, but it was a pretty good ball, all things considered, and you can see Yasmani Grandal point at Kershaw to indicate that it was a quality pitch. Kershaw doesn’t usually need that sort of encouragement, but with the changeup, it doesn’t hurt. When Ramos batted again in the sixth, Kershaw threw another 0-and-1 changeup:
Much worse. A waste pitch. Kershaw would throw two more changeups all year, with Leverage Indices of 0.2 and 0.4. As always, the fact that he didn’t have a good changeup didn’t make anything easier on the opposition. But as far as Kershaw’s concerned, that isn’t the point.
It’s worth wondering, maybe, whether it’s just more difficult to throw a reliable changeup from Kershaw’s arm angle.
The only problem with that idea is that Marco Estrada doesn’t have any problems throwing his own changeup. Though Estrada’s right-handed, that doesn’t really make a difference.
So we’re just where we’ve been. Kershaw is as excellent as ever. His fastball, his slider, and his curveball are as excellent as ever. Other pitchers would do horrible things to possess just one of those pitches, but Kershaw might make his own sacrifices to have a changeup that would count as even decent. It’s something he’s never had, and it’s something he’s forever searching for, not really because he needs it, and not really because he might need it, but because Clayton Kershaw doesn’t like to fail at anything, least of all an attempt from the mound. Perfectionists obsess about things others might not even notice, but perfectionists don’t do what they do for the others. It’s all about being the best you can be, and Kershaw believes he can still be better.
I don’t know if this is encouraging for other pitchers, or deflating. I mean, you have Clayton freaking Kershaw, struggling to throw a changeup, which some guys get down in Double-A. Even Clayton Kershaw can have a project he has problems with. It makes him relatable. What makes him less relatable is literally everything else.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.





But he IS the Clayton Kershaw of my heart.
If he were somehow able to perfect a good, tailing changeup, he might never allow a hit again.
Greinke started throwing his change harder and it was a thing of beauty. I wonder if Kershaw throwing it harder is a coincidence or not
Kershaw’s slider is thrown much harder now than a few years ago as well, so it would make sense to me that CK’s change would be thrown harder too.
Roy Halladay didn’t have a changeup for his entire career until he moved over to the Phillies. Then he started playing around with the split-finger change (instead the circle change) and was able to turn it into a quality pitch. If I recall correctly, Halladay was 33 at the time. I remember the announcers all talked about how he was a more complete pitcher, but he had already been the best pitcher in baseball for the past decade. Kershaw and Halladay are very different in their approach and their repertoire, but I think that is an interesting comparison. Pitchers can be good in different ways. And you can be the best pitcher in the world without a changeup. Maybe Kershaw eventually finds a changeup and it helps him combat the eventual velo decline. Maybe he even does it before he is 33.
I wonder if Kershaw has ever fooled with a splitter? Anyway, it appears to me Kershaw has shelved his change by putting a little more cut on his fastball against RHBs.
While you sort of dismiss the idea of the arm angle being the source of difficulty – and clearly it’s not impossible – I do think it is actually harder to do. Kershaw is one of the most up-and-down pitchers in the game, in terms of movement. His fastball has so little horizontal movement that it’s practically a cutter (and he does cut it intentionally to some extent). His curve is also one of the only true 12-6ers in baseball, with much less horizontal break than other pitches it is often compared to, like Wainwright’s.
If you look at the movement on Kershaw’s change, it has a little bit of armside run, which most pitchers’ fastballs do, but it also rises almost as much as his four-seamer. Kershaw is also usually near the top of the list for most rise among four-seamers. So, his change basically like a slightly slower version of another pitcher’s four-seamer. For a comparison, with another pitcher with a fast changeup:
Kershaw’s fastball: 11.1 in. rise, 0.9 in. tail
Kershaw’s change: 8.6 in. rise, 5.5 in. tail
Greinke’s fastball: 9.5 in. rise, 1.6 in. tail
Greinke’s change: 1.3 in. rise, 6.8 in. tail
Vertical movement difference
Kershaw’s FB and CH: 2.5
Greinke’s FB and CH: 8.2
between Kershaw’s CH and Greinke’s FB: 0.9
If you ask me, I don’t really see how a pitch that might be another pitcher’s fastball can be an effective changeup. Changeups almost always have a significant amount of tail, and usually very little rise. This comes from the ball having sidespin instead of backspin. So, a fastball’s spin axis is generally coming out of the sides of the ball, essentially point at either dugout. A circle changeup will generally tilt that axis to various extents, almost to the point of the axis pointing straight up-and-down. If a pitcher comes right over the top, that axis will naturally flatten out and be more horizontal, leading to more rise and less tail – making it more like a fastball.
So, in conclusion, the pitch, as it is now, I think will not work, and Kershaw is generally correct to not feel confident in it. I don’t know what he would be able to do to fix it. As some have suggested, a splitter might work for him, as that pitch’s effectiveness comes less from having a totally different movement profile, but rather from having a lower spin rate, which leads to less rise. Kershaw has a really high spin rate, so by mixing in a pitch with a very low spin rate, he might get a totally different look. That said, splitters are known to have injury implications, and risking injury when you’re already the best pitcher in baseball might be the worst decision of all.
As others have pointed out as well, Kershaw has also been throwing his slider harder, to the point that it exceeds 90 at times. However, the vertical movement difference between his fastball and slider is 7.7. One of my theories about pitching, which is probably not really *my* theory, is that while a lot is made of the velocity difference between pitches, the movement different is as if not more important. If Kershaw could throw his slider exactly as fast as his fastball, it might be an even better pitch, since the movement difference is great enough that a batter couldn’t possibly look for one and react and hit the other. If he registers fastball, and it’s a slider, he is going to whiff.
This probably comes from the fact that we’ve had velocity data for a long time and movement data for relatively little. If we always had movement data, this may have become a truism a long time ago.
why do i always write this crap no one reads…
I read it and thought it was great!
Kersahw heard Jeff Sullivan has no flaw in his baseball analysis game. It pushes him every day.
Congratulations to Jake Arrieta on winning his first Clayton Kershaw Award.
All 3 deserving candidates. Digging deep, I can make a really good case for Kershaw over Arrieta.
Both: 33 Starts.
Both: 3 Starts against AL Teams.
Both: 14 Starts against Middle 5 NL Offenses (ranked by runs, team 6-10)
Arrieta 10 Starts vs Bottom 5 NL Offenses (Normal)
Kershaw 3 Starts vs Bottom 5 NL Offenses (Unlucky)
Arrieta 9 Starts vs Top 5 NL Offenses (Normal)
Kershaw 16 Starts vs Top 5 NL Offenses (Unlucky)
Arrieta 0 Starts in Coors
Kershaw 2 Starts in Coors
– Coors field has the largest “park effect” by far (difference between Coors and 2nd ranked is greater than the difference between 8th and 27th ranked)
Kershaw pitched against a SIGNIFICANTLY tougher schedule.
7 More Top 5 NL Offenses.
7 Less Bottom 5 NL Offenses.
2 More at Coors Field.
While not many voters are going to break the Cy Young down to this extent, these factors have a substantial impact on ERA. One would have to adjust for about .6 runs/game for about 55% of the starts. Their ERAs’ would be very close. Park effect is much smaller than people think between the stadiums of Chavez Ravine and Wrigley (.032, statistically irrelevant)
I didn’t look into weather of each game and break it down because I don’t have time as of right now. However, I can anecdotally say (since I bet on baseball everyday) and pay very close attention to Kershaw and certain “factors” such as weather and umpire data for overs/unders. Kershaw always seem to have many “factors” conspire against him just like aforementioned schedule as well.
Example:
90 degrees (climate change in L.A., hot all year even at night)
Wind blowing out to Left Center 8MPH
Humidity 60% (yes, ball travels further in high humidity, common misconception)
Umpire: Demuth, Scott, Davidson, Diaz, etc. (or other super tight zone ump)
People don’t think much of it, but there is a very big difference when the weather is cool, dry, and the wind is blowing in. After studying these “factors” for a full season, I would actually say the home plate umpire is the single biggest factor (not including the opposing team) in regards to run scoring. A strong wind would be 2nd, and then, air density as it pertains to barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity.
IMO, the NL Central was vastly overrated to pitch against especially if that pitcher was a Pirate or a Cub because they will not have to pitch against their own team.
Reds and Brewers were terrible.
For a team that won so many games, STL had a subpar offense, thus a quality pitcher could could really pitch some gems against them. That is 3 out of the 4 teams in the division for Arrieta that did not score runs. On the other hand for Kershaw, Colorado and Arizona were the two highest scoring teams in the NL and SF ranked 5th. The West was the best offensive division by far in the NL. Even the lowly Padres outscored the Cardinals by a smidge to put the schedule difference into perspective.
The people who cite Arrieta’s division to indicate his “tougher” schedule are usually making a wins-based argument so… I generally just ignore that.
This is a good breakdown. Unfortunately, I believe some of this work may have already been done for you, though perhaps not at the level of detail of examining the umpire. Baseball reference has a “RAAavg” number, calculated using the average park factors and opponent offenses they each actually faced.
Arrieta: 4.21
Kershaw: 4.17
So I would imagine the park factor differences more or less neutralize the difference in opponent offense, which actually isn’t that great to begin with. It’s not enough to make Kershaw’s RA stats look better.
What does make Kershaw look a little better is Baseball Prospectus’s DRA, which has him leading baseball, just a notch above Greinke and a few notches above Arrieta.