Kershaw Is Forcing Us to Confront the Pedro Question
Over the last 365 days, Clayton Kershaw has been baseball’s best pitcher. That isn’t a particularly enlightening sentence given that he’s almost certainly been the league’s best pitcher over the last several years, as well. At this point, the question isn’t really if Kershaw is the best pitcher, but rather if he is the best overall player, Mike Trout included. Kershaw has truly been that phenomenal.
To put some numbers behind it, consider: since May 26, 2015, Kershaw has thrown 253.1 regular-season innings (34 starts) and produced a 39 ERA- and 42 FIP-, thanks in part to a 34.8 K% and 3.3 BB%. By our WAR model, that’s equivalent to an 11-WAR season. It’s closer to 12 WAR if you use runs allowed as the primary input instead of FIP.
We all have our own favorite Kershaw fun fact, but here’s one that’s been bubbling to the surface lately. Full disclosure: I’ve been partially responsible for said bubbling.
| Player | Time | IP | ERA- | FIP- |
| Pedro Martinez | 1999-2000 | 430.1 | 39 | 39 |
| Clayton Kershaw | Last 365 days | 253.1 | 39 | 42 |
Some context: since 1961, there have been just a handful of qualified starters to record less than a 40 ERA- in a single season and the only two qualified seasons under 40 FIP- belong to Pedro in 1999 and Kershaw in 2016. Those Pedro years are often considered the modern gold standard of starting-pitcher dominance. He was 60% better than league average for two full seasons.
It’s important to note that Kershaw is only halfway into the chase. Not only does he need another 200 innings in total to match Pedro, but his 2016 season is fewer than 100-innings old. Lots of pitchers have been great for 100-inning stretches without warranting the Pedro Article, but Kershaw is the game’s best pitcher and he’s somehow improving.
I’m not terribly interested in a clickbait-style “which guy is better” debate. Pitching quality isn’t something we can measure with the kind of precision necessary for that to be a useful goal. Even if we determined which pitcher was better, what good would that even do? Instead, I want to pose a broader and less combative question: is this Kershaw run similar to peak Pedro?
Right off the bat, ERA- and FIP- say yes. Comparing his park-adjusted ERA and FIP to the league average ERA and FIP over the last year, Kershaw is right there with peak Pedro. He hasn’t maintained it as long as Pedro did, but he’s 59% of the way to matching the Peak of Peaks.
On the other hand, there are metrics by which Pedro is clearly ahead. Kershaw is averaging an RE24 of 53.2 per 200 IP while Pedro averaged 68.8 per 200 IP from 1999-2000. While their park- and era-adjusted ERA are the same, Pedro’s run-expectancy numbers are better, indicating that Kershaw is probably getting a little extra help from his bullpen when he leaves the game with men on base (their unearned runs are comparable).
Furthermore, Baseball Prospectus’ Deserved Run Average favors Pedro a little more than ERA- and FIP-:
| Player | Year | DRA-* |
| Pedro Martinez | 1999 | 31 |
| 2000 | 36 | |
| Clayton Kershaw | 2015 | 50 |
| 2016 | 42 |
There are plenty of reasons why FIP and DRA would diverge. Perhaps DRA believes Kershaw’s low BABIP is based more heavily on good defense while Pedro’s is based on Pedro being awesome. Maybe DRA thinks the quality of Kershaw’s opponents during this run is lower than Pedro’s, even once you get inside the era itself. After all, beating the 2016 Padres is different than beating the 2016 Cubs, even though both happened in the same year.
There’s a lot of nuance inside DRA that we can’t unpack without looking under the hood, but I would suspect those would be the two critical areas.
Kershaw’s unadjusted ERA, FIP, and DRA are better than Pedro’s, but in order to compare them we’ve taken to scaling each player’s numbers to that era’s league average. During Pedro’s peak, teams averaged about 5.1 runs per game compared to around 4.3 runs during the Kershaw streak. What we’re saying when we era-adjust the numbers is that it’s more difficult to prevent runs in one era than the other because the overall quality of the league is different.
But maybe it’s worth unpacking what that really means. For instances, are all 4.3 R/G environments the same? The league is currently scoring runs at a rate similar to 1991, but the game is quite different. Hits are down (8.69 to 8.51 per game), but home runs are up (0.80 to 1.07 per game). Strikeouts are way up (5.80 to 7.97), but stolen bases (0.74 to 0.51) and sacrifice bunts are way down (0.39 to 0.21). Should we expect pitching to be equally difficult in 1991 and 2016 because the overall environment is the same or should the difficulty vary on more than that one dimension?
Additionally, the run environment can change for a variety of reasons. As discussed by Sam Miller and Ben Lindbergh on Episode 875 of Effectively Wild, the run environment could change because the pitchers change, the hitters change, or some combination of both. If the run environment changes because the hitters improve, pitching gets more difficult across the board but a pitcher’s relative performance shouldn’t change. If the the run environment changes because all of the other pitchers improve, pitching doesn’t get any harder, but the same pitcher’s relative performance will change.
The goal of era adjustments is to provide a rough estimate of how a given player would perform in another context, but the actual mechanics of era adjustments aren’t able to do that. We can compare a player’s unadjusted line to the average line during his era, but the differences in eras extend beyond the overall run environment.
This is different than the “would Babe Ruth be able to hit today’s pitchers?” question. Obviously, modern athletes are bigger and stronger than their predecessors. I have no doubt that if you placed peak Ruth and peak Barry Bonds into 2016, Bonds would out-hit Ruth by a substantial margin. Rather, I’m asking a question about the way the game is played, controlling for the talent level of the league. Put another way, is it easier for Kershaw to post numbers 60% better than league average in 2016 than it was for Pedro to post them in 2000 because of the way the game is played?
As the game has skewed toward the three true outcomes, has it become easier (or harder?!) for pitchers to stand out? Is it harder to be 60% better than average when the league scores fewer runs overall, simply because you’re starting closer to the runs allowed floor? Did Pedro have a harder time because bullpens weren’t as good and he was asked to get outs he wouldn’t have to get in 2016? Technology has led umpires to be more consistent, how has that influenced pitching? I don’t know that I have good answers, but I do know that I’m very interested in the questions.
I’m open to the idea that our era adjustments are too simplistic to truly parse the differences between distinct eras. I’m fairly confident that FIP- is an effective tool for comparing 2013 and 2015, but can it handle the differences between 1941, 1968, 1999, and 2015? Is what Kershaw’s doing really as impressive as peak Pedro or are we missing something by collapsing all of the game’s differences into a single number?
But it might also be the case that we can simply compare a player’s overall numbers to the overall run environment and call it a day. If that’s the case, Kershaw is making a compelling argument whose strength varies slightly depending on your metric of choice. At the very least, this method puts peak Kershaw in the vicinity of peak Pedro and forces us to have this conversation. Even if it turns out that peak Kershaw isn’t peak Pedro, the fact that we’re taking the comparison seriously is awfully impressive accomplishment.
Neil Weinberg is the Site Educator at FanGraphs and can be found writing enthusiastically about the Detroit Tigers at New English D. Follow and interact with him on Twitter @NeilWeinberg44.
Who is better is becoming a tougher question. But, I’m pretty comfortable saying that Kershaw is one of the best pitchers of all time. His name looks right next to Pedro, Big Unit, Maddux, Clemens, Koufax, Seaver, Carlton, Gibson.
Isn’t it a little early to say that? I mean, Kershaw has about 50 WAR to his career…Clemens has 133. That’s an absurd difference.
kershaw is 28
You DO know he did it, right?
#EW
Upvoting for the joke, but half a downvote in my head for messing it up; it’s “you know why?”
WAR is a counting stat. At some point, the peak of players needs to be weighted more than the unadjusted tally. Also, a lot of what Clemens did was fake, so that needs to be factored in.
He’s still only about half way to solve of those guys, though he’ll definitely close that gap assuming health.
What about Arrieta?
I’m a Cubs fan, and Arrieta’s had a fantastic streak going, but you can’t compare him to Kershaw. Look at their careers. Kershaw’s *career* has been as good as Koufax’s *peak*. Arrieta wasn’t even considered the Cubs’ best starter a year ago at this time. People didn’t even start calling him an ace until his no-hitter later in the season. Arrieta is really, really good *right now*, but you have to do it a lot more than a calendar year before you can compare him to an all time great. It’s even premature to talk about Kershaw in that manner, other than saying he’s on the path and it’s possible that he becomes one.
We’re comparing peaks, not careers. Arrieta’s last 2 cal years ERA- is 51. Kershaw’s is 49. Past 1 calendar year, Arrieta is at an ERA- of 34, Kershaw is at 38.
Not saying Kershaw sucks, obviously he’s the best. Just thought it’d be worth including Arrieta in there too.
Fair enough, I see what you’re saying. Sorry… being in Chicago I’m around a lot of people who think Sale & Arrieta are the two best pitchers in the game and conveniently forget about the guy who actually is the best. I feel like I have to constantly remind them.
It’s not absurd to say Sale & Arrieta might not be having the best season in the city!
Edit: not a knock on either just a general comment that Quintana is also good at baseball.
Granted, they’re nearly identical by ERA-, but FIP- shows a bit more of a gap. Kershaw has posted a 49 FIP- the last two years (identical to his ERA- score) while Arrieta registers a 60. Going by just the last calendar year, Kershaw beats Arrieta 42 to 62. So while Arrieta’s numbers are certainly nothing to scoff at, I think Kershaw still has a healthy lead in the best pitcher department.
True
The author framed the discussion to only include the last calendar year … so, not surprisingly, some of the readers are discussing just the last 1.25 seasons … or the last calendar year.
I’m a cardinals fan who doesn’t want to give ANY credit to anything Cubs until it’s legitimately earned, and even I had the name “Arietta” pop into my mind … only because (1) he’s been amazing over the last 1.5 seasons and (2) the article starts with the words “Over the last 365 days”, implying we are only looking at the last 365 days.
I don’t see how the mention of Arietta as consideration in this specific discussion would get downvoted so much.
Looking at bWAR and fWAR over the past 1.5 seasons (365 days) and averaging them 50/50 (or just adding them together):
Kershaw = 10.7bWAR + 12.4 fWAR = 23.1 WAR
Arietta = 11.4 bWAR + 9.2 fWAR = 20.6 WAR
You CAN compare him to Kershaw. He is not EQUAL to Kershaw, but it’s not an absurd or unfair comparison. Saying “He’s not Kershaw” is about the only way you can *insult* Arietta … but that would make as much sense as saying “Well, Kershaw ain’t Pedro” as a means of saying Kershaw isn’t all that great. Good god, asking whether you would want your team to face Kershaw or Arietta is like asking which testicle you want kicked in. Neither is at all pleasant.
We’re getting pretty harsh as to who gets included in these “best” discussions … especially when we, as a group, tend to advocate for HOF eligible players that most others wouldn’t consider as really strong contenders.
I completely agree with you. I was one of the first dissenters and wish waited a little longer before commenting. Chicago sports radio is a little biased at the moment; even the “unbiased” reporters don’t give Kershaw the credit and he seems like an afterthought. I’m reacting to that as much as I am the comment itself.
IMHO, people under-estimate even Kershaw’s greatness because (1) they still don’t understand the advanced metrics that best compare to past generations of pitchers and (2) well, the playoffs.
Pitching on the West Coast has a big impact on notoriety I think. I know Kershaw is great, but i see him pitch much less than I would like.
Casual fans have seen his failures in the playoffs and not much more, and I think that has an impact too.
Pedro pitched every week on ESPN. And he killed it. That helps.
And also, Pedro was better. :). I’m a Yankee fan and I love Pedro. Guy was a stone cold killer. Best I’ve ever seen I think.
This mainly highlights the difference in a runs allowed based war and a fip based war. kershaw owns the peripheral categories. Arrieta has the advantage in end game based war(in the end a pitcher will tell you runs allowed is all that matters). Obviously more likely Kershaw keeps this up, but arrietas stretch is better in my opinion.
Of course, what a pitcher tells you matters isn’t really relevant when we’re talking value to the team. The athletes are often the least qualified to explain analysis.
If you’re going to use RA based WAR, just realize that what you’re saying is that Arrieta + Cubs defense behind him has been better than Kershaw + Dodgers defense behind him.
The cubs were 12 runs better than the Dodgers by DRS, arrieta threw less than 1/7 of those innings, so that’s not even 2 runs over the course of the year.
That’s not exactly how that works.
Sure, they can be compared to each other, but do they always have to be? Does every conversation about Kershaw have to include some reference to Arrieta? From my perspective, the harsh reactions aren’t directed at Arrieta himself, but rather at those who feel the need to insert him into every discussion.
Arrieta is indeed awesome…but he’s no peak-Pedro. Then again, even Kershaw might not be peak-Pedro, but at least he’s got something that makes for a legitimate comparison. It’s at least worth talking about with Kershaw. If you and others recognize that Arrieta is still a step behind Kershaw (even is it’s a small one) then I would think it would be okay to let him sit this topic out.
Fernando- when using era- to compare Kershaw to pedro, arrieta has to be included simply because he bests them both. If he trailed them then I would see no need for him to be included.
Bip- I agree, except we know the run prevention numbers are real because they already happened. Fip tells us what to expect moving forward based on how they got there, but in the past year I take era- as having more weight than fip-.
So then do you believe that the current run Arrieta is on is in the conversation for greatest peak of all time?
Yes, absolutely Fernando. 2 no hitters included in his ridiculous run.
Okay, fair enough. I think that means we have different views on how to value pitching, and while I think you’re in the minority here, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong. But, I do think it means we’re not going to get very far without addressing more fundamental disagreements. So thanks for a stimulating conversation!
This discussion uses specific names, but is really a FIP vs. ERA discussion in regards to how much credit/blame a pitcher gets. We’re not the first, or the last, to have that discussion no matter what the form.
When I say “real” I mean, do they reflect his talent and performance level? If his past ERA was largely the result of well-above-average defense and sequencing luck, then I still don’t conclude that Arrieta was that good. You can say that his results when on the mound are certainly comparable, but when talking about peaks, I am more interested in who pitched the best, not who got the best results, questions which are related but not equivalent.
Unless someone goes through and individually looks at the defensive performances when each are on the mound, I take the results on the mound. Pitcher sequencing is much different than lucky batting sequencing, it’s well known ace pitchers save the best stuff for situations with runners on.
“…it’s well known ace pitchers save the best stuff for situations with runners on.”
I don’t think that’s true. Some pitchers struggle when pitching out of the stretch, so I don’t think you can really claim that aces dig deep and pull out some kind of better pitches with men on.
Fernando I agree some pitchers do struggle more with men on base. Some really do adapt a pitch to contact approach with none on and as soon as someone is on second they are more willing to get deep in counts to make their pitch. Completely agree that this is an impossible argument. They are both amazing and have done it in different ways.
Not only is it not true, it would be super dumb if it were true. The most efficient out to get is the first. If anything, a pitcher should save his best stuff for the first batter of an inning, since baserunners allowed do less damage the more outs there are when they get on.
If someone could show Arrieta did this, focus on nailing the first batter and then relaxing with more outs, then I might buy some of his sequencing. But even that doesn’t explain his crazy-low BABIP.
Bip- A starting pitcher pitching to contact to limit pitch count to be able to go deeper in to a game is something new to you?
It seems to me you’re arguing two different things. On the one hand, you’re saying aces get better in tough situations, and on the other hand you’re talking about pitchers allowing weak contact to save pitches. I agree the second happens, but not the first. So when it comes to Arrieta, he’s great in part because he’s the best at generating weak contact, but his penchant for stranding runners is probably a bit lucky.
No, it’s the same thing. They try and limit pitches til a runner gets in to scoring position, and then are willing to throw more pitches. It is one in the same.
…I don’t think it is. It’s not like Arrieta is throwing his B stuff and yet limiting contact at a league-leading level.
It’s not b stuff, it’s less painting and more predictable pitch sequencing.
So you’re saying against those batters Arrieta is throwing closer to the heart of the plate, and doing so in a more predictable way, and yet he’s still limiting contact at an MLB best level? I’m not sure that ads up.
His stuff moves a ton. Today he didn’t have the run on his fb, but yeah usually there’s enough movement that it works. Sale is doing the same thing. Its throwing a fastball 93 instead of 95 to spot it better.
A pitcher having significantly different pitching styles depending when a guy is on base is somewhat new to me, yes. And, as I said, if guys pitch to contact when no one is on base, and no one is out, that is not a good idea. Certainly it is more critical to get the first batter out than, say, a guy up with a man on first and two out.
In any case, last year, Arrieta had an OPS against 100 points worse with men on. His strikeout rate went down with men on. Arrieta has succeeded, almost entirely, because no one is getting hits against him. This is definitely impacted, at least in part, by the Cubs’ defense.
I didn’t say runners on I said in scoring position, also ops isn’t the stat to look at, as I said more willing to work deeper in counts which includes more walks. Since they are in scoring position a single scores them so slugging is less relevant as well. His baa was .168 with runners in scoring position.
It was .170, only .011 lower than his BAA with the bases empty, certainly not different enough to draw any conclusions.
To add some perspective to the point about the Cubs defense, last season the Cubs ranked 2nd in defensive runs above average with almost twice as many as the Dodgers’. This season, the Cubs rank 1st in defensive runs above average with almost twice as many *as the second highest team*. Arrieta’s ERA is almost certainly benefiting from that.
Mikey, the cubs were 11th in DRS last year. This year They are first, but last year wasn’t about having a great d. The playoff OF was fowler, soler and Schwarber for instance.
That assumes the runs are saved in an equal distribution, and it’s only one metric. UZR shows an even bigger gap. Either way, Arrieta has benefited from a noticably better defense and that must be factored in when considering such a thin margian (ERA- of 36 to 39).
Exactly, what if the cubs defense was a negative when he pitched. Hence why I said you have to go back to his starts to quantify it. You are assuming an equal distribution when you say it helped him.
…did you edit your comment after I responded? Or am I going crazy?
No, I said it in the comment that for 6 downsides because I didn’t express is eloquently enough.
Oh…there it is up above. I think I conflated the different thoughts in my head, then when I didn’t see it later I was starting to think I might have imagined a whole line of dialogue. Sorry.
Anywho, I think the basic idea is that Arrieta must’ve benefited some from such good defenses. We might not be able to quantify exactly how much, but they gotta get at least some credit for such low era’s.
I defended the inclusion of Arietta because (1) it was specifically about the “last 365 days” (calendar year) and (2) Arietta beats Kershaw by some metrics/stats.
When it comes to FIP vs. Runs, I go 50/50 with them. So for me, that puts Arietta closer to Kershaw than does just a FIP-based model.
It’s a strange discussion because (1) we have some saying that Arietta is a step behind Kershaw, yet (2) Kershaw still has to put up 130 more IP of awesomeness to equate to Pedro. So, by that logic, both discussions should never had happened.
I don’t think your last paragraph really follows. No one is saying we can’t compare Kershaw to Arrieta, but rather that this really isn’t the forum for it. But you can absolutely compare them, it’s just a pretty clear 1/2 issue. (Even in the model you suggest, who comes out on top?)
At the same time, Neil explains in the article that he isn’t interested in exploring who is “better” between Kershaw and Pedro, but simply whether or not the two are even comparable. Certainly we would need more innings from Clayton before we could seriously try to claim he’s better, but this simply acknowledges that he might be on a similar path.
I’ve just wanted to say I’ve beeb reading all the comments. You’ve guys have had a great discussion. Thanks!
The main thing about Arrieta is that this is the FIP site, and his fielding-independent numbers are a distinct step below Kershaw’s, and so it’s an open question how much of Arrieta’s run prevention numbers are even real. He has been pitching in front of one of the best defenses in baseball. His BABIP this year is absurd, and not surprisingly, would be the best ever in the modern era, which tells you something.
Sorry thought I couldn’t respond down here. See above.
Jake Arrieta is the only pitcher in the history of the MLB, since the mound was moved to 60 feet 6 inches, to go now 29 consecutive starts, allowing 3 runs or less each start. And even with this streak, Kershaw might have been better over the time frame. We are quite spoiled to be watching this.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s still a bit early for this discussion.
In August and September of 1999 (77 IP to Kershaw’s 79 thus far in 2016), Pedro ran a 26 ERA- and a 27 FIP-. His 2 month peak handily surpasses Kershaw’s.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=200&position=P&type=2&gds=1999-08-03&gde=1999-10-02&season=
Kershaw can’t let up at all. He has to be as good as he has been so far in 2016, for another 130 innings. And even then it’s a toss up.
I certainly see your point and I would agree it’s far to early to draw any definitive conclusions, but we can at least be aware that this is a trend worth watching.
To me, though, what’s truly amazing in analyzing the numbers you cited is that the best month Pedro had during that stretch (September 1999) was just matched by Kershaw’s May.
ERA-, FIP-
18, 16 — Martinez
17, 16 — Kershaw
So Kershaw has already conquered the most difficult stretch of the season when comparing him to the best peak of all time. Going forward, he doesn’t even necessarily have to pitch as well as he did this month, because not even Pedro sustained *that* level of dominance.
Now, to be fair, Clayton still has one more start to go this month, so that could skew the numbers if he struggles (or simply pitches like a normal human being). But comparing the numbers so far, both had five start in their given month stretch and pitched almost the same number of innings (42 for Kershaw and 41 for Martinez) so it’s not ridiculous to stack these two intervals side by side.
Obviously, Kershaw still has a long way to go to fully match Pedro, and even as a Dodger fan I have to acknowledge that he probably won’t get there, but like Neil said at the end of his article, the simple fact that we’re even having this discussion is pretty darn incredible.
I think the difference here is that Kershaw has been doing it SOOO long. This is not his 8th season in a row with an ERA under 3 and 3rd in a row with a FIP under 2. Pedro never did either of those. Kershaw was great in 2011….and has just been getting better since……and he’s only 28
In 2000, Pedro had an ERA under 2, while no one else in the AL had an ERA under 3. The eras are kind of different.
Kershaw’s peak longevity is certainly remarkable, and I think well-covered (though of course I never get tired of reading about how great he is) but when you evoke the name “Pedro,” what you are looking at is peak-peak-peak performance. Pedro wasn’t remarkable for his long career, he was remarkable for having perhaps that best 1-to-2-year peak of all time, and that is what Kershaw may be approaching.
But Pedro faced DH’s and tougher league (well, I guess was AL tougher back then? How long has AL been better?). Does ERA- and FIP- give a different adjustment between AL/NL?
Yes, the adjustment is league specific.
The “floor” question is an interesting one to me. If the run environment is low enough, it just doesn’t seem possible to be that much better.
Also, if the question is “best two year run,” the fact that Kershaw, if he stays healthy, will amass about 50 more innings than Pedro did has to be factored in. The question about Pedro having to stay in to face hitters late in games doesn’t hold water: Pedro averaged 6.7 innings per start, Kershaw is averaging 7.2 since the start of last year.
On the other hand, it would not be fair to give Kershaw any 2 year stretch while limiting Pedro to just 1999-2000. It’s doubtful that was precisely his best 2 calendar year stretch. And on the innings thing, you have to consider that the higher run environment and having to face the DH should be factored into how many innings a guy could go (though the top innings throwers of that era were higher than they are now).
The fact that the adjusted stats are ratios makes it seem like it should be about the same. The super simple reduction in my head says that having a 2.20 ERA in a 4.40 run environment should be equally difficult to having a 1.80 in a 3.60 RE. The 1.80 is closer to 3.60 than 2.2 is to 4.4, but the ratio is the same. Cutting individual runs off 1.80 is harder, but the ratio reflects that.
What is a more interesting and pressing question to me is whether, as pitchers overall throw harder, as relievers throw a higher percentage of innings, and as starters throw a smaller percentage of their innings against the lineup a third or fourth time, the baseline pitcher against which ERA- and FIP- compares is better relative to the overall improvement in the talent pool. Neil alludes to this question. Is Kershaw about as good relative to his peers as Pedro was, but with better peers?
While you’re probably right, it isn’t quite fair to compare stats that are adjusted by league for must of these numbers and then suddenly use one that isn’t (IP per start). It could very well be that Pedro did better than his colleagues despite pitching more innings than an average AL starter for his era, while Kershaw didn’t go as deep into games as his peers. Maybe. That could be completely wrong, but we don’t know until someone actually tries to account for the possibility. Until then, it’s just speculation to say that Kershaw has not benefited from a better bullpen.
Has Kershaw ever thrown Don Zimmer to the ground? No. Case closed.
The floor argument has been interesting to me ever since I first saw it in Howard Megdal’s “The Baseball Talmud” where he attempts to defend the notion that Sandy Koufax deserves to be in the same conversation despite the fact his era skews his stats. Like, there’s only so low an ERA can actually go, and penalizing Koufax or Kershaw for not having an ERA under 1 in a low-scoring environment assumes that such a thing is actually possible. I’d be interested in seeing if such a concept can be quantified or accounted for.
For Koufax, I would wonder whether the same applies to FIP, because his FIP was not any better than his ERA. Is a FIP floor the reason for the ERA floor, or would we expect a pitcher hitting the ERA floor to have much better FIPs?
This could be answered by not a simple ratio, but as a distance number of standard deviations from the mean. If there really is some downward boundary that because hard to cross, we should see a narrowing of the variance as a fraction of the mean between pitchers in low run scoring environment. Basically, we need a yearly Z-score, not a ratio.
exactly what I was looking for but did not know how to say because I’m actually not a math person (true story, I passed my one college stat class by converting every question into a baseball question)
It’d be interesting simulation, if a great pitcher faced a lineup of replacement level scrubs every game and still couldn’t get his ERA below 1.
I hate to even bring it up, but Pedro’s peak came at the time where many of the best hitters were juicing, which just adds to his brilliance. But, Kershaw is on pace for a 12-win season. I couldn’t pick between the two if I were asked.
If so many drugged up players raised the level of the league’s offense (and I’m not disputing that — it looks like that’s what happened), that could actually make it easier for Pedro to put up better numbers relative to the rest of the league, if what everyone is saying about an ERA floor turns out to have merit.
Is it harder to be 60% better than the league in a low or high run environment?
I know this article is about what Kershaw has done of late but I thought it was worth pointing out that Clayton sits just above Larry Bernandez atop the 2005-16 pitching WAR leaderboard. Clayton Kershaw did not start his first game until May 25, 2008.
Lol, Larry Bernandez = Felix Hernandez
Is that a joke I don’t get or some strange auto-correct?
https://youtu.be/3HVZuMjm3Y0
oh my god
though in retrospect i’m sure i could have just googled that
4 of the top 10 pitchers in era- in the past year are currently Chicago pitchers.
Does handedness factor into the equation as well?
While RHBs generally have a better split difference against RHPs, then LHBs do against LHPs.
But there are more RHBs than LHBs (or used to be), so Pedro had the handedness advantage moreso than Kershaw.
I’m only mentioning this because (1) I recall having discussions about LH starting pitchers needing to be legitimately good (rather than just innings eaters, workhorses, etc) because they face so many RHBs and if they aren’t legitimately good they turned into relivers where they can have the handedness advantage many more times. And (2) it’s something I haven’t seen brought up very much, and I have not looked into it to see how Pedro fares vs RHB & LHB, and same thing for Kershaw.
————————————————–
The overwhelming point is that Kershaw still needs to be this dominant for another 130 IP for a real comparison to be made. “On Pace” discussions are just that.
I think the platoon advantage of RHP is somewhat if not entirely canceled out by LHB being worse against LHP than RHB are against RHP, partially due to selection bias, and probably somewhat because all batters are more used to seeing right-handed pitchers.
Kershaw is a weird case too, because he throws so over-the-top, and all his pitches are so laterally straight, that he has a relatively small platoon split. He is not significantly hurt by having the platoon disadvantage most of the time.
For all Chicago fans who feel their guy is being disrespected here:
No one is saying Arrieta and Sale are not great. They absolutely are…they’re just not in the conversation for greatest peak ever. Since the start of last year, Sale has been worth 8.3 wins and Arrieta 9.2 wins. Those are great pitching numbers, no doubt about it…but they still trail a little bit behind Kershaw, whose been worth 12.4 wins over the same time period. And yet, as much I love Clayton, even he might come up short when compared to peak-Pedro.
But the simple reality is that if you’re gonna take a swing at the king, you better punch as hard as you can.
Sale doesn’t have an argument at all. Arrietta does simply because he beats both Kershaw and Pedro’s era-. The underlying stats all point to the other 2 but it doesn’t change that Arrieta has had the best on field performance in terms of end game(runs).
I agree about Sale, but I was including him just because an above comment (I believe it might’ve actually been yours) pointed out that “4 of the top 10 pitchers in era- in the past year are currently Chicago pitchers”. So someone else felt the need to bring him to the table, hence why I addressed him.
As for Arrieta’s ERA-, that’s fair enough, but if you acknowledge that all the other stats suggest Pedro (and Kershaw) have been better, then aren’t you acknowledging that Arrieta doesn’t really belong in this conversation?
Not at all. Era- was the first stat the author used, era is all a pitcher really cares about, it’s all that really effects the team. The peripherals suggest less sustainability, but I place a high emphasis on run prevention.
Yes, earned runs are all that really matters in a win/lose scenario, but the peripherals are more than merely future indicators of sustainability. They also give us some indication as to how much “credit” the pitcher should get for not allowing those runs.
I mean, a pitcher who throws six scoreless innings but gives up seven walks with no strikeouts hardly had a better game than a pitcher who went six innings, striking out ten and walking none while giving up one run due to the opposing side stringing together a couple of bloopers.
So, I suppose my main question to you is this: Do you believe that Arrieta’s current run should be in consideration for greatest peak of all time? Do you believe he really compares with peak-Pedro?
You presented an extreme case with an obvious answer.
The difference between Kershaw and Arrieta is less obvious, and it might not exist. Furthermore, it might not even really be possible to say if it exists or not.
Kershaw has been better at some of the things that are usually predictors of pitching success, but it’s still possible that at least part of Arrieta’s better ERA- comes from his skill at beating those predictors.
There’s no certainty there, and there can’t really be. Maybe those predictors don’t work as well when looking at extreme cases. Maybe Arrieta has ways of working around them. Maybe he used to but doesn’t anymore because his secret weapon ran out of steam (which is something that would be very hard to test).
Any attempt to analyze data will turn up uncertainty, and when numbers are both extreme and close, it’s even harder to tell them apart.
Put another way, even if Arrieta has been better only because of luck, he’s been good enough that luck was enough to put him over the top, so he at least belongs in the conversation.
I still think Kershaw deserves more credit, but I wouldn’t be completely shocked if a magical glimpse at the underlying reality showed that Arrieta was just as good.
With all due respect, I don’t find this answer very helpful. I mean, sure, it’s *possible* that Arrieta is just as good or even better based on things we don’t know or can’t quantify, but what good is an answer like that?
You seem to indicate that Arrieta might simply have the skill to beat his predictors, but ignore the fact that Kershaw could just as easily be beating his numbers, too. For a long time Kershaw’s ERA routinely beat his FIP, and he did it over so many years that analysts right here at Fangraphs have suggested he’s even better than his FIP based WAR (a metric he’s led the league in for every year since 2013) suggests. Yea, Arrieta has a slight lead over the past calendar year (36 ERA- to 39), but Kershaw’s the guy who lead the league in ERA for four straight years, has an ERA under 2.00 in his last 1,000 innings, as well as the lowest career ERA of any pitcher since 1920. Not to mention, after Arrieta’s rough start today, guess who’s the current 2016 ERA leader? Yep, once again, Kershaw.
To me, when we have to limit the data to the one set of numbers that Arrieta looks best with and yet, even with that selection bias, he stills comes out neck and neck with Kershaw, well then that tells me the latter is simply the better pitcher.
It’s not who is the better pitcher, that was never the discussion. Its which 365 day stretch was better. And because Kershaw has done a great job beating his fip, doesn’t mean in the last year arrieta hasn’t found a way to beat his even more. To the last point we aren’t discussing who you would take moving forward or who has had the better 2016. It has always been calender year.
Well the “better 365 days” argumemt is essentially about who’s been the better pitcher over that period of time, right? Secondly, I was addressing the fact that the above poster was seemingly giving Arrieta “extra credit” for beating his FIP, to which I was pointing out that, yea, Kershaw’s been pretty good at that too, and he’s done it for a lot longer so there’s even more reason to belive that Kershaw has this as a repeatable skill.
But Kershaw hasn’t beaten over his last 500+ innings? You were bringing up era from prior years and this season era which aren’t relevant to the 365 day argument is what I meant,
Where did you get 500 plus from? Last year was the first year he didn’t beat it since his rookie year. This year his era is a little higher than his fip as well, but that’s more a prodct of his fip being so insanely low. And again, I brought up past years to respond to a specific claim of a DIFFERENT commentor. So it might not be relevant to our discussion, but that’s because I wasn’t trying to answer you at that point.
Because I added the previous year and this year and used the totals, and he was using the calendar year.
I’m sorry, I must be getting tired, because I still didn’t get that. 🙂
From 2009-2014, a six year stretch, Kershaw outpitched his peripherals, showing a sustained ability. So my point was simply that if a person wanted to give Arrieta some vauge, undefined “bonus” for being better than his peripherals then you have to give it to Kershaw too since he’s shown he can do it longer. I was really responding to the “maybe Arrieta could be better, who knows” quality of the above comment.
6 yrs is just too long, pitchers change too much. Look at Kershaws fastball and slider usage from 2013 til now. He isn’t that same pitcher that best his fip.
…Six years is TOO long? Like, “Hold up a sec, Mr. Kershaw, you sustained that performance far too long for me to think it’s a skill”?
Obviously pitchers change, but it’s not like we’re talking about something from a decade ago. Again, last year was the first year he din’t do it since 2008, and he just barely missed it. Given the high variance that go into ERA’s, I don’t really think it’s a shocker that he had a little blip. So it seems like specious reasoning to say Player A, who has demonstrated a consistent ability to post such shockingly low ERA’s over long stretches of time, doesn’t get any credit, while Player B, who did it over a mere fraction of the time, does deserve credit. Isn’t it reasonable to think Arrieta was the recipient of some good fortune over such a relatively small sample?
But, in any case, I really don’t know what we’re arguing about here. I’ve said repeatedly that I brought up previous years to specifically respond to another posters vague, undefined claims. To my knowledge, you aren’t making the same claim, so…what are we debating, exactly?
Unrelated side note, but Kershaw was only worth 8.6 WAR last season? He won 16 games for a team just a tic outside the bottom third of the league in runs scored…..and that’s only worth 7 wins over replacement? That hardly seems right…
WAR isn’t based on game outcomes, which are impacted by quite a number of things the pitcher doesn’t control. Also, you can’t assume the Dodgers hitters performed on his starts they way they did the rest of the year.
Really, thats the sliver of this comment you’re going to attack? I get WAR vs game outcomes — its question of the balance of WAR allocation (hitters vs pitchers) and linear approach we take to player valuation in the context of roster construction.
Had Kershaw pitched like he did during the regular season, in the post-season, we would have had Greinke and Kershaw essentially carrying a team to the WS on their own.
Which shows that you don’t really get how WAR works. Maybe you’d have a point if Kershaw pitched like a guy who should have been 33-0, which he didn’t.
If you take Kershaw’s 16 pitcher wins as a base (I wouldn’t, but for this illustrative scenario) and he was worth 8.6 WAR, then a replacement level pitcher would have only won 7 of those games.
Last year, CK made 33 starts and was 16 -7. A replacement level pitcher making those same 33 starts would have only had 7 wins and maybe 16 losses. That’s CK making a pretty significant difference.
This is just my attempt at using pitcher wins as a basis of demonstrating to you the difference. I would not explain it to others this way necessarily.
Kershaw has been better at three true outcomes (FIP-).
Arrieta has been better at run prevention (ERA-).
For the past 365 days:
* Kershaw’s FIP- is 42
* Arrietta’s ERA- is 34
If you compare those to the best seasons of all time (Since 1871, min. 150 IP):
* Kershaw’s FIP- ranks thusly:
1) 31 Pedro Martinez 1999
2) 42 Clayton Kershaw 2015-2016
3) 45 Randy Johnson 1995
4) 47 Randy Johnson 2000
T5) 48 Pedro Martinez 2000
T5) 48 Christy Mathewson 1908
* Arrieta’s ERA- ranks thusly:
1) 34 Jake Arrieta 2015-2016
2) 35 Pedro Martinez 2000
3) 36 Dutch Leonard 1914
4) 37 Greg Maddux 1994
5) 38 Bob Gibson 1968
So Kershaw’s ranks as #2 season all-time in his category.
And Arrieta’s ranks as #1 season all-time in his category.
And amazingly there’s only one name on both of those lists, and his name also appears twice on one of those lists.
There’s no doubting Kershaw’s greatness, or that he’ll go down as one of the best pitchers of all time. However, he tends to have a different feel to watching him. Could be it’s just me and nostalgia of watching Pedro, but it seemed like every time he took the mound he just had a commanding presence and you knew you were watching something special. I just don’t really notice that same feeling with Kershaw, but then you look at his stats and they’re incredible. I’m not sure what the disconnect could be.
Part of Kershaw’s greatness is not walking anybody… 5bb vs 95k… Arrietta gives up a lot more walks and baserunners in general, but he gives up less hits. (I know you were talking Pedro, but comparing present Kershaw vs present Arrieta)
Maybe it’s that pedro was tiny in an era full of juicers and still put them to shame. I think it helps he used more pitches and they were all so Damn good.
This is what I think could be part of it. When thinking of Pedro, you think about how he literally didn’t have a bad pitch, they were all incredible and he mixed them. With Kershaw, you know the curve is probably the best in the game and he’s got a great fastball. His slider is probably still a good-great pitch, and his change a work in progress, but he’s primarily fastball-curve.
Another thing could be personality. Pedro was in your face. He didn’t shy away from anything, and he loved the limelight. Watching Pedro was a spectacle. “Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him, maybe I’ll drill him in the ass.”
Kershaw just quietly goes about his business, like he’s done it all before and he’ll do it again.
He’s actually primarily fastball-slider, and his slider–the super-hard version he’s thrown since 2014–may actually be one of the best in baseball. It has one of the best whiff rates among starters. His curve is certainly his most beautiful pitch, but it is so big that it can be a little hard for umps to call, and he doesn’t command it as well as he does his fastball and slider. His first Cy Young year, 2011, he almost shelved the curve entirely.
Could it also be “we’ve already seen Pedro”?
I mean Pedro, at his peak, was 95-98 with the game’s best change and wicked deuce. Up till that point had we ever seen a flamethrower with that much control and command?
So along comes Kershaw basically doing something we’ve already seen done and we act like we’re surprised it’s not appreciated more often.
Just look at the NBA … we’ve seen Kobe and LeBron … both amazing careers and athletes, and all we say in response to their top 5 (or top 7) careers is “Meh, they’re not Jordan.” It’s ridiculous.
It’s interesting, I’m like #1 kershaw-dodger-fan guy, and I kind of identify with this. I think I suffer from looking too closely at perfection–staring into the abyss, in other words–like when having perfect pitch makes you hate music.
Of course, I certainly appreciate what he does, but I have watched and analyzed his starts probably about as much as all other pitchers combined, and so I notice all the things that aren’t perfect about them. I notice when he leaves a fastball over the plate that was meant to be inside, when he loops a curveball way too high, when a batter gives him a gift swing on a 3-2 pitch that wasn’t where he wanted it.
Occasionally, when he is hitting all his spots, I really am blown away. His start against the Mets was insane. However, sometimes I watch him and think he’s pitching badly, which is really all relative. He shut out the Reds in his last start, and I was convinced he was pitching like garbage. He certainly was missing a lot of spots, so it’s not like that was his A+ stuff, but I wonder, are my perceptions a little misaligned when I see “garbage” and the result is “shutout?”
I used to be a little nervous when he pitched, back when he wasn’t the best pitcher in baseball and I wanted him to be. Now that he is, I pretty much expect at least a good start, and I root for dominance, but it seems like rooting for it makes me nervous it won’t happen, which is the opposite of how you describe watching Pedro. I actually get that feeling from Syndergaard more than from Kershaw, probably because I don’t have a rooting interest in him, I just like seeing what he can do.
The last thing is that, you know, I think you can watch Kershaw and not fully grasp what makes him great. Syndergaard, by contrast, is real obvious. 99 MPH sinker, 93 MPH slider? That’ll do it. But Kershaw, it’s a little more subtle. He certainly has good velocity, but not all-time good. His curveball is pretty cool, but it’s not his primary pitch. His slider does not have crazy action, and his fastball is totally straight-looking. His command is excellent but not perfect. You can see it in the batters though. Almost no one does anything against him unless they guess fastball on the first pitch and square it up. He has mastered peppering the lower-right part of the zone with the slider, and when he does, no one can do more than tip it. Batters react to his curveball like they might when told they need to go back to the end of the line at the DMV. I’ve never tried to hit baseballs though, not since they were thrown to me by tiny children, so that much I can only attempt to vicariously understand.
What is my point? I don’t know what it is.
I think a lot of what you said hit the nail on the head. Sometimes it seems like Kershaw makes it all look to easy. His pitching motion is really smooth and casual, and he just walks from the mound to the dugout after a good inning. Pedro exploded to the plate out of his delivery. He also did the sky point a lot, and was always joking around with the team.
“I have no doubt that if you placed peak Ruth and peak Barry Bonds into 2016, Bonds would out-hit Ruth by a substantial margin.” Really? If Babe Ruth was born in 1990 with the exact same talent, his performance would likely be very much different now. Ruth was so much better than all the baseball players in the world at the time (certainly giving credit to black players who couldn’t play in MLB) that he had a unique talent that could have translated to the time.
That’s just it, the typical baseball player has gotten much better since then. It’s not just due to better training and coaching, it’s that we are finding more players and identifying talent better, which means that, even with modern advantages, Ruth would be facing tougher pitchers and be compared to tougher hitters–mostly hitters and pitchers that wouldn’t have even been found 100 years ago.
I wouldn’t ever assert that Ruth would be anything less than a star if he played today, but I would also guess the odds are pretty slim he would lap the field like he did in his day.
I mean, you’d have to assume Babe would’ve had nutritionists and strength and conditioning guys that he never had back in the day. He probably never heard of a deadlift or a squat.
He’d probably party a lot less since it was more socially acceptable for a ball player to get drunk after the game.
As a sport matures, the ability to exceed ones peers by huge margins diminishes. The worst player in the league continually gets better and better so long as the sport keeps growing.
Given that MLB can credibly claim to field nearly all the best players in the world, the overall ability of the average player is light years beyond what it was in the 20s.
If Ruth were transferred in a time machine he might not even sniff the majors. If he was born in this era I’m sure he would be a great player and likely a hall of famer. But I think I lean towards being more impressed with Bonds than Ruth. It’s arguable no doubt.
Maturation also means expansion and bigger player pools though. I lean towards bonds as well, but certainly a difference in the best 300 players and the best 750 as it stands today. Now there is also service time implications so it’s never actually the best 750 players as well.
Off topic, but….” I have no doubt that if you placed peak Ruth and peak Barry Bonds into 2016, Bonds would out-hit Ruth by a substantial margin.” Are we at least going to give the Babe a 33oz bat and the juice? Or maybe we could take away Barry’s needle and give him a 44oz bat for comparison. Without the juice Barry was still HOF, but he was no Willie Mays. Modern players are better, but the studs haven’t much changed.
Peak Pedro certainly was legendary but I don’t actually think his peak was the best in history. That would go to Greg Maddux. I find that out of all the great pitchers I can remember off the top of my head, the metrics underrate him the most… which is crazy to think about considering the metrics say he was incredible anyway. But yea, that guy was something else and it was for reasons that metrics can’t quantify. They’re better at quantifying pitchers like Pedro than they are Maddux.
But that’s just me.
As for Kershaw, no I don’t think he’s the best player in the game right now. Mike Trout is the best, without a doubt. But if Kershaw keeps improving like he is, which is already scary enough to imagine, this discussion will become a whole lot more interesting.
It’s certainly just you. There’s not a single statistic outside of straight ERA that you could use to find a 2 year period where Maddux was better than 1999-2000 Pedro. Further, there’s no 7 year span in Maddux’s career that keeps pace with 1997-2003 Pedro. Maddux had more good years in his longer career, but his peak is not even close to Pedro.
1994-1995 Maddux was more impressive than 1999-2000 Pedro. That is all.
You’re probably also massive underrating the impact of mid-’90s baseball compared to turn-of-the-millenium baseball, along with the NL East vs the AL East, along with playing in Atlanta’s ballparks vs playing in Fenway Park. No offense to Maddux, who is inner circle too, but he had essentially every single context advantage over Pedro, even while having plenty of context disadvantages when compared to most of the best all-time pitchers.
Eh, you may be right. Let me re-word it.
Maddux was more impressive, even if he might not have been better. What I mean by that is Pedro’s stuff was significantly better than Maddux’s stuff, but Maddux was pretty much on Pedro’s level anyway. Maddux was throwing 88mph to the same offensive era as Pedro. Hell, Maddux in his prime was throwing softer than Glavine in his prime(90mph). The only time Maddux ever threw more than 90 was in his early years when he wasn’t nearly as good.
So sure, the peripherals and context back up Pedro but that doesn’t make him more impressive. Then again, I’m partial to junk ballers. I’ll take 75 pitch complete game shutouts to 20 strikeout games every day of the week.
Before we get too caught up in all this, let’s just remember that “peak Pedro” included a year in which he set the unadjusted WHIP record. As in, better than anyone else could ever manage, be it with dead balls or high mounds or anything else. Stack that with all the context disadvantages Pedro had, and you realize that this doesn’t have to be overthought too much.
I found the comment about peak Ruth vs peak Bonds to be interesting (not so sure I take peak Bonds, aka 1993 Bonds, over peak Ruth, aka 1920 Ruth). Honestly, I think every hitter would need to be taken on a case by case basis. At a minimum, I have very strong doubts that someone such as Ted Williams would suffer much in the transition. The guys with otherworldly vision and control of the strike zone (Edgar Martinez anyone?) would likely handle any pitcher in any era.