Kershaw’s Forgotten Chapter
Congratulations to the Houston Astros! After distinguishing themselves as one of the best teams in the regular season, they managed to survive the giant Plinko board that is the postseason. Truly a worthy champion.
There will certainly be much attention paid to the World Series winner in the wake of their victory. For the moment, however, I’d like to consider the team that fell just short — and, specifically, to examine their much-maligned ace, Clayton Kershaw. Kershaw stepped onto the mound in Game 7, his team needing him to hold the wall in the worst way. The Dodgers were already down five runs when Kershaw entered, their win probability reduced to just 10%. It was pretty dire.
Kershaw responded, throwing four innings of shutout ball, striking out four, unintentionally walking none, and limiting hard contact along the way. He looked like the guy who’s established himself as the best pitcher of this generation. As the game unfolded Wednesday night, the fans who joined the Game 7 live blog grasped three central points of Kershaw’s performance in very short order, as illustrated by the following excerpt from that chat:


These six comments are representative of observations made by other readers, observations which fell into the three following categories:
- That Kershaw pitched effectively.
- That naysayers would comment about the low leverage of the moment.
- That, however well Kershaw fared, it wouldn’t alter The Narrative.
I’d like to address those points in a moment. However, before we descend (as Jonathan Yardley would put it) “into the Void,” let’s take a quick step back and appreciate Clayton Kershaw’s performance on Wednesday, in what will likely be a lost chord in his playoff opus.
The Kershaw playoff narrative appeared in a few forms this postseason. As we all know, he entered the League Division Series as a pariah, with an oft-quoted 4-7 record and an ERA north of 4.00. After middling performances to open the LDS versus the Diamondbacks and the League Championship Series against the Cubs, the narrative shifted slightly. Kershaw wasn’t quite himself in the postseason, but still very good, a pitcher who could post acceptable playoff numbers.
A one-sided clinching victory over the Cubs, in which Kershaw delivered a strong performance, earned him a bit more goodwill. He could lead a postseason staff, even if he lacked that clutch ability to rise at the biggest stages. Game 1 of the World Series laid the postseason pariah narrative to rest, but it returned en force after Game 5. After a hectic four weeks, we were seemingly back where we started, conventional wisdom suggesting that Kershaw was the greatest regular-season pitcher in baseball but hamstrung somehow in the postseason.
An unshakable narrative and a 5-0 deficit served as the backdrop to Kershaw’s outing when he entered in the third inning of Game 7. He quickly dispatched of Jose Altuve and Carlos Correa on routine fly outs and froze Yulieski Gurriel on a low 3-2 fastball.
An inning later, Brian McCann went down on a half-hearted attempt at a Kershaw slider.
And in the fifth, Kershaw got Alex Bregman, who had taken him deep in Game 1, to look absolutely silly on a devastating curve in the dirt.
The one moment of trouble came in the sixth, when a weak but well-placed grounder saw Carlos Correa reach first. It was followed by infield ground outs that moved Correa over to third. Rather than face Marwin Gonzalez or pinch-hitter Evan Gattis, Kershaw walked them and decided to pick on Cameron Maybin, who’d recorded only seven plate appearances over the last month. After taking a 93 mph fastball at the thighs, Maybin decided it was better to surrender quickly and weakly popped out to third.
Kershaw’s pitches were crisp, on the whole. His four-seam fastball rode in around 93-94, with plenty of vertical movment (14 inches’ worth); his curveball was a bit faster than usual at 74.3 mph, leading to a little less drop; and his slider picked up a few extra inches of vertical movement (8 inches on 15 pitches). In terms of results, Kershaw generated four swinging strikes (three on strikeout pitches), 11 called strikes, and 11 foul balls in his 43 pitches. Of the 10 balls in play, the hardest hit was a 100.3 mph grounder that went for a single. Otherwise, there were two infield popups, and the average hit probability, according to Baseball Savant, was just 13%. (This only accounts for seven of the balls in play.) Everything, from pitches to results, pointed to a dominant Kershaw performance at the highest stage.
Those who will continue to perpetuate the playoff-failure narrative for Kershaw will point to the fact that the Dodgers never led in Game 7 and that, therefore, Kershaw wasn’t forced to contend with real pressure. Those innings are viewed by some as virtually meaningless; they featured, in sabermetric parlance, a low leverage. This is undeniably true: Kershaw’s average leverage index for the game was just 0.2. Average is 1.0. The highest leverage index he faced was 0.39 (bases loaded in the 6th inning with two outs), but even that was inflated somewhat by Kershaw’s back-to-back intentional walks. Indeed, Kershaw didn’t face a situation that was critical to the outcome of the game.
However, every pitch Kershaw threw was ultimately critical to keeping the Dodgers’ season alive. If he’d imploded at any point — allowing a hit to Maybin, for example, or serving up a homer to Altuve, or getting nickled-and-dimed to death by singles and walks — the Dodgers’ season would essentially have been over. Even in those low-leverage innings, Kershaw managed to add 0.038 win probability to his team, the best performance on the year by a reliever in similar circumstances (down five-plus runs, less than 10% chance of winning) on the year. Kershaw’s back was against the wall on every pitch, keeping the Dodgers’ hopes alive, even if the outcome of the game had already been long trending towards an Astros win.
Kershaw was great Wednesday night. Kershaw has been great before. He’ll likely continue to be great going forward. Ultimately, this performance is likely to be forgotten — both in both baseball history and in Kershaw’s own personal playoff narrative — but it shouldn’t be. He didn’t start the game, and the fact that pieces are being written on the topic should indicate how impressive his performance was and how he would be trusted by many on big stages. There was a lack of crucial moments while Kershaw was on the mound, leaving nothing necessarily memorable to place in Kershaw’s postseason file. The Dodgers didn’t win on Wednesday, and as Winston Churchill reminded us, history is written by (and about) the victors. Finally, this performance doesn’t fit the narrative that people have come to believe about Kershaw. As such, it’s convenient to ignore — ignore, that is, unless Kershaw dominates the playoffs going forward, at which point this game will become the one where Kershaw turned it all around.
Stephen Loftus is a Visiting Assistant Professor in Mathematical Sciences at Sweet Briar College in Virginia. In his spare time he usually can be found playing the pipe organ or working on his rambling sabermetric thoughts.
“Kershaw managed to add 0.038 win probability to his team, the best performance on the year by a reliever in similar circumstances (down five-plus runs, less than 10% chance of winning)“
so, essentially… “he’s the best regular season and down 5 runs reliever!”
all jokes aside, i believe there is something to his inability to shut the batters down when doing so provides his team a win. i forget the article, but when the Giants won in 2014, a sports psychologist wrote about bumgarner’s fuild motion as a potential reflection of his mind, and likewise kershaw’s jerky motion, and the potential to be thrown off with the slightest discomfort. i don’t know how true that is, but it’d be a topic i think is worth investigating, if it was in my field i’d try.
Check out Kershaw’s season before he went on the DL for a sound counter-argument to his inability to shut down batters when doing so provides a win.
How often did your assessment happen in the playoffs? No one is doubting his regular season dominance.
Consider- His career post-season ERA is 4.35; 4.18 in the division series, 4.75 in the NLCS.
What? I don’t see the connection between my post and your question. Perhaps you replied to the wrong post? I am clearly not talking about the playoffs.
Look at how Peyton Manning or Lebron James’ “can’t win the big one” narratives panned out. Heck, look at the same stuff during Verlander’s early post season starts.
Betting against generation-level players seldom pays off in the long run.
I agree with your statement. I don’t think it is even that complicated though. Even if a guy never wins a championship, it doesn’t make him any less great. Is Mike Trout any less great because of what he hasn’t won? I don’t think post-season success really matters much at all.
Disagree with you. Postseason success is a separator when you’re talking about the top talent. In Football- Brady is viewed a lot better than Manning- and all of that is due to the Super Bowl gap. And Marino isn’t viewed as highly as either of them. Jordan viewed as higher than Lebron due to winning 6 NBA titles to only 3 for Lebron.
Just because people hold that opinion, doesn’t mean anything conclusive. Brady is not viewed as a superior player to Manning by me and I am not alone. I don’t think anyone can legitimately say that Brady was “much better than Manning”. Manning is the only QB to lead two separate teams to a SB win – that is a separator for me. Teams win SBs, not players. Brady played for better teams. Brady also played for much, much better coaches. Bill Belichick is the best coach of all-time, I will say that. Brady has never won a single SB without Belicheck. The team wins when he is out hurt as well – they always have. I know this is an argument that I will not win. I am OK with other people holding differing opinions. Jordan was better than Lebron… he just was and it’s not because of the titles. This type of analysis is very superficial and convenient for those that don’t follow sports. I don’t know if you do or don’t follow sports closely, but there are a lot of people that use simple metrics because that is all they know about – rings are the simplest of all metrics – they are even independent of player performance.
but you look at Dan Marino and he isn’t viewed anywhere near as the same level as a guy like a Joe Montana- even though stats wise Marino blows the door off of Marino. Postseason success matters. It can elevate guys to another level, or it can differentiate guys at the extreme top..
2015- HOF voting…
Mussina had by BR 83.0 WAR and 44.5 WAR7. 63.8 JAWS 82.2 fWAR.
Smoltz had by BR 69.5 WAR and 38.8 WAR7. 54.2 JAWS. 79.6 fWAR.
Smoltz got into the HOF with 82.9% of the vote
Mussina didn’t get in- he got 24.6% of the vote and just last year got up to 51% of the vote.
why?
post season history:
Smoltz 15-4 2.67 ERA 3.18 FIP
Mussina 7-8 3.42 ERA 3.54 FIP
Smoltz is viewed a lot better because of all his post season success.
Smoltz is not a lot better, despite the declaration. I don’t think Smoltz is much better than Mussina. I don’t think the two should be compared as Smoltz has a lot of value from the RP part of his career. Most voters probably shouldn’t be voters – I think that is pretty well-established.
If people think that Smoltz is better because of the post-season, then that is a mistake. If playing with HOF caliber players, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Chipper Jones, Fred McGriff and top tier closers makes him great, then I guess he is great!
And Mussina didn’t play with HOF caliber players? Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter, Roger Clemens, and a closer named Mariano Rivera…. Postseason play matters.
I’m not saying that Kershaw isn’t great but it isn’t the same thing. Trout has never really had a chance to win a championship. Kershaw has.
I don’t see how that is much different. Its all the same story – teams win championships, not players. So if Trout had a few playoff performances, then he would be a lesser player?
If NYY could have closed out HOU in the ALCS, George Springer isn’t a WS hero. This stuff is just SSS headlines…
Kershaw has disappointed in the postseason. Trout hasn’t.
Even Bumgarner’s snot rockets are fluid!
His G7 performance doesn’t change the narrative because the narrative generally allows for Kershaw to be good for 4 innings in a playoff game.
I am not sure that Kershaw wasn’t the MVP of that game. I know that a losing player is never the MVP, but nobody was more impressive. That game was trending towards a blowout until Kershaw came in and shut it all down in its tracks. If I recall correctly, the only recognition of Kershaw’s heroic performance by the broadcast team was after he was lifted for a pinch hitter. It is a shame that Kershaw’s best performance of the WS went unnoticed. Thanks for pointing it out, Stephen.
At one point this had net positive upvotes. It is always interesting to notice when the troll-ish contingent rolls in. But yes, down-voters, you are right – Kershaw was not great in game 7, he was in fact terrible.
Yes that’s EXACTLY what the downvotes mean, people are saying Kershaw was terrible in Game 7. *rolls eyes*
It’s not at all that saying he was the Game 7 MVP that people maybe find a tad excessive/hyperbolic. That couldn’t be it. WHY IT’S PROBABLY THOSE DAMNED TROLLS!!1!11
I think in the end, the Dodgers just needs to win a WS for Kershaw to get this label off his back. Imagine if he entered game 7 with a 8-0 lead instead of a 0-5 deficit, we’d have tons of articles praising his amazing toughness at the highest stage, despite similar lack of win probability added or however you want to calculate leverage.
Win, and people will forget blemishes. Lose, and those blemishes are magnified.
Yeah, if he had the same opportunity that Morton had and did exactly what Morton did- everything would have been different for him. Morton had for his outing a .062 WPA.
But Morton also pitched great in game 7 of the ALCS.
Totally not arguing that. I’m saying if Kershaw had come in the 6th inning in a 5-0 lead, and had the outing that Morton had(so 1 run in 4 innings)- everything is different today regarding Kershaw.
I agree with you that the team effort supersedes that of the individual. Why not just disregard uninformed opinions? We can rise above the crudest form of analysis, which is rings. The only people that measure greatness in rings are those with rings. The only people with rings are players associated with great teams – players don’t win rings, teams do.
One of the reasons that rings are so important is that many people only watch the WS. I would not be surprised if many writers only watch local broadcasts, which they get paid to do… and the playoffs. This type of fan simply does not have the knowledge to form much a valuable opinion of greatness. If the only out-of-market games you watch are the playoffs, then you probably should not take your opinion too seriously regarding the rest of the league. How many opinionated fans fall into this bucket? I feel like the most opinionated fans clearly are tied to a single team with little knowledge of what they are often weighing in on, such as Kershaw’s inability to carry a team.
My take on the Kersh is that he is hands down the best pitcher in baseball the first half every year. He leads the league in innings as well as every ratio, then he starts to break down. Nobody does more for their team than him when he is healthy. By the time October rolls around, he is a shadow of himself. I don’t think any less of him for the way that he gives his team everything, every time out, but it has a cost… If he skipped a few starts here and there, did not pitch as deep into games, and eased into the season, then maybe he would be more of a postseason hero, but that is not what he does. His priorities lie in getting his team to October, which I think is his job. Those that only watch October will probably disagree.
his career numbers don’t back you up by any stretch of the imagination….
Mar/Apr 2.96 ERA 3.03 FIP
May 2.56 ERA 2.62 FIP
June 2.62 ERA 2.75 FIP
July 1.69 ERA 2.07 FIP
Aug 2.35 ERA 2.75 FIP
Sep 2.03 ERA 2.41 FIP
for his career
pre all star break 2.57 ERA 2.68 FIP
post all star break 2.08 ERA 2.49 FIP
So September has actually been his 2nd best month in his career. July his best month. And August by ERA his 3rd best month. So that makes his October struggles(4.35 ERA/3.70 FIP) that much stranger. 2017 was the only year in his career so far where his 2nd half ERA was worse than his 1st half ERA. And in some of the years- it was over a 1.50 run gap.
The thing now is you just really have to wonder now if his best days are past him. His 2.31 reg season ERA was his worst since 2012. His 3.07 FIP was worst since 2010. He turns 30 in March. He’s thrown 1935 innings in his career-looking he’s #56 all time in innings thrown prior to his age 30 season.
(btw his 2.36 era is #4 all time for guys up to their 29 yr old season- behind only Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, and Reb Russell).
I don’t want to base his value on FIP or any compound stat. If you want to reduce analysis to FIP, then go ahead and judge people according to that standard. I would imagine that stats based on cumulative totals probably get skewed by a few fluky performances and that is why I don’t like to simplify the analysis to that degree. I don’t really care to convince you otherwise, or point to something as how all players should be judged, because I don’t believe in it, but I will explain my methodology.
Kershaw held the opposition to 1 or less run in 13 starts before the end of July this year – only one was less than 7 innings – that is good enough for me. The previous year was not as dominant, but every game except 1 was a quality start before the final start which preceded his DL stint. And by quality start, I mean 7+ IP and 2 or fewer ER. I feel like I do a good job of judging performances and I am OK with my methodology – it certainly takes more work than looking at a single stat – its not for most people. I saw the last two seasons and my opinion is currently based on those primarily. I can’t honestly say that I remember 3+ years ago all that accurately. Before 2016 he was healthy and things were probably different. The fact is that this narrative has really gained momentum over the past two years, which are the injury-riddled ones.
Those splits do point out to me that he is not as bad in September as I thought, but I am sticking with my explanations for October struggles. At the point where a guy has had a DL stint, I think it is a pretty reasonable explanation. For me, I take September with a grain of salt. Some teams are not even trying to contend and rosters are expanded – so that certainly could explain some of the success.
I sincerely appreciate your contribution, I just want to point out that there is more than one way to judge a player. The deeper the analysis the better IMO. I am pretty certain that his best days are behind him. I hope we get to see a bunch more greatness, and I think we will, but the innings are adding up.
the thing is, these last 2 years really you have got to take with a grain of salt because of the DL stints.
Go back to 2015 for instance- and he had
Apr 3/5 QS
May 1/5 QS
Jun 4/7 QS
Jul 4/4 QS
Aug 5/6 QS
Sep 4/7 QS(however, 1 of his non QS was on Oct 4 in a tuning up for the postseason type of start- he gave up 0 er in 3.2 innings). His ERA from June 1 on was 1.45 in 23 starts and 167.1 ip. To put this in context- Corey Kluber this year had a 1.62 ERA in 23 starts and 166.1 ip.
the thing that is really weird- his last 2 years- in the post season he’s had a 4.08 postseason ERA in 57.1 IP. 14/62 bb/k ratio. Prior to this(so in his healthy years- he had a 4.59 postseason ERA in 64.2 IP. 23/77 bb/k ratio.
I am primarily talking about the past two years, I tried to be clear about that. People are primarily basing the postseason narrative on the last two years as nearly half of his post-season innings come from the past two years. If he pitched great over the past two years, then this conversation wouldn’t exist so it matters a lot.
In any case, I do believe that it is the usage that contributes to his lack of post-season effectiveness. We are trying to figure it out, right? Or are we just trying to find ways to tarnish his legacy? I know for most people it is the latter – they want to find a way to put their favorite players on a pedestal. We know that Kersh has worn down over the past two years – the previous ones were probably similar even though there was no DL stint. I don’t believe that he is lacking the ability to pitch in the post-season – I just don’t. Maybe October is the official breaking point?
The other day I caught flack for not wanting to contribute to the “Pujols is garbage” narrative. I just don’t get why we ever try to cheapen the accomplishments of proven great players. I do get why we may want to identify fraudulent great players, but I guess that just tells you about me as a fan. I will do what I can to defend a great player’s legacy. I don’t understand why people want to turn on all-time greats when they get a chance in favor of the next big thing. If you are not a fan of the greats, then what are you a fan of? Not directed at you, Stever, but the general negativity that you can see in this thread. There is a weird (large) contingent of readers that flock to the negative posts about veterans and the positive ones about upstarts. I don’t get it, not even a little bit. Kershaw is one of the all-time great SP and I don’t care much how his post-seasons go. I am willing to forgive them if they go bad for whatever reason – I am sure there is one. I don’t think he needs them to call himself an inner-circle HOF SP. At that point, his entire career carries enough weight that I am not too worried about his post-seasons or why.
Kershaw’s postseason narrative was established really in his first 4 postseasons- thru 2014. In those years- he had a 5.12 ERA. 6 hr in 51 innings.
The last 3 postseasons he’s had a 3.80 ERA. But with 12 hr in 71 innings. But in especially the last 2 years he had a chance to once and for good bury the narrative. Game 6 last year vs Cubs and game 5 vs Astros this year. In those 2 games he gave up 10 er in 9.2 innings.
Question for you- what do you think his perception would be right now if his postseason history was Madbum?
I know that he was bad in his first few post-season trips, but in reality the narrative has really grown legs the last two years. This kind of analysis is very much based on recency. My favorite example of this is John Elway – known as a losing QB his entire career, until he ends with two Super Bowls and now he is a big winner.
As for your question, I am not entirely sure what you mean. Do you mean if he put his team on his back like MadBum has? Personally, that wouldn’t change my perception of Kershaw at all. I know he is the best SP in baseball without any competition – I would expect that. I find it disappointing that he pitches at his worst when the casual fans/media are paying attention, but I don’t think it means that he is any less a pitcher. Anyone who doesn’t think he is the best pitcher in baseball when healthy is just wrong. I don’t think that people who follow baseball could have any higher opinion of Kershaw. How many SP have ever walked the planet knowing that they are without rival? Perhaps he won’t be next year, but he has been the best for a while now. I feel like this whole negative narrative is just waiting for him to begin to tail off. I don’t know that he can be any more respected. I think this is just fuel for people that want to take him down a peg. I don’t think a positive performance would make him any better – he is already the best.
I think that MadBum is a very interesting example though. He has no case as the best pitcher in baseball, but he has been the best on the big stage. I think that people think he is a better pitcher than he is. He is good, I am not trying to say that he is not. I think I am just saying the same thing over and over, post-season performances get way too much weight and they probably deserve less in my opinion. Why judge players after they have player 162 games? Why judge them on an uneven playing field? Only some guys get to go. Some guys have better supporting casts, etc.
I think Elway is a great comparison. His rep definitely changed after winning those 2 Super Bowls. I really think the exact same thing would happen with Kershaw if he won a title(even if he tails off in the regular season).
I think the thing as well- he still has work to do even in the regular season to be the best. In BR WAR- he’s right now #68 in Pitching WAR. in fWAR he’s #54. These next few years are huge for him.
What you are saying may be something in an altruistic situation, but it’s just not reality. People are measured when the pressure is the highest.
“jd: 10 swings and misses for Kersh”
“Kershaw generated four swinging strikes”
So which was it?
I’m a big Kershaw fan. But I don’t see him pitching this well if the game was close (LA in front or behind by 1 or 2 runs).
#data-driven. That is not fair to Kershaw, but I can see why you would say that. The fact is that he did pitch well.
I wrote a week ago here that i thought that kershaw’s postseason problems have largely been the result of being used, and i still think that’s a big factor, but i can’t deny that both this theory and kershaw’s general popular reputation took a huge hit in game 5. The truth is that kershaw got enough rest in the postseason in general and before that game in particular. The truth is it was the biggest start of his career. The truth is that the dodgers scored 12 runs in the first 9 innings of the game, and if kershaw’s start had resulted in the astros scoring 11 or fewer runs, the dodgers would have gone up 3 games to 2 and been world champions if game 6 developed as it did. That isn’t supposed to happen in a game started by a historically great pitcher. It’s unfair, it’s sad, but after game 5, it’s going to be very hard for kershaw to do something to change the narrative of his career in the public eye.
In fairness, literally no one could get anyone out in game 5 on either team. Like, in that game, Kershaw in the 1st-2nd innings was the only Dodger pitcher to retire Springer-Bregman-Altuve-Correa.
Arguably he was still the most effective pitcher in that game on either side since he managed to go 3 innings without allowing a run before he got wrecked 😛
The truth is also that 25 runs were scored that night – hitting is contagious. The truth is also that if Taylor scored in the 8th that they probably would have won that game. There are a lot of convenient truths about that night. Nobody deserves to be judged on an off-night and that includes you and I. That never stops anyone from doing it though.
I’d get that point, if it was the only time ever. Kershaw has had too many off nights in the postseason. 3rd time giving up at least 6 runs in a postseason game. Or as many as his regular season total in the last 6 years.
This was though was beyond the pale, it was a new level in terms of importance and how much run support was wasted.
I’ve been watching baseball for roughly 30 years and Kershaw is one of (if not THE, best pitchers I’ve seen. Its the simple fact that some guys, no matter how great they are in any other situation, just don’t have the head for high-pressure situations; or ones that really matter (playoffs, etc). I’d take Kershaw in a heartbeat on my team but he has yet to show me he can handle a big-time situation.
Obviously you and I disagree on post-season importance, but you have made a completely coherent argument in what you believe. Its not what I believe, but you make a clear point. Why the down-votes? I think it is because you recognized Kershaw’s greatness. Weird to think that there are people here hunting down posts that praise a generational pitcher.
“just don’t have the head for high-pressure situations; or ones that really matter (playoffs, etc).”
I think this is the kind of analysis that really bothers people. After 122 IP, it’s obvious that Kershaw is not nearly as dominant in the postseason. However, we have absolutely no evidence to attribute it to head. It’s probably not random variance, but it might have something to do with the cold weather, wear & tear (all the short rest starts), or the quality of the opposition.
There may be something to Kerhsaw’s stuff being so dominant that average, non-playoff offenses are overwhelmed, whereas elite offenses, with the entirety of their focus, can hit him better. He still has a 1.09 WHIP in the postseason, so his struggles are almost entirely due to the long ball.
He would normally give up about 9 HR in 122 IP, and he’s given up 18. Those 9 HR in 7 years of postseason pitching aren’t really enough to concluded anything about his “head”.
At this point it’s 118 innings of pitching at double his career ERA, with a severe homer problem, it’s not a huge sample size, but enough that if we saw it happen in the regular season we’d be raising red flags.
I imagine a lot of this can be attributed to fatigue (pitching on short rest), but even this year, where the Dodgers went out of their way to make sure he received enough rest, he gave up home runs at a historic rate. That and, with the exception of Game 1, struggling mightily in the 7th inning again is just bizarre.
The best pitcher of a generation never once being able to pitch into the 8th inning in the playoffs is weird, very weird. I will continue to pull for him at every turn, because I want very badly for him to succeed, and I’ll continue to, mostly, argue against the narrative, but there’s more there than I think some of us around these parts are willing to admit.
Look at the beginning of his quote after the World Series loss, “Maybe one of these days I won’t fail[…]”. A) that’s heartbreaking, and B) that’s a guy who knows he hasn’t done well when it’s mattered most.
small thing- it’s now 122 innings- but it’s not double his era…
regular season- 2.36 ERA
postseason- 4.35 ERA
Thank you and fair, but the point still mostly stands.
Kershaw’s career stats, all per 9IP, H/K/BB/HR
Regular season: 6.7/9.9/2.4/0.6
Post Season: 7.2/10.3/2.7/1.3
The post season is against better hitters in general and he only real difference is maybe one base runner and one HR per 6 or 7 inning start. But his ERA is two runs higher. I would say he has largely been a victim of sequencing. You can call that “unclutch” if you want, but people have been trying to prove that “clutch” exists for years now with no success.
wouldn’t you say however that an extra baserunner and an extra homer per game would make a pretty big difference?
I’m not saying he’s “unclutch”, because as you say it’s imoossible to prove “clutch” exists, what I’m saying is his not-entirely-a-small-sample-at-this-point postseason results have been decidedly un-Kershawian. If Kershaw was a career 4.35/3.70/3.34 pitcher, we wouldn’t be discussing him as one of the best pitchers of all time, he’d be a left handed Jeff Samardzija.
Now that’s unfair, because it is only 122 innings, and the playoffs are a different beast, but as I said if Kershaw had an 122 inning stretch like that in the past several years we’d be concerned. He really hasn’t had a stretch even similar to that since he was a rookie.
There’s been something about how he’s pitched in the postseason where he’s struggled keeping base runners on, he’s struggled to go deep in games, and that’s caused him to be more homer prone. It can, probably, mostly be blamed on fatigue, but if it wasn’t easily dismissed as postseason baseball being weird and SSS noise, it would be something that would bear deeper investigation. It certainly shouldn’t be explained away as clutch or unclutch, but it’s worth looking at what is different.
…people have been trying to prove that “Kershaw can pitch well in the playoffs” exists for years now with no success.
Wow, that is heartbreaking.
Just flailing around for some kind of explanation here, but after watching the Giants’ struggles against Kershaw for years I have the unprovable feeling that success against Kershaw is strongly correlated to projecting general confidence at the plate. Hitters like Pagan, Sandoval, and Posey have done pretty well against him and they’re completely unflappable in general, while Pence (nervous wreck), Belt (always thinks the umpire is against him), and Crawford (looks like he doesn’t even know how to hold a bat) just look helpless against him. For that matter, Bumgarner has hit Kershaw pretty well and you can’t get more unflappable (less flappable?) than Bumgarner. Of course I don’t know the hitters Kershaw pitches to in the playoffs like I know the Giants’ hitters, but in the postseason, hitters just look generally confident against him, whether because they know about his playoff reputation or because Kershaw is in some sense running scared or because there’s a general feeling from the Dodgers’ behavior that they’re pinning all their hopes on Kershaw (putting pressure on Kershaw and off everyone else, including the other teams’ hitters), or some other reason.
“these right handed hitters seem plenty comfortable, but these left-handed hitters and the crazy man seem very uncomfortable”
I wonder.
Pagan and Sandoval are switch-hitters and both hit righties significantly better than lefties. And I meant that Belt and Crawford generally project some kind of insecurity at the plate, not specifically against Kershaw. It doesn’t look to me like handedness is the main issue.
Remember when ‘the Narrative’ was being put in the grave after his 11 K, 0 walk outing in game one? Because I do. Narratives are almost always dumb, because they’re almost always reactive to what happened twenty minutes ago and not a moment before.
Houston won because they got to the Dodger bullpen, twice. Jansen got a loss and a blown save; in a series where one team only needs four wins, Houston getting to the best closer alive for two wins is the story people *should be pushing. Houston did what 28 other teams had found impossible for a full season: they hit Jansen.
But having the best regular season pitcher since WW2 and him having in game 5 getting a 4-0 and 7-4 lead but blowing it had nothing to do with it? Come on now. If Kershaw in game 5 had been able to go longer, Morrow doesn’t pitch, Jansen isn’t pitching 2 innings. It was all related.
I could see what you’re saying if Kershaw had say 25-30 innings of postseason history. He has 122 innings though of postseason history. The 59 earned runs he’s given up in the playoffs are more than all but 2 seasons in his career(despite having 2 years only with fewer than 170 innings pitched).
Like I asked earlier, if Kershaw had the playoff credentials of Madbum, how would Kershaw be viewed?
I personally have been pushing the ‘Dodgers bullpen fell apart’ narrative for the last week, barely mentioning Kershaw, even after game 5, and I’m not the only one. This article was about Kershaw, so we’re writing about Kershaw.
This article was only written because of a ridiculous standard Kershaw is held to in the playoffs – it’s a dumb narrative.
Scherzer lost game 5 of the NLDS; he’s about to be the back to back Cy Young award winner, and a three time winner overall. Kuechel pitched poorly in the series – also a CYAW. Greinke got lit up in the WC game; Gray, and Severino as well. Heck, even Verlander had one bad inning in game 6, (just like Kershaw did in game 5).
The bottom line is lots and lots of good pitchers didn’t pitch well in the playoffs. And yet, we’re talking about Kershaw, who was more good than bad this year, in the playoffs as a whole and the series in particular. That’s dumb, I think – Kershaw is amazing, just lots of pitchers are. But he isn’t infallible. He shouldn’t be expected to be.
the thing is, is Kershaw really compared to those guys? No. Kershaw is compared to guys like Sandy Koufax and players from history…..
Also-
Scherzer career 3.73 ERA in 82 playoff innings(and would say he shouldn’t have lost- MLB admitted they screwed up on the one call that allowed runs)
Greinke career 4.03 ERA in 67 playoff innings
And Verlander had 1 bad inning. That led to 2 runs. Hardly the same as Kershaw’s 4th with 4 runs.
Keuchel- 3.58 ERA for the entire postseason. Kershaw 3.82 ERA for the entire postseason.
And if you really think Kershaw is compared at all to Gray or Severino, I don’t know what to say.
Kershaw of all the guys that have gotten into the HOF the last 10 years- had the worst playoff numbers by a good bit. To act like it’s not there is a joke.
So, your point is that Clayton Kershaw isn’t Sandy Koufax. Okay. Neat! I agree.
I just don’t find that to be a compelling or significant point. ‘Clayton Kershaw isn’t as good in the playoffs as maybe the best pitcher ever’ isn’t exactly a bold statement. Or one worth saying a million times. We get it.
Of course, if Kenley Jansen hadn’t lost two games in the series, Kershaw has a ring, this article isn’t written, and you wouldn’t have to be mystified that I’m comparing Kershaw to other ace pitchers who have won Cy Youngs and were leaned on by playoff teams.
‘Clayton Kershaw foldz under pressure!!!11!’ is a hot take for an ESPN talking head show at 11 am. It feels a little unnecessary here.
But especially with game 5, Kershaw not being able to go 5 innings set in place a path that forced Jansen to pitch 2 innings.
My point with Kershaw is that he’s not a good postseason pitcher. He’s thrown 122 innings- so hardly a small sample size(within 17.2 innings of being in the top 10 in postseason history). People want to apologize for him acting like that’s not a big deal. Can you show me 5 Cy Young winners for their CAREER that are worse than Kershaw in the playoffs?
Great point. Most fans probably shouldn’t waste a lot of time on the narratives – they are click-bait more or less.
Go back to the comment that ChippersJonesing posted that Kershaw said:
Look at the beginning of his quote after the World Series loss, “Maybe one of these days I won’t fail[…]”. A) that’s heartbreaking, and B) that’s a guy who knows he hasn’t done well when it’s mattered most.
It’s clear that mentally the struggles are weighing on him.
I can think of 2 guys in particular how they reacted when they won their 1st title. Lebron is one. But the other was Steve Young. Remember how when it was clear that he was going to win. He literally said to his teammates- can someone take this monkey off my back.
I think it’s safe to say Kershaw is in a place just like those 2. And I think he may be even moreso quite frankly because he knows his better days are behind him.
Your last sentence went off the rails. How can Kershaw at age 29, off yet another ERA title, be MORE concerned that his “better days are behind him” than was Steve Young at age 33? Young did have several great years left, but you’re talking about what the athlete himself believes.
No matter what any projection might say, I highly doubt that Kershaw thinks his better days are behind him.
His ERA this year was his worst since 2012. his FIP was it’s worst since 2010. He’s had his seasons cut short by injury in 3 of the last 4 years. He knows he gave up the most homers ever in a postseason this year. I think he’s at that part of the career where doubt comes in. Just look at the quote.
Narrative schmarative. No editorial comment…no spin…just look at the record. The entirety of Kershaw’s brilliance is not revealed in the post-season and there’s no debating that, it’s just a fact. The “small sample size” argument holds less water this year than it did last. But the best evidence is Stephen’s own words; “Kershaw wasn’t quite himself in the postseason, but still very good, a pitcher who could post acceptable playoff numbers.” Kershaw is, arguably, the best pitcher of the live-ball era. His numbers say he is. He’s the best pitcher I’ve ever seen, and I’m 61 years old. But you can’t cite numbers only when they support your side. I have no need to speculate as to the WHY; I only know what IS. Being staked to 4-0 and 7-4 leads in game 5 but being unable to grab onto that and run with it is the straw. He’s “still very good?” So is Jon Lester. He’s got ‘acceptable” playoff numbers? This is a first-round Hall of Famer. I’m tired of people making excuses for him.
The Fangraphs’ writers are mysteriously silent about this. Actually it isn’t so mysterious. The whole idea that someone plays significantly worse or better under pressure is anathema to Fangraphs thinking, which is good in a way because it forces people to look at extensive evidence before evaluating popular claims of choking/clutchness, and these claims have a very strong tendency to be overblown. But at a certain point the sample size becomes such that it’s unreasonable to say that there’s nothing going on, no matter how skeptical you are in general, and I think Kershaw’s career has reached that point. It would be great to read some kind of really serious consideration of the quality of Kershaw’s postseason record by a Fangraphs writer who makes his career in this area and has the time to do this, one which doesn’t simply dismiss the whole thing as an illusion. Because it’s looking like it isn’t an illusion–in fact, the illusion is to say that things like this don’t happen.
As a huge Kershaw fan, I concede that he has underperformed in the postseason, especially compared to his regular season results. However the game 5 narrative that he blew two leads including a 7-4 lead is incorrect and misleading. He left the game with a 7-4 lead, two outs, and runners on first and second. Maeda came in and gave up a 3 run HR and the lead. The lack of bullpen support has been a contributing factor to Kershaw’s career post season underperformance. In the last 4 years, Kershaw has left the bullpen with 9 inherited runners, and eight have scored, mostly with the help of Pedro Baez. In each of those appearances, Kershaw left with 2 outs in the inning.
The lack of a competent setup bullpen also has caused Kershaw to stay in games after losing his effectiveness. Specifically, in 2014, the Cardinals scored 9 runs off Kershaw in the 7th inning of games 1 and 4. The lack of bullpen support has clearly had a significant negative impact on Kershaw’s post season stats. (The inherited runner info is from yahoo sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/clayton-kershaw-t-pitch-playoffs-041216236.html)
However, the bullpen is just one of many factors to consider when evaluating Kershaws postseason performance. First and foremost, he has not produced consistently under the pressure of the playoffs, and he will be the first to accept responsibility. But still I would not want anyone other than Clayton taking the ball for game 1 of the 2018 playoffs.
Two tangents:
1) I notice lots of folks using “The Narrative” as a dismissive term for all that’s been said about Kershaw’s postseason numbers. That’s no better than those who use the numbers to paint him as a “choker.” Looking for significance in those numbers is not unreasonable, despite the fairly small sample; any conclusions should be debated vigorously, but should not be dismissed as mere “narrative.”
2) Contrary to pre-game statements by some very fine writers, Kershaw has actually been quite good on short rest. Even before the 4 zeroes in Game 7, he had a 2.67 ERA, 4/5 quality starts, just 2 HRs in 33.2 IP (his real postseason bugaboo), and 41/5 K/BB.
Several Series previews I read mentioned approvingly that Kershaw was getting full rest throughout this postseason, unlike prior years. I guess they just assumed a connection between increased workload and diminished performance; and that connection may be true despite the specific short-rest games. However, given the observed patterns so far, such as Kershaw fading in later innings, I wonder if his best postseason schedule would be shorter outings on short rest.
Kershaw is a great pitcher.
He is no Koufax.
I have seen them both many times.
Granted,I followed Sandy in his wheelhouse yrs 61-66.
Ask any member of the 65 WS Twins squad.
How was it,facing Koufax on 2days rest in game 7.
Good point. Koufax threw a complete game 2 hitter in game 7 at Minnesota on two days rest. Amazing that his postseason era was 0.95, but he only had a record of 4-3.
Koufax had most dominating 5 year period of any pitcher, but Kershaws length of excellence will be longer.
You would hope Kershaw will be able to be better longer. I just have a bad feeling like his better days are over. He’s had so many innings so far. And he’s had the back problems which look like they’re going to impact him more and more.
I’m also old enough to have seen Koufax pitch, and did. To say Kershaw is “no Koufax” is true, because (post-season, excluded) he’s better. Koufax, as great as he was, was in large part a product of both his era (the higher mound of the mid 1960’s) and especially Dodger Stadium (opened in 1962). His lifetime home ERA was 2.48; road 3.04. Check for yourself (article linked). He wasn’t close to being a league average pitcher until 1961….and he pitched only 12 total years! In fact, for his first 6 years, he had the 2nd worst ERA of any pitcher who pitched as many innings as he did! It’s fascinating how savvy we are about park effects in regards to, say, Colorado Rockies hitters, yet completely ignorant of Koufax’s results. Great pitcher for 5 years, yes. For his era, so were Marichal, Gibson, Spahn and Ford. And Pedro Martinez was, arguably, better for a 5/7 year period (as compared to league average using neutral park data) as Koufax.
http://bleacherrepdort.com/articles/211023-why-sandy-koufax-owes-a-lot-of-his-success-to-dodger-stadium
I’m also old enough to have seen Koufax pitch and to me at least in his prime he was more impressive than Kershaw, even aside from the postseason thing. Kershaw does everything really well but you don’t feel like he’s from another planet. Koufax just seemed unreal, you couldn’t even believe he was throwing the pitches he was throwing, again and again. Game 7 in 1965 against the Twins, on two days’ rest, it was obvious that his curveball wasn’t working so he threw nothing but fastballs and just blew them away–that’s the most famous example, but that’s the pitcher he was. It wasn’t just the speed of his fastball, it was the movement, it was dipping and shooting all over the place, and almost always either in the strike zone or looking like it would be until the last instant. The only other pitcher who I’ve gotten this ‘How does he do it?’ feeling from to a comparable extent was Steve Carlton (I lived in a Philadelphia for a while and saw him pitch a lot) with his slider, he could literally throw 100 or more of them in one game with no problem and the overwhelming majority of them would be great.
So I did some looking at the actual numbers….
There’s been 58 pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame who pitched at least some in the 1903 and forward era.
Of those 58- first off- 5 guys never played in the playoffs. Rube Waddell, Jack Chesboro, Jim Bunning, Fergie Jenkins, and Ted Lyons.
17 guys pitched to a higher ERA in the postseason than they did the regular season. Of these 17, only 2 had a postseason ERA more than 55% of their regular season ERA. Hal Newhouser and Gaylord Perry.
What I think is a really interesting number is 12/53 HOF pitchers have their postseason ERA +/- 5% of their regular season ERA. 25/53 guys within 20% of their regular season ERA.
So Kershaw is a really an extreme outlier I think. By far the most extreme guy in the last 30 years. I mean, no other HOF guy in those 30 years that is over the 20% mark either way. Before this- it’s been Pedro at 18.1% worse and Smoltz at 19.8% better. This years HOF class could change that- as 5 of the top 6 pitchers by the BR hof meter are outside that 20% threshold-
Wagner 77% worse
Santana 24.1% worse
Hoffman 20.6% worse
Clemens 20.2% worse
Schilling 35.5% better
(kershaw for the record is 88.3% worse right now)
Thanks for doing this research. It’s pretty striking.
did some more looking…. this time using FIP….
21 guys were worse in the postseason career FIP wise. With only being worse than 55% of their regular season FIP. Eppa Rixey, Walter Johnson, and Bob Feller.
7/53 HOF pitchers have their posteason FIP +/- 5%. 29/53 have it within 20%.
Kershaw is at 42.3%. That would be #6 all time- behind those 3 and Burleigh Grimes and Don Drysdale.
Now if you average the ERA and FIP differences…… 21 guys are worse in the postseason. With only 8 being worse than 15%. Only 2 worse than 50% are Eppa Rixey and Bob Feller. Kershaw would be 2nd worst- behind only Rixey at 65.3%.
On the other side of things- you have Hoyt Wilhelm. His career postseason FIP is actually negative!