Where It Went Wrong for Clayton Kershaw Last Time

Five years from now, when we think about Game One of the NLCS between the Dodgers and Brewers, I’m guessing we’ll probably think about the ninth inning: taut, suspenseful, and fundamentally baseball-y in the best way. If the Brewers go on to win the World Series, completing the job the 2008-11 versions of the club never could and exorcising some of the demons still haunting the area formerly occupied by County Stadium (which is actually just the parking lot right outside Miller Park), that ninth inning will be remembered as a key step along the way. I hope it is. The ninth inning was The One Where the Brewers Hung On. But I hope that fond memory is not eclipsed, at least today, by our shared memory of the third inning: The One Where Clayton Kershaw Couldn’t Hit His Target.

For the sake of narrative appeal, it would have been ideal for Kershaw to have entered the inning all youth and innocence, grown in stature by vanquishing a series of increasingly insalubrious foes, and then fallen to an antagonist at the dramatic climax of the tale.

That is not what happened, however. What happened instead is that Kershaw just began the inning by allowing a home run to Brandon Woodruff. Here is a picture of where Yasmani Grandal wanted the pitch that Woodruff ended up hitting out:

And here is a picture of where the ball ended up right before Woodruff blasted it into Toyota Territory™:

The camera angle distorts the true distance between glove and ball a little, but the pitch was ultimately about two feet away from where Kershaw wanted it.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

What I’d imagine was especially galling about this sequence to Dodgers fans is that Woodruff had previously shown almost no inclination whatsoever to swing at anything Kershaw was offering. He knew, without needing to be told, that Brandon Woodruffs are not meant to hit home runs against Clayton Kershaws. So for almost the entirety of the sequence — fastball, fastball, fastball, curveball, running to a 2-2 count — he took Kershaw’s pitches without ever really showing an interest in swinging. But the fifth pitch bled out over the plate and Woodruff, fouling it off, showed himself more than ready to hit it. The next pitch, of course, resulted in the first home run by a pitcher off a lefty in postseason history.

Unfortunately for Kershaw and the Dodgers, the damage didn’t end there. If the cardinal sin against Woodruff was missing over the plate while trying to stay away, the problem against Christian Yelich, who came to the plate a batter later, was missing over the plate while trying to stay in. The first pitch to the likely MVP was a fastball that was meant to be at Yelich’s knees but instead ended up dead over the plate at the bottom of the zone. Perhaps spooked, Kershaw took something off the next pitch and missed low, but at least sufficiently out of the zone to avoid any possibility of damage. The third pitch, a slider which ended up in the left-handed batters’ box, prompted Grandal to make this face:

This went on for a while until Yelich drew a walk. Kershaw’s command against Ryan Braun wasn’t much better. His second pitch, in particular, was one Braun could have and perhaps should have crushed — and prompted Ryan Braun to curse out Ryan Braun just a little.

Ultimately, a foul-out on a two-strike curveball meant that it wasn’t until Grandal’s passed ball that Kershaw got himself in real trouble, trouble that led to a run and put the Brewers ahead for good. Again, the ninth inning felt important, but it was the third that generated the most critical plate appearances of the game — and which, of course, saw Milwaukee turn a one-run deficit into a one-run lead against the best pitcher in the series.

Top-10 Plays by Leverage, Game One of NLCS
Inn Batter Pitcher Outs Bases Score LI
T9 J Turner C Knebel 2 __3 6-5 4.58
B3 H Perez C Kershaw 1 123 1-1 2.79
T8 Y Puig J Jeffress 2 1 6-4 2.77
B3 L Cain C Kershaw 1 12 1-1 2.16
B3 R Braun C Kershaw 0 12 1-1 2.04
B3 M Moustakas C Kershaw 2 _23 2-1 1.82
B3 J Aguilar C Kershaw 1 _23 1-1 1.69
B3 C Yelich C Kershaw 0 1 1-1 1.61
T8 M Kemp J Jeffress 2 12 6-3 1.53
T9 C Bellinger C Knebel 0 ___ 6-4 1.49

It’s hard to know what to make of Postseason Kershaw. I’m generally of the mind that there’s not much to the theory that Kershaw somehow can’t perform in the postseason — a few gems scattered here and there throughout his October record make clear that that’s simply not the case — but the fact is that we now have 133 innings’ worth of Kershaw performance in which he’s been 11% worse than the league average (as measured by ERA-) and just 7% better than the league as measured by FIP-. Neither number would be anything in particular to complain about except that Kershaw has of course put up figures of 62 and 67, respectively, in his regular-season career, and not once since his rookie season back in 2008 put up numbers anything close to that poor in any single campaign. We’re likely past the point where this is a weird luck thing. Something is up.

But I don’t have an answer for the macro problem. I don’t know why the results haven’t been there for Kershaw in October, in general. But I do know why they weren’t there for him Friday: he just simply could not hit his target, and the Brewers capitalized on it. Execution matters against big-league hitters. Leaving a fastball out over the plate will get you into trouble even if the opposing batter is Brandon Woodruff. Given how poorly Kershaw was executing in the third inning, it was actually a bit of a blessing for Los Angeles that they left the inning down just a run; lesser pitchers have been pulled from innings in which they looked better than Kershaw did there. Clayton Kershaw is still one of the best pitchers in the world. But in Game One, in the third inning against the Milwaukee Brewers, he just couldn’t hit his target.





Rian Watt is a contributor to FanGraphs based in Seattle. His work has appeared at Vice, Baseball Prospectus, The Athletic, FiveThirtyEight, and some other places too. By day, he works with communities around the world to end homelessness.

28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
bournsa125
7 years ago

He lost command and couldn’t hit his target, and my thought is that he probably has to continue to reinvent himself and start throwing his curveball a lot more. His fastball and slider goes 87-91 and I think he threw only 4 curveballs in the last game. He doesn’t have to go Rich Hill or Lance McCullers with that curveball, but I’d think it would help to mix it up a bit more.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago

I would really appreciate it if someone at Fangraphs would try to address the matter of Kershaw’s career postseason record in a serious way. There are various theories which have been suggested, and I (and I think many people here) would be interested in a real investigation of how much truth there is to each of them. To mention some possible accounts which have been suggested (I’m sure there are others):

(1) Kershaw’s postseason record is a fluke of small sample size. He may have pitched less well than average (for him) in the postseason, but all pitchers have such variations, and the size of Kershaw’s career postseason record is so small that whatever variations there have been are not statistically significant.

(2) Kershaw’s postseason record is indeed worse, but this is a fluke resulting from bad luck on batted balls.

(3) Kershaw has indeed done worse in the postseason but only in terms of allowing home runs. The number of home runs is, however, statistically significantly greater than his average in the regular season, and there is something in his postseason performance which accounts for this.

(4) Kershaw’s postseason record is indeed significantly worse than his regular season record, but this is because for one reason or another the relievers which have followed him have allowed an unusually large number of runners which they inherited to score, and it is only Kershaw’s statistics related to this difference that are statistically significantly different from his regular season statistics.

(5) Kershaw has performed significantly less well in the postseason, and this difference is real, but this is the result of him being used on much shorter rest than in the regular season quite a few times.

(6) Kershaw has performed significantly less well in the postseason, but this is because on the occasions that he has been tiring and definitely losing effectiveness, Dodgers’ managers have for one reason or another left him in the game, with bad results, longer than they would have in the regular season.

(7) The quality of the hitters is presumably significantly higher than average in the postseason because the teams are generally better than average. A good number of other starting pitchers (for example Volquez and Bumgarner) throw significantly harder in the postseason, presumably because the season is going to end soon and they don’t have to hold back, and so this makes up for the hitters being better in terms of their statistics compared to the regular season. Kershaw, on the other hand, for one reason or another, does not throw harder in the postseason, and so the higher quality of the hitters results in him not doing as well.

(8) For one reason or another, Kershaw pitches more tentatively in the postseason, tending to waste pitches when he gets ahead in the count instead of going after hitters, with the result that batters hit the ball off of him in more favorable ball-strike situations, and also his pitch count goes up more and he tires more.

(9) Kershaw generally indeed pitches worse in the postseason to an extent which can’t be explained by random variation and for reasons which are not clear.

Of course, more than one of these may be true. Kershaw’s postseason record is something which quite a lot of baseball fans talk about, Fangraphs has quite a number of great baseball minds, and it would be great if one or more of them could make a serious effort to address this question.

Beep Boop
7 years ago

Good list, a couple more things to investigate may be:

Quality of opponent. How do Kershaw’s post season numbers compare to the regular season performance against offenses of similar talent?

Fatigue: Could it simply be a function of Kershaw running out of gas after the regular season, and his stuff/approach suffers disproportionately more compared to “clutch” postseason starters.

Finally, I’m no statistician, but I feel that the small sample size catch-all needs further investigation. Not all small samples are created equal. A hot/cold streak over a short, continuous length of time can’t possibly be the same as the aggregate of short, isolated vignettes over the course of multiple years, can it? Particularly since we are talking about competitive physical performance in a highly dynamic environment.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  Beep Boop

I would think that everyone would have parallel issues in terms of facing tougher hitting in the postseason. That’s why I suggested that maybe Kershaw doesn’t have (or for some reason doesn’t use) a ‘higher gear’ for the postseason like some other pitchers do. Getting tired more easily than many other pitchers could well be a factor. I don’t have any data on this, but when watching Kershaw pitch during the regular season I often have the feeling that he’s not only retiring almost all the hitters he faces, he’s doing it with very few pitches, so I suppose in could be that he just isn’t used to pitching tired and gets affected by this relatively strongly.

tb.25
7 years ago

Community Research section is open for business. Would love to see you conduct this, I’d read it.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  tb.25

I don’t have the time or the statistical ability. I was hoping someone else would do it…

MadHatterMember since 2016
7 years ago

Pitching through lingering, multi-season back injury and weakness.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
7 years ago

Why exactly is it not a “weird luck thing”?

johnforthegiants
7 years ago

It might be. There needs to be some kind of statistical testing. In statistical analysis of this kind of thing, you take as the null hypothesis the idea that it’s luck (in statistical terms, that there is no causative correlation between the independent variable (in this case regular season vs. postseason) and the dependent variable (in this case Kershaw’s performance in the two situations)). If the distribution of observed data is so skewed that it would occur by chance only very rarely, then the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be said to have been statistically demonstrated that there is a correlation (although this doesn’t explain why the correlation exists). Usually in scientific research, the level of probability which is accepted as demonstrating a non-coincidental relationship is 1%–that is, if the chance of the observed distribution of data occurring by accident (due to luck) is less than 1%, then the assumption is that it didn’t occur due to luck. This is how for example it was demonstrated that smoking causes lung cancer–even though there are people who get lung cancer even though they don’t smoke at all, and also there are people who don’t get lung cancer even though they smoke a huge amount, the statistical relationship between heavy smoking and lung cancer is such that if there were no real correlation, this distribution would be very very rare (I’m sure much less than 1% in this case). The chances of a relationship being not due to chance is a result of the difference between the observations in different situation (for example, the difference between Kershaw’s xFIP in the regular season and his xFIP in the postseason and also the amount of data in the different situations. At this point, the amount of postseason data which Kershaw has is not so small (133 innings), so it is possible that statistical testing would so that the difference between his regular season performance and postseason performance is would be extremely unlikely to occur due to chance. I’m kind of hoping that someone whose career is based on analyzing baseball statistics will check this.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
7 years ago

Yes, that was my point. As far as I can tell the null hypothesis is alive and well here.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago

Well I did an EXTREMELY simple-minded statistical analysis for just homers and BFs. In the regular season, Kershaw has given up 145 homers in 8252 BFs, while in the postseason he’s given up 19 homers in 540 BFs. For references, that’s about one homer for every 57 batters faced in the regular season and one homer for every 28 batters faced in the postseason (about twice as often). If you do a simple 2×2 chi-square calculation for those data, the value is 8.49–the value needed for p<005 for a 2×2 table is 7.88, so that means that the distribution would come up less than once in 200 times by chance. So at least by this test–for homers in particular–the null hypothesis would be rejected, Kershaw does seem to be pitching significantly worse in the post-season in this particular way for some reason. Of course this isn't an all definitive, this is only one test of quality of pitching, and their are presumably other complicating factors, but it does look like at least there's something worth investigating.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago

I just noticed for example that Drew pointed out below that his postseason appearances may be concentrated in years in which he was in any case less effective, although Stever is disputing this.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago

And even if there’s a statistically significant correlation, you haven’t shown anything until you have some demonstrable theory about WHY he gives up more homers in the postseason which is related to other data (and ‘he chokes’ isn’t a theory).

drew_willyMember since 2020
7 years ago

We will never have enough postseason IPs to confidently rule out the influence of variance, sadly.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  drew_willy

Please look at the comment I made above to Roger–at least if his whole career is considered and it’s just number of homers per batter faced, there are enough postseason IPs to get significant results.

drew_willyMember since 2020
7 years ago

Recall that ~10% of his postseason IPs came before he had his god-tier slider and another 10-15% have come after multiple years of back injuries. This isn’t true of his regular season IPs. So it is NOT apples-to-apples here.

stever20Member since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  drew_willy

Here’s the problem with that conclusion though….
2008-09 5.87 ERA 15.1- regular season period 3.36 ERA 278.2 IP
2013-15 4.20 ERA 49.1- regular season period 1.92 ERA 667 IP
2016-18 3.95 ERA 68.1- regular season period 2.26 ERA 485.1 IP

So yes, I’d say your first point is correct….. BUT- his numbers the last 3 years after all the back problems- were BETTER than his numbers from 2013-15. His numbers 2013-15 were much worse than regular season- when he was in his prime- a 2.28 ERA difference then- compared to only a 1.69 difference the last 3 years(in a lot more appearances by the way).

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  drew_willy

Okay, so this is one complicating factor which has to be checked. At this point though I don’t have the energy or time to keep checking this.

stever20Member since 2017
7 years ago

1 thing I think for Kershaw is his numbers in playoff series when they get to see him a 2nd time in the series are much worse than his 1st start in the series….

this will be his 9th series since 2013 where he’s made 2 starts in the series….

in the 8 prior times….
1st starts- total of 18 er in 50.1 IP. 3.22 ERA. 5 Quality Starts, only 1 start giving up more than 3 er.
2nd starts- total of 27 er in 45.1 ip. 5.36 ERA. 4 quality starts. 4 starts giving up more than 3 er.

So looks like as they see his stuff more- they get a better read on him. In the regular season- you’re not going to have that obviously.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  stever20

But shouldn’t that be true for everyone so that everyone should do worse in the postseason? Or are you saying that Kershaw relies on ‘surprise’ much more than the average pitcher? I remember I had that theory about Yusmeiro Petit (and his ‘invisiball’) after the 2014 postseason, where he had one 6-inning shutout appearance in the NLDS, one 3-inning shutout appearance in the NLCS, and one 3-inning shutout appearance in the World Series.

stever20Member since 2017
7 years ago

well lets look at someone…. Justin Verlander…

he’s had 6 multiple starts in his career in series…….
1st starts- 14 er in 38 ip. 3.32 ERA
2nd starts- 7 er 43.1 ip. 1.45 ERA

or Andy Pettitte . he had 12 multiple starts in series
1st starts- 40 er in 77.1 ip. 4.66 ERA
2nd starts- 31 er in 72.1 ip 3.86 ERA

I think it’s possible the surprise factor could be in play for Kershaw….

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  stever20

Hmm. Well it’s yet another theory. What could it be? Learning to lay off of the curveball? Learning to swing earlier in the count?

stever20Member since 2017
7 years ago

might be….

did some looking in the regular season in the same time frame(so since 2013).

Kershaw has had back to back starts vs same team only 5 times in those 6 seasons……
1st starts 11 er 33.2 ip 2.94 ERA
2nd starts 13 er 35.2 ip 3.28 ERA

So a bit worse in that 2nd start.

So having 9 starts in series like this in same time very unusual compared to the regular season.

Brewtown_Kev
7 years ago

Perhaps there is data from home-and-home team series in the regular season where he faces the same team twice in quick succession, to see if this is a thing for him generally, or just in the playoffs.

Edit: this is addressed in literally the very next comment.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  stever20

I would guess that the one non-quality 1st start was the first game of the 2014 NLDS, right? I remember that one very well, he blew a 6-1 lead when the Cardinals scored 8 runs in the 7th. They got 6 hits off of him in the 7th before Mattingly finally pulled him. It was like looking at a great fighter being just pummeled and thinking ‘why doesn’t the referee just stop the fight?’ If it had been anyone but Kershaw, Mattingly would have pulled him much sooner and the Dodgers might have won.

stever20Member since 2017
7 years ago

yes, it was that start. And of course with today, the first start in this series will go with those numbers inflating them some.

johnforthegiants
7 years ago
Reply to  stever20

What was so striking about that game was that it was an example of Kershaw having a particularly terrible line score because of the combination of it being Kershaw and being in the playoffs. If it wasn’t Kershaw, the manager would have pulled him long before he gave up 6 hits in one inning. And if it was the regular season, probably the same. But because it was Kershaw and it was the playoffs, Mattingly was like a deer caught in headlights. He just couldn’t move to pull Kershaw even thought he was being used for batting practice. I wonder if part of the Kershaw postseason phenomenon is that Dodgers’ managers for some reason act completely irrationally when he’s pitching.

stever20Member since 2017
7 years ago

The thing that’s really weird with Kershaw now last 3 years he’s either really special or bad/awful…… Really almost no middle ground at all for him.

He’s made 12 starts in the 3 years…..

5 starts he’s been at 1.50 ERA or better for the start.
1 start at 3.60 ERA
4 starts between 5.40-7.20 ERA
2 starts 11.57-12.00 ERA

his 6 good/great starts he’s given up 5 er in 40 ip. 1.13 ERA
his 6 bad/awful starts he’s given up 26 er in 30.2 ip. 7.63 ERA

If you do it just the last 2 years- it’s 1.36 in 5 good/great starts to 9.00 in 3 bad/awful starts.