Stay Healthy, Please: The Clayton Kershaw Thread

what I'm saying is with a lousy offensive team, some of those wins would be NDs or even a loss or two. Which has nothing to do with him.

Pitcher wins are an excellent measure of 19th-century accounting.

You've picked the most extreme example...sure, in that case he'd probably be 16-6 or something. Which doesn't change the fact that, with Kershaw, his W-L record is an accurate measure of how well he's pitched.

except for all the other ones.

Which doesn't change the fact that, with Kershaw, his W-L record is an accurate measure of how well he's pitched.

Your sentence doesn't follow from mine--I don't think I said the most accurate, just one of many. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but you're using a hypothetical situation (what if he pitched for the Padres) to cast doubt on something we know to be true: Kershaw's 19-3 because he's been phenomenal, not because of run support or any other factor beyond his control. (Not sure what his run support's been, but I'm sure most of it has been superfluous.)

NO, HE IS 19-3 IN PART *BECAUSE* HIS TEAM SCORES FREQUENTLY

k bye

Sorry, I just think that's factually wrong.

The 19 wins:
0 earned runs -- 8 times
1 earned run -- 9 times
2 earned runs -- 2 times

The 3 losses:
3 earned runs -- 2 times
7 earned runs -- 1 time

The 3 no-decisions:
3 earned runs -- 3 times

What you're saying would have a little or a lot of validity with most pitchers. I don't see that it has any validity here. If you can take those games and explain how 19-3 overstates Kershaw's excellence, I'd be interested in hearing that. Unless you're arguing that he should be even better than 19-3--that some of those losses and no-decisions might have been wins--in which case you have a point.

Wins have more meaning for pitchers who average more innings per start. At 7.4 IP/start (tops in MLB, I think), Kershaw has a lot more control over the outcome of the game than a 6 IP/game pitcher whose W-L record is more influenced by the quality of his team's bullpen.

Also, he has a decent shot at the triple crown (again).

With the Cubs crumbling, Kershaw is set to be the first NL player since WWII to win 20 in less than 30, I know wins are dumb and whatnot but that seems significant enough.

6-3 Dodgers after one inning in Chicago!

how did you arrange Edwin's return?

Ha, Kershaw vs Jackson -- biggest pitching mismatch of the 21st century thus far?

So that was Kershaw's second-worst outing of the year, maybe?

I was going to say that, after that back-and-forth from a couple of days ago, he of course goes out today and picks up his first unimpressive win of the year--first time where run support clearly made a difference. It's like he's mocking my most excellent research.

his 20th win in his 26th start. ridic.

uhhh Kershaw just destroyed the wins theory today, even clemenza noticed.

cheap wins are a thing, tough losses are a thing (Braves starters demonstrating the hell out of that this year), everybody drop your guns or the kid gets it

it doesn't prove his mastery of all creation, but it *is* both rare and ridiculous

In the end isn't every number just made up anyway, makes u think

Yesterday didn't destroy didn't destroy the wins theory. There was no theory in the first place, just the idea that Kershaw's 19-3 record, in this specific instance, did not exaggerate his excellence. Today, Kershaw's 20-3 record does not exaggerate his excellence.

on his triple he looked like a horse galloping out of a burning barn

We all know W-L records can be misleading, but when people quote run support, do they account for the fact that that can be misleading too? Nine runs were scored for Kershaw while he was the pitcher of record last night, so his average run support will be adjusted accordingly. What that doesn't tell you is that a) seven of those runs were superfluous, and b) the game was still 1-1 going into the bottom of the sixth.

SweetSpot's David Schoenfield, who I think is very good and fairly mainstream: "Let's not make the MVP debate more complicated than it needs to be: Clayton Kershaw is the best, and most valuable, player in the National League. There shouldn't really need to be a debate."

I wouldn't go that far--there's a debate there; LuCroy's been great, Stanton was right there until the injury (perhaps leading), there's McCutchen and Rendon--but I do agree with the middle part of that quote.

McCutchen will def be the focus of the "not enough innings" crowd now, but meh who cares

In those narrative factors ILB hates--that was the first word I learned on ILB: "narrative"--I'd say McCutchen benefits from the admirable-superstar factor, and is hurt by the won-one-already factor. So a wash.

unless he gets 3 hits a day in the remaining games and the Bucs win the Central

i think it's mostly kershaw vs giancarlo now, tho both seem way too unconventional to be frontrunners

what's unconventional about Stanton?

Stanton is almost a too-trad candidate, but i think the writers don't want to be perceived as giving him any sort of pity vote, and at 24 they think he can improve on 37hr 105rbi when he's with the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers.

now can we bail on awards and anticipate Kershaw's LDS start?

as it stands it'll probably be Kershaw vs Wainwright.

Um...he'll pitch well? There's so much more room to wander around when it comes to award talk.

By the way, if McCutchen did come up with 12 more hits--he's the only guy left who's candidacy isn't frozen--and the Pirates caught the Cards, I think you'd have a very close vote, and I'm not sure who'd win.

stanton is super-unconventional. incomplete season on a losing team. after the trout/cabrera war of 2012 in which the losing team argument was used 50 million times, passionately, you'd think they wouldn't just let a guy slip in unless it's a season for the ages. he's missing less time than kershaw but missing it at the end is a lot more noticeable than missing it at the beginning.

er, 2012 wasn't a losing team argument but literally a losing out on the playoffs argument, jfc

I really don't get the playoff contention argument yeah. Also, Stanton missed (almost) as many games as McCutchen and Rendon, Lucroy is a catcher, and when it comes to WAR they all had similar numbers. What an odd season in that regard.

yeah, i thought stanton missed more than he had.

but if they aren't willing to vote for mike trout's amazing 2012 because the angels had only 89 wins, it'd be a bit surprising if stanton got in with a less impressive year on a team that didn't even get to .500. it's silly. of course the playoffs thing was mostly just an excuse in 2012 but still. i've already heard the argument that stanton deserves it because the marlins were "closer to contending than anyone thought" which, rmde. poor, poor trout, my heart weeps for thee etc

kershaw had a season for the ages but it seems equally unconventional voting for a pitcher who missed 6 starts. maybe the most unconventional win since eck? still rooting for him but it wouldn't surprise me if cutch sneaks in for tradition's sake.

btw kershaw has 0.4/0.5 batting fWAR/rWAR which everyone always forgets about

watching a video of Bumgarner two grand slams*

wait was that you said?

He has a 3.72 ERA in 17 starts vs people wearing Cardinal laundry

First time ever a guy's given up seven runs in back-to-back post-season starts. He has out-Joaquined Joaquin.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/52236/that-happened-eight-runs-off-kershaw

Talk about a faulty memory; I knew Andujar didn't start game 7 of the '85 Series, but amazingly, he only pitched to two batters:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/KCA/KCA198510270.shtml

I think many people, like me, associate that meltdown with Andujar. I guess what we're remembering is the way he flipped out.

Russell Carleton: The Cardinals Do Not Own Clayton Kershaw

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=24798

IIRC, in G6 of the NLCS last year there were a lot of soft hits and balls that fell just in front of the outfielders. The comeback on Friday wasn't luck -- he made bad pitches and the Cards were ringing line drives all over the place.

wouldn't argue with that, but it was, as they say, just one start.

healthy!

https://twitter.com/charliewiddoes/status/530475272249044992

are those cookies? if so you earned em buddy, we still luh you

Ah, Facebook...Koufax vs. Kershaw thread on a discussion group, and it's essentially me on one side(about equal during the regular season, obvious edge to Koufax in the postseason) and 20 other people who believe that it's not even close because 1) Koufax never needed to hand it over to a closer (ignoring that that's simply the way the game was structured then), 2) Kershaw's postseason troubles reveal some deep flaw within him (ignoring that we're basically talking about two bad innings), and 3) Kershaw has to do it for another four or five seasons before the question's even worth addressing (ignoring that Kershaw's great run is almost as long as Koufax's right now). Maddening.

ah, clemenza

Best FIP, Pitchers Age 21 to 26 seasons, minimum 1000 IP, 1950 - present:

Tom Seaver: 2.58
Clayton Kershaw 2.61
Sam McDowell 2.62
Bert Blyleven 2.68
Roger Clemens 2.79

so yeah, he's doing pretty well so far!