Is Kershaw in career decline?
craig44
Posts: 11,264 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Now that Kershaw is on the DL again with the back injury, do you think he is in career decline or will we ever see vintage Kershaw again for a full season?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
nik kershaw? he was a one hit wonder at best
This subject has generated a lot of attention lately.
Stunning at age 30 a player of his stature is breaking down. DL trips in 3 of the last 4 years and fastball velocity down significantly. Could his unorthodox delivery be putting undue stress on his back? With velocity down, I wonder if he will encounter elbow problems by trying to overthrow. I hope he is not going to become another Koufax.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I see injuries continuing to be a major problem for him for the rest of his career. I see him as being a guy who when he is on the field, he will continue to be great and pitch extremely well, but injuries will limit him to 20-25 starts a year. His injuries always seem to be ones that limit his time on the field, not his ability to pitch. It is extremely unfortunate because he is without a doubt one of the greatest pitchers to ever play the game, and without injuries he would have put up great career totals as well. I fear he is becoming another Koufax. An all time great with low career totals due to injury.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
A quick look at the two pitchers shows a lot of similar numbers.
Kershaw seems to be even better than Koufax, looking at 162 game averages almost identical.
Good question, Koufax's arthritis ended his career, there was nothing that could really help him. Kershaw might have some options, but back problems can be chronic as well.
He's already better than Koufax. He's had more good seasons than Koufax did, led MLB in ERA for straight seasons (only guy to ever do that) and is #1 in ERA among starters (by half a run!) in the live ball era.
Seriously? Already better than Sandy Koufax? This is where people who rely on exclusively on statistics start to lose me. Here's a stat: From October 7, 1965 to October 14, 1965, Sandy Koufax made three World Series starts and two of them were 10 strikeout, complete game shutout performances including the Game 7 clincher. I'm guessing he played through just about everything Clayton Kershaw has gone on the DL for - and then some. We don't need to blame sample size or explain away Sandy's postseason numbers either because they are superior to his regular season numbers and not inferior like those of Kershaw.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1965_WS.shtml
Now, Clayton Kershaw is a great pitcher already who has put up incredible and even historic stats especially relative to the era and even in the context of all time statistics, as well. But the game of baseball is not played to put up statistics but rather to put up championships. Sandy also has a decided advantage there. I'm not saying the comparison isn't warranted (it is) and I'm not saying Kershaw isn't an all time great (he is) but better than Sandy Koufax? I won't say he has a long way to go but still has a ways to go...
...in my humble opinion.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
A case can be made for both players. Koufax's early years were clearly inferior, however he was better when he was at his best. Kershaw was great from day one.
I prefer more consistency in a ballplayer, so I would choose Kershaw. I would not say he was a better pitcher, their numbers are just too similar.
I saw a little of Koufax as a kid (65 W.S. against my Twins) and really nothing of Kershaw, so I am relying on statistics alone.
Sandy was impressive in the W.S.
Koufax has the clear and decided edge for postseason performance but for regular season stats, Kershaw is already better than Koufsx, especially when you factor in the era in which each pitcher played.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Forgive me if I happen to disagree with the second half of your statement. I'm not big on advanced metrics but I do enjoy reading other people who do like them and are willing to write about it. I do like some of the more basic stats. I'll start with 137 to 25. That's Koufax's complete games to that of Kershaw - and complete games are good for the short term (that game, usually, but not always a win) and long term (since every other pitcher gets a day off). Shutouts are also edge Sandy at 40 to 15. Sandy has 20 more wins in just 14 more starts. Kershaw has the edge in 200K seasons (7 to 6) but Sandy the edge in 300K seasons (3 to 1). I won't go into innings pitched but I'll never understand how guys who pitched 300+ innings in a season aren't given more credit. Particularly whenever it happened after WWII.
As for Clayton Kershaw being the only player ever to lead MLB in ERA four straight seasons, that is indeed very impressive. But isn't it also impressive that the record for leading the National League in consecutive seasons is not four but five and held by none other than Sandy Koufax (1962-1966)?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You cannot use complete games to compare a pitcher today with a pitcher who played in the 1960s. The game has fundamentally changed over the past 50 years. There are plenty of really bad pitchers from that era who have many more complete games than the best pitchers playing today but that does not make them any better. There are better, more advanced metrics to evaluate pitcher performance.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Funny you should say that. People have tried many different things over the years in baseball (and all walks of life). Best part is this: if you are really creative (full of enough crap) you can take something everyone knows, rename it and be labeled a genius. And then you get disciples you repeat the drivel and soon you've got a movement. Here's some observations: we count innings, pitches, high leverage pitches. We have innings caps and let no man pitch beyond 100.
And yet guys are still getting hurt at the same rate.
We study launch angles, exit velos and measure home run distance. Batting averages are way down, 75% of guys are dead pull hitters yet somehow they're better hitters?
The game of baseball is nine innings. A pitcher who can pitch all nine effectively is just about the best thing you could imagine. There's almost nothing more valuable than that.
All the xFip, K/9, spin rate and BAA w/RISP in the world can only tell you that Kershaw was statistically brilliant. Baseball is a sport, not a math problem. You have to watch it and see how a guy performs in a variety of situations. Clayton striking out all those regular season Padres isn't that impressive to me knowing he can't get Cardinals out in October...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Sandy Koufax everywhere but Dodger Stadium:
108-72, 3.38 ERA
Sandy Koufax at Dodger Stadium:
57-15, 1.37 ERA
Sandy Koufax at LA Coliseum:
17-23, 4.33 ERA
Those are Larry Walker & Jim Rice's numbers, except for a pitcher.
Maybe, just maybe, he wasn't quite as good as people remember other than at Dodger Stadium.
Clayton Kershaw at Dodger Stadium:
81-34, 2.07 ERA
Clayton Kershaw everywhere else:
64-34, 2.72 ERA
A complete list of all starting pitchers since 1920 with a lower career ERA than Clayton Kershaw:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Career ERA+:
Koufax 131, Kershaw 160
Seasons leading in ERA+:
Koufax 2, Kershaw 4
Highest single-season ERA+:
Koufax 190, Kershaw 237 (injury-shortened; 197 for full season)
Number of seasons with 30+ GS:
Koufax 4, Kershaw 6 (admittedly, 3 of Koufax's were 40+)
Seasons under 1.000 WHIP:
Koufax 4, Kershaw 6
Seasons with 200+ Ks:
Koufax 6, Kershaw 7
Seasons over 3.00 ERA:
Koufax 6 (ignoring 1955), Kershaw 1 (rookie year)
Koufax obviously gets credit for his number of complete games. But does anybody REALLY believe he'd be putting those up if he played today? Of course not. Or that Kershaw wouldn't have a lot more himself if he played in the 1960s? Of course he would. He's led in CGs twice and shutouts three times.
Keep in mind, Kershaw has been a half run better than Sandy while pitching on a lower mound, at times against DHs, and against guys using 'roids.
Hey, maybe it's just a coincidence that Koufax had exactly zero great seasons when he wasn't playing half his games at Chavez-Ravine.
I absolutely give Sandy credit for his postseason record over Kershaw. No question he's been better and that Kershaw has not been good. A 4.35 ERA over 19 starts (24 games) is not good.
You wanna argue that Koufax has a higher peak than Kershaw? OK, I'll buy that. But Sandy had four, maybe five, years as a great pitcher. Kershaw's in the middle of his 10th.
Kershaw is a better regular season pitcher than koufax was, however during the postseason, when it counts most, he can't carry sandy's jock strap
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No question that Sandy's World Series record was amazing. 0.95 ERA in 8 games is incredible.
But if we're going to judge on postseason then it follows that Curt Schilling was better than, say, Pedro Martinez. Ain't no one going to make that argument though.
We're not talking just postseason, though. We're talking two guys with nearly identical awards and statistics. So what should we use to break the tie? Advanced metrics that support how great Kershaw is for his 100 pitch, 6.2 inning starts?
I think the 2 World Series MVPs and dominating opposing teams while carrying his own team to victory in the World Series (in ways not seen outside of Bob Gibson, Whitey Ford and Madison Bumgarner) carries a lot more weight than any statistical measure of brilliance ever could.
The value of the guy throwing bothe the first and last pitch of a game being one and the same especially where he gives up no runs can't be overstated or overemphasized.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Well said!
no wonder baseball is dying.
A couple thoughts in response to the great posts by @Tabe
"Koufax obviously gets credit for his number of complete games. But does anybody REALLY believe he'd be putting those up if he played today? Of course not. Or that Kershaw wouldn't have a lot more himself if he played in the 1960s? Of course he would. He's led in CGs twice and shutouts three times."
I think this is where statistics lead to faulty assumptions. First off, loads of pitchers pitch better at home than on the road - sometimes it is a function of the park and sometimes the player. I am aware that Dodgers Stadium is a pitchers park but not every Dodger starter enjoyed the same disparity as Koufax, either. Also, statistics can cause people to start to emphasize what could have been achieved instead of what was actually achieved. Does Koufax get credit for being an 8 inning pitcher versus Kershaw being a 6 inning pitcher or not? It's hard to tell the way you framed it whether or not you do and I am just curious. To that end, are the no-hitters worthless, what with their being both a statistical anomaly and outlier? Should we just throw them out, too?
Right now, BOTH players are breaking down at age 30 and I wouldn't get too excited about Kershaw's career stats right now because we'll have see what Kershaw's career numbers look like if he continues to pitch. Ten years in, no one would have guessed Mickey Mantle would fail to bat .300 for his career. Especially Mickey but we know how it ended. Also, you're telling me that all of a sudden because its the 1960s, Clayton Kershaw will just automatically be able to maintain his statistical brilliance, handle a bigger workload AND last longer/pitch hurt when he is breaking down under the current most pitcher friendly and protective system in baseball history? Not to mention that even if we assume he can stay healthy, that if he is facing batters a fourth and fifth time instead of three maybe four like today that his stats won't be adversely affected? Let's face it, when Kershaw hits 100 pitches in the fifth inning, he's showering before the sixth is over. When Sandy hit 100 pitches in the 5th inning, he still had at least 2 or 3 more innings to go, pitch count be damned. So, I actually think this time travel aspect works more to the advantage of Sandy Koufax; could you imagine how good he would be today - statistically speaking, of course - if he had been groomed, coached and coddled from draft day until making the majors and never pitched more than 100 pitches a start? Isn't it fair to assume that his statistics would only improve from what must already be considered amazing to near logic defying? Not to mention a greater likelihood of a much earlier peak and likely a longer career, as well? Again, these are two tremendous pitchers - I don't think either guy is a scrub - but lets just say Kershaw walks off the mound in pain Saturday and decides to hang it up forever right then and there and this is it.
Would you really say that Clayton Kershaw was a better pitcher/had a better career than Sandy Koufax?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I vote Koufax , weenie stats be dammed . Every player today is soft compared to the old timers.
+1 almost.
Todays players are not all that soft. Just a bit coddled but talented just the same. There were fewer teams when Koufax pitched. Logically he faced better hitters and facing a batter late in the game for the fourth or fifth time gives this better hitter an advantage. If we had the same number of teams today half the batters Kershaw is facing would be in the minor leagues. One may say there are more good players to choose from today due to population increase. This may be true in Latin America but in the states youngsters are playing soccer. Kershaw is great. Koufax was greater. Stats be damned absolutely.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Koufax could pitch better hungover and smoking a pack of camels a day than Kershaw can pitch on the latest guru diet guru fitness program and undetectable designer steroids available.
Baseball is already more boring today than it was decades ago , piling all the stats on top of the glacial pace of play makes it practically coma inducing. Here is another thing todays pitchers get thats new about 20 seconds of rest between each pitch ,unless a play is being reviewed then they get to take a nap
That being said , I'm going to a red sox game thursday hopefully so I'm wishing for a good one on that day at least. I haven't checked the rotation but if David Price is starting I'm going to need advice on how to smuggle either a dozen D cell batteries or a wrist rocket and a sack of marbles into Fenway.
There are some mistakes here and there in ballpark adjustments, and certainly in era adjustments that even the best stats cannot handle, and those have been precisely laid out on these boards over time enough that those threads can be looked up again, no need to delve into all that again.
However, in this thread there is one new point that was brought up that was interesting, and that was the topic of the innings and complete game disparity between Koufax and Kershaw. Some say it should give Koufax the edge, while the others say it is only a result of their era's. I think both are true, however, the game in the 60's(including equipment, rules, and ballparks), really isn't any different compared to the game now. It is not like comparing todays game to the players that played in the 1800's or early 1900's that amassed ERA and innings total based almost entirely because of the type of ball used, as well as the bats and fields.
I believe it is a knock on Kershaw that he didn't throw as many innings as Koufax, and that Koufax's complete games are of greater value than Kershaw's six inning outings. Also, not having to face batters a fourth time also helps Kershaw's ERA from going up...and that is the catch, because that is why teams pull their starters now, because they know their ERA's go up facing hitters a third and fourth time in the game. However, when it comes to ACE's, it is still better having an ACE go out there for the last three innings, as opposed to the pile of crap relievers that do come out there now. Last year the league average ERA for a starter was 4.49 and for relievers it was 4.15. So it is a mistake to be pulling ACES in the sixth inning, and the pitcher himself does have some control over whether he stays in the game or not. So the pitcher is part of that problem.
So, would Koufax be able to pitch in today's game and pitch six lights out innings?? Absolutely, we already know he had the capability of pitching nine lights out innings consistently. Would Kershaw be able to pitch nine lights out innings consistently? We don't know, because he hasn't proven he could. So in that essence, 'going back in time' we give the edge to Koufax for showing he could do that. Kershaw would have to prove he could do that still.
I also believe that it is easier for ACE pitchers to dominate in today's game, more so than any other era. For instance, with the way the batters are willing to strike out for the essence of more home runs, the best pitchers can take advantage of that because they don't give up a lot of home runs, and then they can reap the benefits of the high swing and miss totals....all while the medicore pitchers get lit up to plump up the league ERA and make the best pitchers look even better compared to the league. THat is an advantage that earlier generations of pitchers did not have, and why guys like Pedro and Kershaw could shine so bright in a league where most of the pitchers are getting rocked.
Everyone makes a big deal out of Pedro having an ERA that was 1.74, compared to that of the league of 4.91. His ERA was three runs better than the league ERA! Feats like that were not even possible when the league ERA used to hover around 3.40. A pitcher would have to have an ERA of 0.20 to match that. Not even remotely possible.
Since 1994 there have been SIXTEEN pitching performances producing an ERA+ of over 200! Over 200!
In the 48 seasons prior to that, there were only FOUR pitchers that had ERA+ seasons of over 200.
The same thing with strikeout to walk ratio. It is far easier for the elite pitchers to produce strikeout to walk ratios better than any pitcher pitching from 1944-1993.
Since 1994 there have been 92 starting pitcher seasons that had a strikeout to walk ration of 5.0 or higher. 92!
In the 48 seasons prior to that there have been only NINE starting pitchers who managed to eclipse a strikeout to walk ratio of over 5.0. Only nine!
It is not because the pitchers are better now, it is becuase of the way the league hits. The way the league hits allows for them to be dominated by the elite. Dominated.
So it is not a slam dunk that Kershaw's ERA+ is a definitive reason to proclaim he is better than Koufax's inferior ERA+ because there are substantial reasons as to why Kershaw and the elite of the league were able to amass ERA+'s that simply were not routinely attainable for previous era pitchers.
As for Dodgers stadium helping Koufax, I will have to look at that more and see if there is an adjustment being made that isn't quite accurate. It is possible ERA+ is knocking him a little too much for that. But does that even matter? They pitched in the same ballpark, and Koufax not for his whole career. Kershaw has big home/road splits too.
in the 80s & 90s i was heavy into baseball. today, outside of the Astros i bet i can't name 5 players on any given roster. when the postseason rolls around, however, my interest is always somewhat stimulated.
that said, i've lost track of how many times i've watched a Kershaw start in the playoffs, only to wonder how in the world he is virtually unhittable in the regular season. i sit on my can expecting a virtuoso performance, but the dude never ceases to look anything other than pedestrian -- at best. back in '13 & '14 he posted ERA figs of 1.83 & 1.77 in the reg season, respectively, only to be bludgeoned to death once he went up against the Cardinals in the playoffs. i'm sorry, but when you come up that small on baseball's biggest stage, i all of a sudden care very little about what you did just to get us to that point.
pull up Koufax's numbers in the postseason and you'll see 0.95 in 57 innings. 6 earned runs in 8 starts. Clayton Kershaw gave up 18 alone in those 4 games against St. Louis. come on, man. are we talking about rising to the occasion to win the freakin chip or are we more concerned with window dressing here?
to those CK > SK types who are fixated on Clayton Manning's reg season accolades and how statistically dominant he has been, have fun with all of the extensive tabulating and calculating...............in the meantime i gladly select the Left Arm of God in this pick-up game. every so often i'll come up for air from molesting multiple Commissioner's Trophies to see how things are going.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Agreed the regular season is basically a root canal that lasts 162 days. The playoffs are where its at , plenty of so called aces now can't win in the games that matter. The red sox for instance have about 500 million tied up in pitchers that can't win a playoff game.
Koufax was TWO FULL RUNS better at Dodger Stadium versus anywhere else.
Kershaw is .65 runs better at Dodger Stadium:
Clayton Kershaw at Dodger Stadium:
81-34, 2.07 ERA
Clayton Kershaw everywhere else:
64-34, 2.72 ERA
Yes.
Gimme the guy that's had 8 great seasons over the guy that had 5.
I've already conceded Sandy's absolute postseason dominance over Kershaw but here's an aspect not considered:
In the postseason, Koufax was facing guys that had never seen him before. No inter-league, no divisional rounds, etc, back. Kershaw is/was facing teams that have seen him many, many times before, even in the World Series. There's no question that that unfamiliarity benefited Koufax and, to his credit, he took full advantage of it.
What's the value of a Sandy Koufax rookie card versus a Clayton Kershaw rookie card?
Case closed.
Just remember; if you take Koufax, you get 6 crummy to average years to go with the amazing years. Kershaw has only his rookie year where he wasn't great.
Hard to argue with that logic
It's a good point but not totally true - there was some interleague play in spring training and exhibition games in the 50s and 60s.
But it's a fair point and you have definitely made a great case for Kershaw. I do think Clayton is a great pitcher who probably has (or perhaps had) the ability to be Sandy Koufax in term of innings pitched and complete games but is held back mostly by this current style of baseball. As usual, statistics have become rules and those rules and statistics are ruining the sport. Pitch counts and innings limits are a cancer on the game. Everyone is fundamentally different - down to the genetic level. All I know? Nolan Ryan never had a pitch count and he was pretty good and pretty healthy for his long, long career. Can everyone be Nolan Ryan? Probably not. But no one is even allowed to try? Why? We've got a lot of money invested in this guy so we have to make sure we have him for five innings every five days until he gets to 200 innings. Wait...what?
Remember the Nationals saved Strasburg because of pitch counts and innings instead of GOING FOR THE WORLD SERIES? How'd that work out? That's right - he blew out his elbow the next spring, anyway, and no parade in October, either. And not a sniff since with a franchise window that probably closes this season.
When I predicted ten years ago that we were moving towards teams carrying a staff of 13 1-2 inning guys on a rotation where no one pitches three days in a row, all my buddies said I was crazy. But has anyone seen what the Rays have been doing this year? It's coming quicker than I even thought and if they have any success, they'll be copied. So, here's my next prediction. A guy will come along twenty five years from now who 'revolutionizes the game' by pitching all nine innings himself. Everyone will copy that and someone will decide that 4-5 guys who can start and pitch most, if not all, of the game themselves. That man will be labeled a genius, an ingenue or a guru depending on what term is en vogue (or hip or cool) at the time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The games will be 5 hours long
"@Tabe said:
Sandy Koufax everywhere but Dodger Stadium:
108-72, 3.38 ERA
Sandy Koufax at Dodger Stadium:
57-15, 1.37 ERA
Sandy Koufax at LA Coliseum:
17-23, 4.33 ERA
Those are Larry Walker & Jim Rice's numbers, except for a pitcher_"
This is misleading, and unfair to Koufax. It took Koufax the better part of 6 seasons to finally harness his talent and achieve his potential. To get a better idea of how much he benefited by pitching in Dodger Stadium, one needs to compare home and away during those years (1962-1966) in which he pitched there. At that time he was a mature, polished pitcher.
Sandy Koufax at Dodger Stadium:
57-15 (.792 win pct.)
715.1 IP
9.49 K/9
1.79 BB/9
1.37 ERA
Sandy Koufax away from Dodger Stadium:
54-19 (.740 win pct.)
661.2 IP
9.39 K/9
2.37 BB/9
2.57 ERA
Sure, he was more effective at home during his great years, but away he was not only better than most, he was also HOF caliber.
One need not dig too deep to solve the Koufax mystery. Just look at his career stats and you'll see that he started out slowly, improved gradually, then blossomed into greatness. By the time Dodger Stadium opened he was great no matter whether he pitched at home or on the road.
(...)
Fair points. Still, I'd argue that a guy's ERA being 47% lower at home vs the road is still very much in the Larry Walker category for splits.
And, again, it's important to remember that Koufax's career was 12 years long, not 5, no matter how much his supporters want to ignore the 7 years where he ranged from terrible to decent.
Don Newcombe, Johnny Podres, Carl Erskine, Roger Craig, Don Drysdale, etc - those mid to late 50s Dodger teams had pretty good rotations and some were part of the '55 champion staff; Sandy spent his first three seasons just trying to get a spot and working out of the bullpen fairly often. I'm not saying that justifies the average numbers he put up in that span but he was fairly young and not groomed the way pitchers with his talent are today. You are right that those seasons count but he didn't even pitch 100 innings until season 3...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Roger Craig? He was a rookie the same year as Sandy.
@Tabe
I know - was just pointing out that the Dodgers had quite a bit of depth at starting pitcher. I didn't list everyone and I'm not saying guys like Sal Maglie or Roger Craig were better - more that there were other young, talented guys the Dodgers were looking at, as well.
Man, the Dodgers have had good pitching forever, huh?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
However, if playing the 'time warp' logic, you get one Tommy John surgery and then another ten more dominant years out of Koufax.
His first seven years he wasn't bad. His ERA+ was 105, so he was just a little better than league average. He struck out 952 guys in in 947 innings, which was a remarkable feat in those days, unlike today where it is quite easy for the elite to dominate like that. Problem was he walked 501 batters too as he hadn't harnessed his control quite yet.
His last year at age 30. Age 30, he was as dominant as can be. His ERA plus of 190 was remarkable, and it was done over 323 Innings pitched. As noted above, it is easier for the elite pitchers in today's game to outdistance their mediocre peers who are getting rocked, and that is why the ERA+ numbers of today's elite are higher...and they are also done over far less innings making them far less impactful.
Kershaw's best 'full season' ERA plus of 197 was done in an era where seasons of ERA+'s over 190 have become more routine than in generations past, and not because the pitchers are better, but because the league environment is conducive to the elite pitchers to dominate in such a fashion. Also note that Kershaw only threw 198 innings that season.
125 more innings. 125. The same effectiveness, but over 125 more innings. It is not even close as to which was more dominant, albeit that was just one year, but it exemplifies all the years.
Koufax led the league in K/9 IP six times. Kershaw only twice. That is more telling of their dominance compared to their actual K per nine innings, which sit at 9.3 for Koufax, and 9.9 for Kershaw, because it is really easy to dominate in strikeouts in this era.
It cannot be understated that Koufax retired at age 30, not because of declining skill, but because of injury and koufax perceiving that he would be a cripple in older years had he kept pitching. So yes, he had a short dominant run, but when you say, "would you rather have koufax of kershaw", I would take Koufax and send him to a good doctor and give him a fat contract after his age 30 season...and then enjoy ten more dominant seasons from him...and watching my counterpart take Kershaw while 'enjoying' a plethora of 176 innings pitched seasons from Kershaw.
NOTE:
Koufax made
11 career starts on one days rest...with three complete games.
25 career starts on two days rest...with 13 complete games!!
167 on three days rest...with 74 complete games!!
69 on four days rest.
Kershaw made zero on three days rest or lower. He made 161 on four days rest and 104 on five days rest, and some with even more rest that I'm too embarrassed for him to list.
So in conclusion, we have one Lion and one Lamb.
In addition to all the above I noted above, we all know now that strikeout to walk ratio is a good predictor of future success, and certainly a very telling and accurate isolation of a pitchers effectiveness and impact on hitters.
We also know that in today's game it is very easy to strike batters out and for pitchers and to amass high strikeout to walk ratios unseen by previous generations(also as laid out farther above in a longer post of mine). So lets get to the nitty gritty and see who indeed was outdistancing their peers in this most telling window into their performances:
Kershaw strikeout-BB% was 21.2% while the MLB average was 11.5%
Koufax strikeout-BB% was 16.6% while the MLB average was 5.4%
Those are career totals and include the seven 'crappy' seaons in Koufax's career.
THat stat isolates more than anything how much more dominant Koufax was vs his peers compared to that of Kershaw...and even more so when you consider that Koufax was dominating the league in complete games as well!
Sorry, but Tommy John surgery does not fix arthritis.
Also, if you Koufax guys would read a biography of Sandy's career, you will learn that in his first 4 years or so he would show flashes of brilliance and then pitch horribly. He was told time and time again to stop throwing so hard, it didn't make his fastball any faster, it just made his pitches wilder.
Finally he started to listen to this advice and he became a dominant pitcher.
I would also say that he was completely overused by his manager Walt Alston, but we can't use the time warp to change that either.
He had the ability to be great from day one, but he WASN'T. He was an average pitcher for the first half of his career.
His last 4 years and post season records are unbelievable though!
As long as we're digging, if we use WAR, Koufax was the best NL pitcher only 2 times between 1962 and 1966. 1962 was Bob Purkey, Koufax only started 26 games, 1963 was all Koufax, 1964 Drysdale was slightly better, started 40 games to Koufax's 28, 1965 Marichal was better, 1966 Koufax was barely better than Marichal.
WAR doesn't work well because they add the team's defensive contributions, and those are not accurate.
A better diagnosis could reveal more than arthritis. Even if it was just arthritis, like I said, he pitched dominating with it...and a hefty contract could have him continue to pitch.
As posted above, when looking at the pitcher's contribution, and isolating it, and still counting his mediocre years Koufax shined like no other, and far greater than Kershaw.
Koufax k/BB% was three times that of the league average. Kershaw a little less than 2x better than league average....and that was with Koufax averaging more innings per start and with many more complete games.
Sure, Kershaw will prolly end up having the better career, but that will be entirely due to Koufax choosing to retire at age 30. Like I said, a better owner/GM would have made a difference in that decision, and the question is "Who would you rather have?" With that in mind, it ks Koufax easy because he wouldn't be retired at age 30 if I were his GM
. And Koufax was superior than Kershaw in their primes...and Koufax had a lot of prime left.
The combination of Koufax's run prevention, and large innings per start difference, makes him superior than Kershaw. THe strikeout/BB% isolate their effectiveness, as opposed to the defense's and/or luck. Makes Koufax the easy choice.
Like I said, you have a Lion and a Lamb. Choice is easy.
Plus, in addition to Koufax's 26 & 27 wins in 1965/67, he also had 19 &13 saves those years. What do I mean by that? He closed the game himself in what would be 19 & 13 save situations. So instead of paying millions to Kershaw and then millions to Jansen to close his games, I could pay millions to Koufax and then millions to an elite hitter and win more games....just another reason I would choose to have Koufax, because If I'm in charge, I would utiilize his abilities better, and my team would be better than if I had kershaw.
And like I said above, a better diagnosis on the elbow would change everything, and as would a smart hefty contract...because money talks, and I wouldn't be a cheap bastard like some of those guys.
PS, he actually had two official saves in 1965, somehow squeezing them in between his 41 starts. So that would be 21 saves in 1965. So he is Kershaw and Jansen wrapped into one. I'm sitting back thinking how I could spend all that extra money koufax allows me to save!
If you can't understand and appreciate how managers have changed their thinking about complete games then any discussion is pointless. It would be like criticizing players today because they don't bunt enough.
As with all stats arguments it ends up boiling down to choosing the stats individuals perceive as being more beneficial to their case. Strikeout to BB percentage is not the "most telling window into their performance" no matter how much you might choose to believe it. It is simply part of the picture.
Robb
Don't appreciate it actually. It isn't even a good strategy, and the rationale of injury prevention is simply wrong, just as the rational of thinking a middling reliever is a better option than an elite ACE simply because it is the ACE's third or fourth time through the lineup.
Maybe, just maybe Kershaw would have been better in the post season if he had the ability to pitch deeper into games and still be effective. Curt Schilling did it, and he pitched in a very similar era as Kershaw. He threw 15 complete games in 1998 when the live ball era was in full swing. It is possible that come post season time that Kershaw's stamina isn't there...which is basically a waste of a 35 million dollar a year salary.
Randy Johnson threw 271 innings at age 35 in 1999. 240 innings at age 40 in 2004.
So no, it isn't a good managerial decision, and yes, the starting pitcher has a say in how many innings he can pitch. They can demand pretty much anything they want come contract time. So I'm not going to write off his inability to pitch complete games as simply a managerial decision....especially when it is proven it can be done in this era.
Yes Strikeout to BB is as close to isolating a pitcher's ability as there is. In the overall picture it is not the only thing, but it is a big thing. Koufax put up an amazing k-BB% when it was extremely hard to do that. If you don't understand that, then that is on you.
In the end, Koufax had an ability that was amazing. Kershaw, not quite so. Koufax did Kershaw's job, and a good portion of Jansen's job.
It is also easier for elite pitchers to dominate now with the way it is so easy to strike batters out....as outlined above
And ironically, despite being babied, and being a baby...Kershaw is in his third straight injury plagued season, and with no team hardware to show for it. Call it what you want, a mis-managed arm, a bad stratgey, or a guy with no stamina...but whatever it is, it was a dissapointment and waste of 35 million dollars a year....so I don't see where any appreciation for the decisions to limit starters, or the starters lack of stamina, comes from. That must be a joke. Nothing to appreciate there at all.
Jesus, you are making me really appreciate Jack Morris more now. Hell must have frozen over.
To be fair with respect to card values, there is a reason for this. Koufax rookies were not saved as much (remember Mom threw them out/bike spokes use/flipping/taped to scrapbooks/played with etc. affecting the survival rate in high condition) and printed in less quantity,so much less available/low survival rate. Whereas Kershaw has more rookie cards in quantity and brand selection (more types). Throw in baby boomer money,investors and it's obvious Koufax prices for his RC would stand to reason they would be much higher in the comparison discussion of the two "K's" pricing differential.
I am not a big fan of WAR, but in looking closer at ALL the stats; 1962, 1964 and 1965 Koufax was not necessarily the best pitcher as most assume when they see him leading the league in ERA for 5 straight seasons. he started 28 games in 1962 and 29 in 1964, so he missed about 1/4 of a season in each of those years.
Juan Marichal was better in 1965 and a very close second to Koufax in 1966.
Now you are disputing the medical diagnosis on his arm. I am sure the Dodgers had him looked at by the best doctors and even IF surgery could have kept him on the mound, playing "what if" about it is pointless.
Koufax's mediocre years were mediocre. His ERA for the first 7 years averages out to about 4 runs a game. His RAA for the first 6 years was below the average pitcher.
He did strike out a lot of guys per inning in three of those years, but he walked about half as many. Not bad, but his WHIP was unimpressive, around 1.5. He started to figure things out in 1961.
Face facts Koufax is an unusual player in that he had two careers one VERY average and one VERY VERY good.
Kershaw has been VERY good every year.
Neither guy should be considered a GOAT candidate.
Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson both debuted much earlier than Kershaw so all those stats and that comparison is absolute garbage and a waste of time.
They are not 'pitch count kids.' You may not view it a a different era but it most certainly is. The hitters can only pull, the pitchers all throw 95 and virtually no complete ball players to be found outside of Mike Trout. We're going to outlaw the shift instead of bunting and going with pitches soon - watch.
It's called the Era of Statistical Stupidity. We're in it now and there's no end in sight. I often wonder if you took AWAY stats if half the pundits could even identify a good ball player by watching a game...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The starting pitcher has almost no say in pitching complete games. You simply don't understand the modern game if you believe otherwise. In Koufax's day over 20% of games were complete games, today it is under 2%. FYI in 1998 6% of games were complete games so I doubt Shilling would be allowed to pitch 15 complete games today. I actually agree that it is a mistake for teams to pull their starters so early but the pitchers don't control that regardless of your personal belief.
As for your declaration that K-BB% is the end all be all for a pitcher's ability, I and many baseball experts and players disagree. I believe WHIP is a better indicator of a pitcher's ability and many others agree. Kershaw has a superior WHIP to Koufax. Even with our disagreement about the importance of K-BB% you ignore the fact that both Koufax and Kershaw exceeded the league average by about 10% (9.7 vs 11.2). Funny how relative to the league average is important in K-BB% but seemingly irrelevant when you discussed Pedro's ERA of 1.74 compared to the league average of 4.91. Based on your Pedro ERA logic one could say it was easier to exceed the league K-BB% average in Koufax's day.
In the end no argument you make can account for the fact that Koufax was great for only 5 seasons. No GM would take 5 great seasons of Koufax over Kershaw's 8 great seasons.
Robb