Should Kershaw still be considered the greatest pitcher of this generation?
craig44
Posts: 10,540 ✭✭✭✭✭
After yet another poor playoff performance, the question begs. Kershaw now has a fairly large playoff sample size (nearly a full seasons worth of IP) to safely say that at best he is not dependable and at worst a very poor pitcher when the lights are brightest. Now is this enough to push him below other great pitchers of this generation? It will most likely come down to him and Scherzer.
It appears that at only 31 years old, with the dramatic loss of velo, Kershaw's great regular season rate stats will be coming back to earth. I think we may be in for a Pujols like second half career swoon for Clayton.
Meanwhile, Scherzer is 4 years older, but is aging much better that Kershaw, and has been better in the playoffs as well. However, Clayton is still better rate wise in the regular season.
I think if we dig into the numbers a little we may see that Kershaw is not quite as superior to Max as may be believed.
I think that in part, Kershaw is a product of his environment. Pitching in Dodger stadium has certainly given him an advantage in much the same way it did to Koufax. Clayton is a very good pitcher in road ballparks. He is almost other worldly in Dodger stadium. A few home/away splits.
ERA Whip BAbip TOPS+
Home 2.15 .968 .270 94
Away 2.78 1.052 .280 107
Scherzer
Home 3.22 1.084 .291 99
Away 3.17 1.100 2.94 101
as you can see, Scherzer is basically the same pitcher home or away. Kershaw is significantly better at Home.
This may turn into a Brett vs. Schmidt discussion, regular season and playoffs but it is interesting.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Comments
I have never thought of him as a great pitcher. He is very good at times, but never great.
I think Justin Verlander beats them both. In multiple ways.
To me, he’s the guy.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
no contest. Schmidt!
He’s up there. Too many antiquated variables to determine who is the greatest at anything, really.
But I tell you one thing, those back to back jacks by Rendon and Soto dont reflect poorly upon Kershaw in my mind. Rendon is about to get announced as NL mvp and is probably the most under-appreciated player/hitter in the league. For now. And Soto is only 20. Only a blip on the national radar. For now. As time progresses it will be viewed as Kershaw giving up those dingers to two monsters and the best 3>4 punch combination in the league.
its not just about last night. Kershaw has shown this type of postseason performance to be his norm, not an outlier. He said as much himself after the game.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I disagree. The fact that those 2 very good hitters were up.......he shouldn't be throwing hanging sliders. Very poor pitching in a VERY important game. Also, a poor decision by the manager to leave him in at that time.
he shouldn't have come back for that inning , this is turning into a baseball geek issue.
well, If he is the greatest pitcher of his generation and getting paid 31 mil a year, you would think he could face the opponents toughest hitters and record outs.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
he is not the greatest , there are no generations in baseball , all the careers overlap rendering the concept of a generation meaningless . When I say geek , I mean the pointy headed idiots that work for the team who think math and +1% chance or -1% chance is how to decide everything. New inning , new guy , its the playoffs not the regular season stop screwing around
You have to be able to pitch your best in the post season. Plain and simple. His legacy will always have a post season stain on it.
call it what you will, but there are players who are commonly grouped together for comparison purposes because they generally played during the same time period.
gwynn and boggs.
seaver, carlton, palmer.
clemens, maddux, randy johnson, pedro.
Mantle, Mays, Aaron.
Kershaw, Verlander and Scherzer.
yes, there may be a little overlap, but those are just a few examples of players who played in the same eras who are sometimes compared.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I am a big Dodger fan and have been for 50 years but it's hard to defend the man. He has been a major disappointment in the postseason to us fans and to himself. He knows he screwed up! I am hoping he finds a way to continue his career longer by becoming craftier. Sort of like Greg Maddux who I never thought of us overwhelming batters but he got them out through good control and change of pace.
yes he is the greatest regular season pitcher of this generation.
conversely he is the worst post season pitcher of this generation, given his regular season record.
no.
I agree. But your missing my point. Those two homers shouldnt define Kershaw’s overall dominance, for the most part. And you’re right, he shoulda been yanked after Rendon.
The thread title isn’t “Did Kershaw choke again?”, right?
Please forward this post to Rocco Baldummy!
Thank you, that is all.
Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy who says the World Series numbers mean the most?
;-)
Overall postseason numbers, Verlander has Kershaw beat by a significant margin. Verlander hasn’t been a great World Series pitcher - that’s true - but he has excelled in the other two rounds and Kershaw has been subpar in all three rounds.
Plus, Verlander operates in the American League where lineups typically have a heavy hitting DH instead of a sub .100 hitter once every time through the lineup.
I do typically put extra weight on postseason performance in measuring pitchers against each other. However, in the context you are referring to, we were discussing all time greats and each had a gang buster set of regular season stats so I think guys who proved money in the World Series should get a pretty good leg up on those who didn’t - especially if there’s some size to the sample.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In a one game, winner take all, you want your best pitchers involved. In my mind, if I'm the manager, I want my best going up against the heart of their order, so I agree with the decision. I would expect better from him in that situation. As far as the best of his generation, I just felt that with him pitching in LA on good Dodger teams, he got more exposure and hype than did either Verlander or Scherzer. Both are older, but Verlander somewhat resembles Ryan in that he hasn't lost enough velocity on his fastball that he's not effective with it. With both of those as teammates, how did the Tigers not compete every single year?
And A LOT OF HELP from the umpires, on pitches that were a couple of inches off the plate!
Steve
I was just giving you a bad time here, as I am sure you realized.
Verlander absolutely OWNED the Oakland Athletics in the ALDS otherwise his numbers weren't that great, he has pitched well in the ALCS though.
I am sure we will agree to disagree here, but Kershaw's regular season numbers are so much better, that even with his post season record, he's the best of his "generation". Your point on the DH is a good one though and, to me, means more that post season achievements.
Verlander has failed to win even one game in WS play. Let's hope he wins a couple this year!
Both have very good post season WHIP numbers. Slight edge to JV.
Kershaw’s regular season numbers are better...right now. I don’t see ‘so much better’ - the great home park and NL lineups make it less impressive.
However, Verlander is aging better than Kershaw seems to be - after Clayton throws 5 more seasons, I wonder if the statistical disparity will be as great. Verlander hasn’t lost much off the fastball, Clayton sure has. Both have been workhorses and Cy Young caliber for many a season.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Kershaw is trying to remake himself into a curve ball pitcher, a very difficult transition from the power pitcher of a few years ago. I think your analysis is spot on. And I believe the disparity between pitching in the AL and NL is the reason for the vast majority between the two.
One full run per game is pretty significant, I'll add some credit for facing the DH, but not an entire run per game.
Yes, I did notice that Verlander has had some of his best years of late, a few more quality years and he could surpass Kershaw in my book.
The AL might be tougher, but a full run per game?
You are correct that the gap is narrowing and if both trends continue, it will be interesting.
Have you guys looked closley at Kershaw's early years? Very impressive. Some of Verlanders were not so much. He was always a guy I worried about when he pitched against the Twins, but sometimes he dominated and sometimes he was real unimpressive. He seems to have become a much more consistent pitcher lately.
These threads are worthless until the Actuary weighs in.
They did - Detroit made the playoffs four of the five years that the two played together.
Agreed
We would have the answer. And it would not be debatable.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
And the case would be closed
Someone go in a dark bathroom, light a candle and say his name 3 times...
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 dare you.
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've done the bloody mary mirror thing before. I went into the bathroom, turned the lights out, and looked into the mirror and said bloody mary over and over. She never appeared in the mirror. I also had a butterknife with me in case she tried to attack me.
Yes, and they had many other good players also, but you would think with those two at the top of the rotation, you would think they would be in the world series more than once and possibly even won it once. Staring down the possibility of facing those two pitchers 4 time (or more depending upon scheduling) in a 7 game series, just seems like such an advantage. Just shows how difficult it is to win the series.
Candy man... Candy man... Ca..😱
Detroit teams carry a certain curse. In a town where the four professional teams carry a payroll higher than the GDP of the rest of the city, winning a title is beyond the purview of even a ouija board and a hundred 8 balls that you hold up and down and shake.
Yet the tax dollars pour into the newer and larger arenas and stadiums as the roads and remaining homes crumble. Somewhere Mike Ilitch plays the fiddle and stares up at the metropolis that he claimed to love.
@Coinstartled
Somewhere?
Gotta be atop a free stadium.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@JoeBanzai
I don’t know if it - pitching in AL v NL - translates to precisely a full run. But I’ll say this: By pitching in the NL West, I think it helped Kershaw even more. During the Kershaw years, the San Diego Padres have been pretty weak and while it’s more hitter friendly now, their stadium once played as an extreme pitchers park. The Giants have had some very good teams but most San Fran teams that have been good wee good because of their pitching. San Fran is also a pitcher friendly more than hitter friendly place. We know Dodger Stadium plays well for pitchers - always has, especially lefties. Colorado has a tough park - and Kershaw has had many a bad start there, like many others. And while Arizona has been hitter friendly as a park, they too have fielded teams in many years where there was not much there.
I am not saying Kershaw sucks; he’s obviously fantastic and was once a great pitcher. Done enough already to make the Hall, as has Berlander and probably Scherzer too. But the ace days for Clayton? I think those days are already over. His ERA and WHIP numbers will be on the rise almost in direct proportion to the decline in WAR and K/9 - which makes sense.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
three candles? I use one match. does he smell that bad?
Verlander is way better than Kershaw. I don't see the going back and forth on this.
I'll just add that I've seen Kershaw's name mentioned as one of the best ever and he was in the top ten. Didn't agree with that, because there's a lot to be said for longevity. To be great over an entire career is what sets them apart. I don't remember where I read it, but they had to be LA biased. As he ages, Kershaw has to rely more and more on his curve as his FB velocity declines and his last few years results are not boding well for that.
.....iko, iko, unday!
When I compare players like this I ask myself if I had a team who would I rather have. I would take Verlander.
Kershaw has a sizeable lead in ERA+...157 to 129. That accounts for the DH and league.
Kershaw is 700 innings shy of Verlander though...and it looks like that ERA+ gap will close by the time those innings equalize(if Kershaw even ever catches him, which he probably won't since Verlander is at the top of his game now).
They are seemingly headed in opposite directions for next few years, so it could be an interesting race to the title.
Verlander will never catch him in ERA+, but the innings disparity is going to be enough to give Verlander the edge.
Since there's a fair point to be made that it's hard to compare these two because they play with a different set of rules because of the DH, I decided to look at how they did against their competition in their respective leagues.
I kept it simple and used ERA. Wins are a product of a good team and strikeouts are fun, WHIP can be misleading if the hits have a lot of extra bases in there, keeping the other team from scoring is, in my opinion, the "bottom line".
Here's what I saw;
In 14 years Verlander was 1st in ERA one time, 2nd three times, 3rd, 7th and 8th one time each. He was not in the top 10 pitchers in ERA 7 times, or 50% of the time.
In 12 years Kershaw was 1st in ERA six times, or 50% of the time (he had a much lower ERA than Kyle Hendricks but didn't qualify because he didn't pitch enough innings in 2016) 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th one time each.
Verlander better than Kershaw? Really?
Remember you guys that are going to bring in post season play, Verlander has an edge in the playoffs, but NOT in the World Series, where neither has done that well. Don't pin your hopes on Verlanders destruction of the Oakland A's in overcoming a pretty clear advantage for Kershaw.
This is a perfect example of why using small samples to "prove" on guy is better than another is flawed. Verlander's numbers (other than against Oakland and a little bit against the yankees) in the post season were not that great either.
I do see that Justin has pitched better in 2018 and 2019. Kershaw gets 2009-2017. Moving forward Verlander may one day be regarded as the better pitcher, but not yet.
I completely agree with you JRR. I am not looking "All Time" here.
It looks like Kershaw is in decline while Verlander is not, but the question in the OP was who has been better in "this generation".
@JoeBanzai
I’m not one to base it on stats; overall body of work.
Here’s one that’s hard to quantify in numbers - Verlander has an edge - a nastiness to him, say teammates - in days he pitches. Kershaw is supposed to be the nicest guy in the world - a big teddy bear of a man.
I think having that edge, while hard to quantify and/or define, matters.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
How do we measure the overall body of work?
50% of his career Kershaw had the lowest ERA in his league, that seems like a pretty good body!
I'll admit I know nothing about Kershaw I didn't look up. I don't follow the NL at all. I do follow the Twins, and the teams in their division, Verlander was always a guy you knew was tough to beat, he has gone 20-9 against us over the years.
You can have the guy with the "edge" I'll take the guy who allows less runs, ;-)
Answering the question today and not future stats.....KERSHAW. Not even close. Not the best Post Season pitcher by any stretch; but either has Verlander been. The ERA stats are just tremendous for Kershaw. Plus, Kershaw's decling numbers are actually really good.
That's the way I see it too!
okay, given that we're talking about them at this point in their careers, Kershaw has been slightly better, but he is still pitching as are his competition for this "title". Using the eye test the arrow for Kershaw is in decline, not in freefall but not at his prior levels of excellence; on the other hand, Verlander is trending slightly up. That combined with the fact that he has pitched longer at an almost equal level.......I said almost......gives him the edge...JMO. Either way, a very interesting comparison.
Hopefully for once in his life he's actually doing some actuary work instead of sleeping away the work day
at his desk and posting to this forum when he occasionally wakes up.