NYCGOBEARS;842682779 said:
Unit, I guess the brevity of my post didn't convey the idea well enough! Good job.
Unit2Sucks;842682774 said:
Ncsf - you have me all wrong. I think Kershaw is phenomenal. As a Giants fan I enjoy the fact that he's had some bad outings in the playoffs which have led to early exits by the Dodgers but I recognize Kershaw is the best thing going. I am more than happy the Giants have Bumgarner and you can't take away his playoff success.
None of that is relevant though to the discussion I am having. This started because beezlebear claimed Cueto was a bust and not worth his contract because he had a bad inning. I only mentioned Kershaw to point out that one bad outing does not a pitcher make. The question was never whether Cueto was better than Kershaw, it was whether Cueto was a bust because he had a bad outing.
It's obviously far too early to determine whether Cueto is going to live up to his contract, but at this point I don't see how a reasonable person can conclude he's not meeting expectations.
I see on baseball reference that he's tops among active pitchers, but what makes you think he's number one all time?
Unit2Sucks;842682774 said:
Ncsf - you have me all wrong. I think Kershaw is phenomenal. As a Giants fan I enjoy the fact that he's had some bad outings in the playoffs which have led to early exits by the Dodgers but I recognize Kershaw is the best thing going. I am more than happy the Giants have Bumgarner and you can't take away his playoff success.
None of that is relevant though to the discussion I am having. This started because beezlebear claimed Cueto was a bust and not worth his contract because he had a bad inning. I only mentioned Kershaw to point out that one bad outing does not a pitcher make. The question was never whether Cueto was better than Kershaw, it was whether Cueto was a bust because he had a bad outing.
It's obviously far too early to determine whether Cueto is going to live up to his contract, but at this point I don't see how a reasonable person can conclude he's not meeting expectations.
I see on baseball reference that he's tops among active pitchers, but what makes you think he's number one all time?
Ncsf;842683214 said:
Because I'm pretty sure he is as of this last year. He's the best pitcher in the last 20 years- and I don't like him! All my guys who have hit against him say the same thing.
beelzebear;842683202 said:
LINK: Jared Goff 'open' to switching baseball allegiance from Giants to Dodgers
GB54;842683221 said:
He's certainly not best all time- not even close. Best among modern era, yes- with the exception of Mariano but he is a different category
GB54;842683221 said:
He's certainly not best all time- not even close. Best among modern era, yes- with the exception of Mariano but he is a different category
sycasey;842683229 said:
MIGHT be best of the modern era, but he also hasn't run into his decline phase yet so we don't know what that will look like.
You could argue Pedro Martinez had the more impressive peak, playing in a higher-offense era and in an offense-friendly park.
sycasey;842683229 said:
MIGHT be best of the modern era, but he also hasn't run into his decline phase yet so we don't know what that will look like.
You could argue Pedro Martinez had the more impressive peak, playing in a higher-offense era and in an offense-friendly park.
GB54;842683244 said:
The argument is kind of silly since it ignores other changeable items like the height of the mound, the strike zone, live or dead ball, ballparks and steroids. IMO Pedro in the steroid era was the most dominant picture I've seen.
Ncsf;842683212 said:
I apologize for not reading more in-depth. I was guilty of questioning Cueto but he's been great! I hope he holds up physically
GB54;842683244 said:
The argument is kind of silly since it ignores other changeable items like the height of the mound, the strike zone, live or dead ball, ballparks and steroids..
sycasey;842683268 said:
Sure, but to some extent you can adjust for these by comparing to the league averages at the time. Ballpark factors can be calculated similarly. During Pedro's peak the league-wide averages were much higher than they are now (because of steroids or whatever). Putting up consistent sub-3.00 ERAs in that environment was really something, especially in Fenway Park which is a launching pad compared to Dodger Stadium.
Unit2Sucks;842683266 said:
No worries.
As for Kershaw, as I've repeatedly said I think he's the best pitcher in baseball and I would expect him to continue to be a top 3 pitcher for a while. Playoffs will continue to be a small sample size and he has some baggage to overcome there.
To the other guys' points about Pedro and Lincecum and peak value, I think Pedro's dominance was best shown when you look at comparative stats and not just absolute ones (eg need to evaluate against their peers). The league average ERA is down about a run from it's peak in the steroid ERA and that doesn't take into account NL vs AL. All this gets baked into some of the advanced stats like WAR, VORP and ERA+. Over his 18 year career, Pedro had the same ERA+ that Clayton has right now in his prime (154). Pedro's top 5 seasons were above 200 and his peak was 291 (higher is better). Kershaw's peak was 197 and has been decreasing for 3 seasons.
sycasey;842683226 said:
Wrong answer, Jared.
Even if I were a Dodgers fan I wouldn't want this turncoat among our ranks.
Unit2Sucks;842683266 said:
No worries.
As for Kershaw, as I've repeatedly said I think he's the best pitcher in baseball and I would expect him to continue to be a top 3 pitcher for a while. Playoffs will continue to be a small sample size and he has some baggage to overcome there.
To the other guys' points about Pedro and Lincecum and peak value, I think Pedro's dominance was best shown when you look at comparative stats and not just absolute ones (eg need to evaluate against their peers). The league average ERA is down about a run from it's peak in the steroid ERA and that doesn't take into account NL vs AL. All this gets baked into some of the advanced stats like WAR, VORP and ERA+. Over his 18 year career, Pedro had the same ERA+ that Clayton has right now in his prime (154). Pedro's top 5 seasons were above 200 and his peak was 291 (higher is better). Kershaw's peak was 197 and has been decreasing for 3 seasons.
GB54;842683274 said:
Yes, but a lot of baseball fans assume statistics are the Word of God. To me one of the most telling statistics was in 1968 when they raised the mound and the major league ERA was 2.98-we're talking average here!. Yet all we hear about is how dominant Gibson, Marichal and Koufax were. They were-but relatively.
Ncsf;842683275 said:
Very interesting stuff. Somebody needs to hire you. I can tell you how to throw a cutter but no clue on some of the new stats out there - many that have good input and validity. The one I like the most is whip. Says a lot about dominance IMO.
TheSouseFamily;842683291 said:
True about ERA+ but you also cited WAR. Pedro's career WAR is 86 over an 18 year career while Kershaw's WAR is 48 over 8+ seasons. Point for Kershaw. That's the tricky thing about all the advanced stats; you can always find something that supports a case.
sycasey;842683311 said:
The stats reflect the change in league ERA too. I'm not sure what your point is here. You made a comment suggesting that stats shouldn't be the "Word of God" and then made a statistical argument about why the ERAs in 1968 are not as impressive as they seem to the naked eye.
GB54;842683380 said:
No, my argument is that most fans view statistics not as a reflection of an era but as rankings in the continuum of baseball
sycasey;842683384 said:
You mean like raw counting-numbers type stats. Yes, that's true. Hence the focus in this discussion on why you should compare those numbers vs. those of the era they came in.
Unit2Sucks;842694485 said:
Beez - I assume you noticed that Cueto threw another shutout tonight. Giants top end of the rotation is throwing pretty well so far (3 of the top 8-10 pitchers in the NL), although unfortunately they can only pitch against SD so many times in a season.
Chicago has a lot of firepower and is definitely looking as good as advertised.
Ncsf;842694500 said:
I questioned Cueto and shame on me. I short-changed his competitiveness. Agree with you on Cubs and Arrietta and Kershaw in a league of their own. I won't change the minds of some but watch Kershaw then watch Bumgarner and you will understand Kershaw is just at a higher level.
sketchy9;842694552 said:
Until the playoffs
Ncsf;842694568 said:
You keep holding on to that. I would take Kershaw in every playoff game every time going forward.
NYCGOBEARS;842694571 said:
I would too but it doesn't dismiss his playoff history.
tydog;842694596 said:
2-6, 4.59 ERA in 13 games (10 starts). It's crazy how mediocre he's been in the post season, given that he is this generation's best pitcher (by a lot).
NYCGOBEARS;842694597 said:
Exactly, and that's not a small sample size.
sycasey;842694655 said:
It adds up to about a third of a full season (Kershaw made 33 starts in 2015). That's still kind of small, but even so you'd expect him to do better than that, given that his career ERA is 2.39. Two full runs higher is a lot.
