World Series Observations

[klaiggeb]

Correa and Seager are very good offensive players, but I was anything BUT impressed with the range of either.

Both reminded me of Aurilia; excellent on balls hit at them, or a step or three left or right, but both do not have Crawford's range to either hole.

Josh Reddick. If I'm Houston I move him, or find someone else. He doesn't ever play for me again.

History is replete with players who either rise to, or are steam-rolled by the moment.

He would be the later, squared.

Dave Roberts. From where I sit he did the best Clint Hurdle I've seen in years, over managing, mis managing and in general making senseless, inexplicable moves.

As far as I'm concerned his post season was on par with the managing of Frank Robinson, Don Zimmer, Jim Davenport and dozens of others.

No. Not not starting Kershaw. Those arguing that point don't understand the modern game. Today's pitchers DON'T start on 2 days rest. Kershaw's 'short rest' history is not good, and Darvish history against Houston is outstanding.

Bringing in Morrow for 1 out in the 2nd was so NOT wise as to be foolish.

Pulling Rich Hill in the 4th in game 6.

Putting Jansen into the game in the 5th, down five runs.

Bregman impressed the crap outta me. He's my kind of player; full throttle every pitch

Charlie Morton. Again, my kind of player. The bigger the moment, the bigger his performance.

Watching him I almost thought I saw Mr. Myagi standing next to him saying: "Must focus, Charlie-san! Must-a focus!"


Baseball 1930-1959. That's the way AJ Hinch played it. Starters coming out of the pen to do the job.

Back then many starters also had 2 or more saves DURING a season.

The manager brought in the BEST guy for the moment.



As Bobby Valentine once said: "Sabermetrics are great at predicting the past."

They HAVE their place, but there are so many times during a game when the EYE TEST is more important. And AJ proved that.

John Smoltz is a great in game analyst. Consistently on point, consistently having relevant things to say.

Cody Bellinger. The kid can play!

But that hole in his swing is not going to be something easily fixable. With that long... LONG, violent swing, adjustments to cover that down and in hole won't be easy.

Covering THAT hole is NOT as easy as laying off the breaking ball down and away; the pitch that almost kept Matt Williams from being a star.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Boly- No. Not not starting Kershaw. Those arguing that point don't understand the modern game. Today's pitchers DON'T start on 2 days rest.

Boagie- I wouldn't have started Kershaw in game 7 solely on the basis that he's a choke artist in big games. Kershaw had his chance to put the Dodgers up 3-2 going back to L.A. and he blew it. His teammates gave him a comfortable lead and he let them all down. He may go to the Hall of Fame one day, but his post-season failures will forever be a dark cloud hovering over his career.

[Rog]

Correa and Seager are very good offensive players, but I was anything BUT impressed with the range of either.

Both reminded me of Aurilia; excellent on balls hit at them, or a step or three left or right, but both do not have Crawford's range to either hole.


Rog -- Seager had decent metrics this year, but I haven't seen him as being particularly good defensively. I thought even less of Correa, but the guy I talked to this week was impressed with his on defense. I asked if they should switch Correa and Bregman (who is known as a good-fielding shortstop), and the guy said no pretty adamantly.

Seager's defense in the postseason may have been limited by back issues.

I think Correa and Seager are the top two shortstops with the possible exception of Lindor, who is quite good all around. Base stealer deluxe Trea Turner is an excellent player too, although injury has left him less proven.

Andrelton Simmons had arguably his best season in 2017. His defense remained superb, and he hit pretty well and stole some bases.

Correia is a potential monster at the plate. Among the guys playing shortstop now, he dominated at the WBC, and without his midseason injury, he might possibly have had that monster season this year. I personally would take him as the top shortstop in the game, with Seager perhaps being the only other hitter with his potential.

I believe that with the exception of Simmons, the guys I mentioned here are all 24 or younger.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xIvaOUkg

[Rog]

Both reminded me of Aurilia; excellent on balls hit at them, or a step or three left or right, but both do not have Crawford's range to either hole.


Rog -- Both metrically and via the eye test, Brandon is clearly ahead of the other two.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xIyFU4ZZ

[Rog]

Josh Reddick. If I'm Houston I move him, or find someone else. He doesn't ever play for me again.

History is replete with players who either rise to, or are steam-rolled by the moment.

He would be the later, squared.


Rog -- Sometimes it's mostly the sample size. Remember how badly Bonds played in the postseason -- until in 2002 he was historically excellent. I'm not a huge Reddick fan, and IIRC he doesn't hit southpaws, but I wouldn't put him down that badly based on this World Series alone.

I don't think much of ANY player can be judged fairly based simply on one World Series. One thing I'm confident of is that Josh would be an improvement for the Giants' outfield.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xIyaGZSd

[Rog]

Putting Jansen into the game in the 5th, down five runs.


Rog -- Seriously? This was going to be the final game of the year. Why would you have wanted to lose it without using your best pitchers (Kershaw and Jansen)? There was a good chance that would be the highest leverage opportunity of everything that was left.

Your comment on Morrow with one out to get probably doesn't take into consideration all of the variables either. Didn't Morrow pitch in every game of the Series? He probably didn't have more than one out left in him, and the Dodgers couldn't really afford to get further down.

Let me make a comparison to the 2014 World Series. Madison Bumgarner deserved all the accolades he got, but few remember that Jeremy Affeldt preceded him by coming into the second inning with runners on first and second with two outs and the game tied at 2-2. Affeldt had more than one out left in him, and with the help of a double play, he retired all four batters he faced.

Affeldt was the winning pitcher of Game 7 of the World Series.

As an aside, does anyone remember any pitcher who was better than Jeremy at inducing double plays?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xIzfKbMQ

[Rog]

Bregman impressed the crap outta me. He's my kind of player; full throttle every pitch


Rog -- Bregman was drafted #2 overall in a recent draft. He is a shortstop who played out of position at third base and looks to have significantly improved there as the season went along.

For Giants fans who want hope for Arroyo and Jones, Bregman struggled badly when called up mid-2016 and was sent back down. Called up later that season, he hit very, very well. This year he got off to a slow start but bounced back to hit well the rest of the season.

A little levity here, Boly: If you played fantasy ball, you might already know this and wouldn't have been as surprised.

Seriously, though, Bregman struggled both when called up in 2016 and at the beginning of this past season. The difference between him and Arroyo and Jones though is that he has long been considered one of the best prospects in the game. Understandably, Christian and Ryder have been ranked far lower.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xJ1axJaA

[klaiggeb]

Down 5 there was 0 reason to use jansen.

I'd have run Wood out there.

They hadn't touched him.

IF you get the lead, Jansen can hold it.

HE's the closer, not Wood or the other guys left.

boly

[klaiggeb]

I thought even less of Correa, but the guy I talked to this week was impressed with his on defense. I asked if they should switch Correa and Bregman (who is known as a good-fielding shortstop), and the guy said no pretty adamantly.

Seager's defense in the postseason may have been limited by back issues.

I think Correa and Seager are the top two shortstops with the possible exception of Lindor, who is quite good all around. Base stealer deluxe Trea Turner is an excellent player too, although injury has left him less proven.

**boly says***

Based upon what?

Offense?

That's usually what they base the 'top player,' on.

boly

[klaiggeb]

Boagie- I wouldn't have started Kershaw in game 7 solely on the basis that he's a choke artist in big games.

***boly says***

But you know Roberts couldn't have used that reason.

I was, foolishly, listening to some talk radio shows from the LA area, and they were all whining about Kershaw not starting.

Like most fans they probably play fantasy baseball, and that's ALL they know about the game.


The game involves people with muscles and bone and brains and what not.

Not just numbers.

Today's pitchers are NOT trained or prepared to go 9, much less start with only 2 days off.

Relieving is another issue because day 2 IS their day to throw.


Those guys just don't get it.

boly

[Rog]

As Bobby Valentine once said: "Sabermetrics are great at predicting the past."


Rog -- Stop and think about that. It's certainly a true statement, but it's a throwaway line.

Let's look at what the statement DOESN'T say. It doesn't tell us whether sabermetrics are good or bad at predicting the future. Might that not be important to us?

What about if he said instead, watching a player play is great at predicting the past? Also true, although one might add that that is more true if a person watches the player play every play of every day. That also doesn't tell us anything about the effect watching a player play has on the future.

The more we watch a player, the better we are likely to predict his future. One thing about it though. Without stats, we wouldn't even be able to "predict" the past accurately. Think we could be accurate if we watched a player's entire season and without counting could be accurate on his batting average, home runs, runs scored and RBI's? If we watched only the ball leaving the bat -- not the ultimate result -- we would be even less accurate. If we watched only the batter's mechanics, we might have even more trouble.

So maybe we've come full circle on Valentine's statement. Statistics do a better job of "predicting" the past than merely watching a player's full season of play.

Ever watched just a player's swing and tried to predict the result? It isn't NEARLY as simple as it would seem. The more we see, the better we can define the past. But without stats, we wind up with merely approximations.

What Bobby said was indeed correct. But not necessarily in the way he meant it. There aren't as many dinosaurs in the game as there used to be. Even the fans are getting smarter. Even those who put down analytics, although those people usually don't learn as MUCH.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xJSb18te

[Rog]

Down 5 there was 0 reason to use jansen.

I'd have run Wood out there.

They hadn't touched him.

IF you get the lead, Jansen can hold it.

HE's the closer, not Wood or the other guys left.


Rog -- I understand what you're saying, and I think you have made a decent argument for it -- all except saying that there was ZERO reaon for Jansen.

Yes, Wood had pitched very well against Houston. But he wasn't very good in his only previous playoff start. But he had pitched the previous day, and as a starter, he may not have been the best guy to bring back with no rest. The Dodgers clearly did use him later, but at that point he was likely the best choice.

But the main thing is that you go with your best, and the Dodgers' best reliever -- likely better even than Kershaw -- is Jansen. You talk about needing a closer if you get ahead, but when you're down 5-0 your chances aren't good of getting there. They're even lower if you pitch less than your best.

Think what might have happened if the Giants hadn't brought in Bumgarner in game 7 when they did. It seemed unlikely when they did so that he would be able to complete the game. And while the Giants had other closers, Madison closed it out pretty well himself.

You said there was zero reason to bring in Jansen. You made a fine argument for Wood, but I'll give you one reason why going with Jansen was a valid reason: You get hurt less often when you go with your best.

It didn't help, but in Kershaw and Jansen, Dave Roberts clearly went with his best. When you're behind and have no game to worry about tomorrow, that's often -- perhaps usually -- the best course of action.

At the very least here I think it's good to look at the reason WHY a manager may have made the choice he made. To say that there was ZERO need to use Jansen is at best showing limited vision. To say Wood would (sorry about that) have been a better choice is something that can be argued. But saying there was ZERO need to bring in Jansen was a false statement.

The need was to prevent the Astros from scoring any more runs. Jansen was likely the best choice to do so. I don't think it would have happened, but it's also possible the Dodgers were planning to try to get the lead and have Jansen hold it all the way.

I like your idea. But I can see why Roberts chose Jansen. There WAS a reason to do so. Whether it was the BEST reason is a different story. That I can't say for sure.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xKXauuIg

[Rog]

I was, foolishly, listening to some talk radio shows from the LA area, and they were all whining about Kershaw not starting.


Rog -- I can see an argument for using Kershaw. Clayton went four scoreless innings. If a pinch hitter hadn't been needed, he might have pitched longer. Maybe he would have gotten the Dodgers through at least five innings without the Dodgers falling behind -- particularly not behind by five.

Going back to game 7 in 2014, one could have made an argument for starting Madison Bumgarner. If Jeremy Affeldt hadn't bailed out starter Tim Hudson, it might not have mattered how well Madison pitched. Plus, the Giants may have needed to pinch hit for him if they were behind.

I'm not saying I would have done so. I don't know all the circumstances involved. But I can see why Kershaw would have at least been considered. IIRC I myself at least wondered if it might not happen.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xKd2Dx9t

[Rog]

Like most fans they probably play fantasy baseball, and that's ALL they know about the game.


Rog -- Might not that be a foolish statement to make? You have little to no idea whether they play fantasy baseball or not. Chances are, some do and some don't. Aren't you showing a serious bias here?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xKguekOs

[Rog]

The game involves people with muscles and bone and brains and what not.

Not just numbers.

Today's pitchers are NOT trained or prepared to go 9, much less start with only 2 days off.

Relieving is another issue because day 2 IS their day to throw.


Those guys just don't get it.


Rog -- I'm sorry, Boly, but you don't know if they get it or not.

Let me give you an example right here on this board. I don't think Mark has played a high level of baseball (although I'm not sure he HASN'T either), and he gets it. He probably gets it better than ANY of us.

One thing I can say for sure is that some fantasy players get it, and some don't. I can also say that if you played fantasy, there is a reasonable chance you wouldn't have been surprised by Bregman. I didn't -- and still don't -- know everything about him, but it seems clear I knew a fair amount more than you did.

There are things you know that I don't too. But my point is that you would still know those things if you played fantasy -- and you would likely have known more about Bregman. By the way, it's possible I was wrong about Bregman's struggling at the beginning of his career and at the beginning of this season before recovering nicely in both cases. I'm going from memory. But I'm pretty sure I've got it right.

I had Bregman on at least one of my teams in both seasons. I played in five leagues in 2016 but only one this season. I believe Mark played in five or six this year, and he played in multiple leagues in 2016.

You're simply being prejudiced against fantasy players -- and possibly against those who follow analytics. When one makes sweeping comments, one is usually lumping a group of people together, and that isn't usually wise.

Incidentally, I would bet that most fantasy players realize the players are bone and muscle -- and not just numbers. I think at the least it would be appropriate to open your mind a bit, and I guarantee you that if you played fantasy baseball, you would learn from the experience.

I know I did, and I never thought I would play. I almost certainly wouldn't have if not to bail out my son. One thing I will say is that even when I never thought I would play, I kept an open mind about fantasy players.

You know so much about baseball. Wouldn't it benefit you if you rid yourself of your biases and objectively judged what you see, hear and read? You likely have the ability to know more than any of us. Even Mark.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xKhP2X66

[Islandboagie]

Going back to game 7 in 2014, one could have made an argument for starting Madison Bumgarner. If Jeremy Affeldt hadn't bailed out starter Tim Hudson, it might not have mattered how well Madison pitched. Plus, the Giants may have needed to pinch hit for him if they were behind.

Boagie- Plus Bochy pulled Hudson before he gave up 5 runs. But Madison could have been considered to start the game because he doesn't crumble under pressure like Kershaw. I don't see any good reasons to start Kershaw.

[Rog]

I thought even less of Correa, but the guy I talked to this week was impressed with his on defense. I asked if they should switch Correa and Bregman (who is known as a good-fielding shortstop), and the guy said no pretty adamantly.

Seager's defense in the postseason may have been limited by back issues.

I think Correa and Seager are the top two shortstops with the possible exception of Lindor, who is quite good all around. Base stealer deluxe Trea Turner is an excellent player too, although injury has left him less proven.

**boly says***

Based upon what?

Offense?

That's usually what they base the 'top player,' on.


Rog -- Perhaps we should look at Wins Above Replacement, which takes into account all phases of the game and pays significant attention to defense. For the 2017 season, Fan Graphs lists the following shortstops in their top 10:

1. Franciscon Lindor 5.9 WAR

2. Corey Seager 5.7 WAR.

3. Carlos Correa 5.2 WAR

4. Zack Cozart 5.0 WAR

5. Andrelton Simmons 4.9 WAR

6. Elvis Andrus 4.1 WAR

7. Didi Gregorius 3.9 WAR

8. Tim Beckham 3.5 WAR

9. Xander Bogearts 3.2 WAR

10. Trea Turner 3.0 WAR

Here are the rest, going down through Brandon Crawford:

11. Paul DeJong 3.0 WAR

12. Jean Segura 2.9 WAR

13. Javier Baez 2.2 WAR (2B/SS)

14. Jose Reyes 2.0 WAR

15. Brandon Crawford 2.0 WAR


Hopefully I didn't miss anyone along the way. Incidentally, 2017 WAR doesn't indicate Brandon is only the 15th-best shortstop in the game. It says that based on WAR's evaluation of his play this past season -- which wasn't one of his best -- he was 15th-best.

An added point: Correa likely was the best this past season. That was my personal valuation (for what it is worth), and he put up his 5.2 WAR in just 2/3rds of a season. Turner too was better than he shows here. He accumulated his 3.0 WAR in just 98 games. Cozart played just 122 games. DeJong played just 108.

Remember that WAR isn't a perfect measurement of a player's contribution, but it's an objective one and is based on all-around play. I would say that in 2017 it correctly shows Crawford's down season. And shows that there are a lot of good shortstops out there.

For reference, by the way, a replacement-level player (one who might be called up from AAA as a replacement) is -- by definition a zero WAR player. A two-WAR player is considered an average starting player. A four WAR player is considered to be of All-Star level. A six WAR player is said to be playing on a superstar plane.

For Crawford to be a three WAR player in a down season is pretty good.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations#ixzz4xOdw2UXV

[Rog]

Going back to game 7 in 2014, one could have made an argument for starting Madison Bumgarner. If Jeremy Affeldt hadn't bailed out starter Tim Hudson, it might not have mattered how well Madison pitched. Plus, the Giants may have needed to pinch hit for him if they were behind.

Boagie- Plus Bochy pulled Hudson before he gave up 5 runs. But Madison could have been considered to start the game because he doesn't crumble under pressure like Kershaw. I don't see any good reasons to start Kershaw.


Rog -- That's because you don't like Kershaw and are looking for ways to take away from a level of performance that will likely go down as among the top 10 pitchers of all time. No question Clayton had a very bad game in his previous outing. But he's the best pitcher in the game. And if one goes back to his past three starts prior to his stinker, he had a 2.25 ERA in those starts, winning two of them. He also had a poor start in his first postseason outing the year.

The point is that one could have made an argument to start the outstanding postseason performer Bumgarner (although he had thrown 117 pitches just three days before), and one could make an argument for Kershaw. As it turned out, both pitchers pitched excellent ball in relief, with Kershaw pitching four shutout innings and Bumgarner yielding just one run in five frames.

IMO Boly has been far too narrow in his focus. It's not that I think his ideas are wrong; I simply think he too quickly rules out other possibilities, and when one does that, he's less likely to be right than if he fully examines each possibility.

Despite his throwing a very high 117 pitches just three days earlier -- his second-highest pitch count of the season in equaling his longest performance of the year you were right to consider Bumgarner as a possibility for game 7. I don't think it was wrong of me to consider Kershaw three days after 94 pitches. I do think it was wrong of Boly not to even consider Jansen as a good choice for inning seven -- especially since there was a slim possibility that the Dodgers would take the lead and Jansen might pitch a three-inning save.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Boly, but I'm not sure you considered that Jansen faced the Astros' top four hitters, each of them a right-handed batter, whereas by pitching Wood later, Wood was able to face among his six batters a lefty hitter, a switch hitter who batted much better from the left side, the pitcher and Cameron Maybin off the bench. It might noted too that Maybin hit better against right-handers than lefties.

Roberts got his best matchups by using Jansen and Wood as he did, and who knows how long Jansen could have gone if the Dodgers had tied the game, taken the lead or at least closed to where it wasn't necessary to pinch hit for Jansen?

When we question a manager's decision, oft times there are either things the manager knows that we aren't privy to and/or we don't consider all the variables involved. Managers don't always consider all the variables involved either, but sometimes they just get lucky!

It wasn't necessarily wrong to say Wood, not Jansen. But it WAS wrong to say there was ZERO reason to use Jansen. IMO. Remember, this is a world filled with gray area. Rarely is one correct when he makes an absolute statement. The world -- and even the world of baseball -- just isn't that simple.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xOjne7So

[klaiggeb]

How in the hell does Seager have that high of a WAR?

Same with Correa.

Same with Beckham.

None of them has even close to the range of Addison Russell, or Crawford.

And THAT'S what makes people like me question WAR numbers, among others.

I've WATCHED these guys play!

None of those 3 have more than average range left OR right.

boly

[Rog]

How in the hell does Seager have that high of a WAR?

Same with Correa.

Same with Beckham.


Rog -- I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear. You asked how I judged shortstops overall, and I used WAR as an example of not precisely how I judged them but an example of an unbiased method of doing so. As I thought I mentioned, WAR uses all facets of shortstop play -- both offensively and defensively. These guys have a high WAR primarily because they can HIT.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations#ixzz4xPBXA0Lv

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- That's because you don't like Kershaw and are looking for ways to take away from a level of performance that will likely go down as among the top 10 pitchers of all time.

Boagie- Not true. I like Kershaw as a person, he seems like a decent enough guy. I'm just realistic. His post-season experience has been more failures than successes. The only person being biased about Kershaw is you. You bring up how great Kershaw is FAR more than I talk about his post season struggles. When his choking in the post-season is discussed you downplay it and switch the conversation to the regular season.

The Dodgers didn't sign Kershaw to a ridiculous contract to be great in the regular season, they signed him to win a world series. In that regard he's been nothing but a dissapointment. That's the reality.

[Rog]

Maybe we're both realistic about Kershaw. You agree that he's fabulous in the regular season, and I agree he has been far less so in the postseason. His failure to have dominated the postseason thus far tarnishes his luster a bit, but he's still easily the best pitcher of his generation and will likely wind up as one of the greatest ever.

There have been so many great pitchers that it's hard to rate them, but most have traditionally place Johnson, Young, Mathewson, Alexander and Grove at the top. In recent years Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez were all great. In between there were guys like Seaver, Carlton, Koufax, Ford, Marichal and Gibson. Now, Kershaw stands above, and Scherzer and Bumgarner too are more than noteworthy.

Just think if one combined Kershaw's regular season with Bumgarner's postseasons? We'd be talking about whether Kergarner was the greatest pitcher ever. Walter Johnson? Make way for Kergarner and Bumshaw.

Now, if I had to choose Kershaw or Bumgarner for game 7 of the World Series, I'd still choose Kershaw. But if he doesn't improve in the postseason and Bumgarner adds to his resume there, I would eventually be forced to change.

But, it's kind of like where Jansen hasn't been as good the past two postseasons. I'd still take him over anyone else to close out game 7. Of course, overall, Jansen has still been excellent in the postseason, whereas Kershaw has not.

I haven't been able to quite figure Kershaw's postseasons out. Some of it has been poor relief support, but if he hadn't gotten in trouble to begin with, he wouldn't have needed the support. Many times he has started a game well, only to have one horrible inning.

Is he tired? Does he choke? The tired part may be likely. The choke part is a tough one, since he's also had some very good postseason games, and has usually pitched well until he tires or simply loses it. The choke part is made difficult too when his July ERA has been 1.69, his August ERA 2.35, and his September ERA 2.03. In other words, he has done his best pitching in the last three months of the season, and his Septembers have been his second best month. When a guy posts a 2.03 ERA in September, it's tough to say he's a choker.

One thing that doesn't help Kershaw though is that his postseason sample grows larger, and he hasn't really improved his performance. The larger a sample, the more meaning it begins to take on.

I would still rather have Kershaw than Bumgarner in game 7 of the World Series -- but not by as big a margin as it used to be.

By the way, the Dodgers didn't sign Kershaw to a ridicluous contract. By Fan Graphs's valuation, he's been worth $426 million of free agent money over his first decade in the majors. If that's not the highest valuation of the past decade, it's got to be close to someone like Miguel Cabrera.

Actually, Kershaw's value over the past decade has got to be higher than Cabrera, whose value for his entire career is estimated at $436 million. The most valuable player of all today must be Mike Trout, whose value is estimated at $410 million in his seven seasons in the majors. Like Kershaw, Trout will go down among the all-time greats. The very best of the best. At the level of guys like Mays, Bonds, Mathewson and Ott for the Giants.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- I would still rather have Kershaw than Bumgarner in game 7 of the World Series -- but not by as big a margin as it used to be.

Boagie- This is why you're biased, and I'm not. I would rather have Bumgarner in game 7, but I'd rather have Kershaw during the regular season. Picking anything other than that would show a clear and undeniable bias.

[Rog]

Boagie- This is why you're biased, and I'm not. I would rather have Bumgarner in game 7, but I'd rather have Kershaw during the regular season. Picking anything other than that would show a clear and undeniable bias.


Rog -- I understand your statement, but I'm surprised you said it. Not that you would take Bumgarner in the postseason, but that think doing otherwise shows bias.

Believe me, it doesn't. And I'm not the only one who would take him -- although the number, like my own postseason confidence in him, is dwindling.

Let me give you an example. Entering 2002, Barry Bonds had been horrible in the postseason, far worse (although in a smaller sample) than Kershaw. Based on your logic, I would have been biased to pick Bonds as the player most likely to be the best player in the World Series. Had the bullpen not blown a 5-0 lead (produced in part by the home run of Bonds himself), he would have not only been MVP, but registered one of the all-time great World Series. Even when the Giants lost in seven, he had a World Series for the ages.

So in your mind I would have been biased -- but I also would have been right? Why would I have chosen Bonds? Because he was the best player in the game. He had been far from the best in the postseason (an "honor" he shared with his godfather, the other among arguably the two best Giants ever), but in a much larger sample, he had been an all-time great.

Hopefully you see the importance of the larger sample. Not that you shouldn't choose Bumgarner over Kershaw -- I'm close to doing that myself -- but to say choosing Kershaw shows bias shows, well, bias (or poor judgment). Not poor judgment to choose Bumgarner. But poor judgment to think that choosing Kershaw automatically shows bias.

I don't understand how you and Boly can be so closed-minded (on Bumgarner vs. Kershaw or Jansen vs. Wood). Not that you guys don't make good arguments (you do). But that you can't see any other side to the argument.

Boly made a good argument for Wood, and you made a good argument for Bumgarner. So far I may disagree a little, but I'm fine with our discussion. It's when you guys make statements such as "zero" or "bias" that I have to disagree.

There is usually more than one side to a story. (Not always, but usually.) For you guys to feel otherwise shows shall we say an inability to look at all the facts.

As you know, Boagie, in fantasy baseball, the manager makes no in-game decisions at all. But he does make many of the same overall decisions te manager and GM make -- game day lineups, trades, waiver wire and free agent transactions, when to activate a player from the DL.

I fully agree with Boly that playing fantasy does almost nothing to help one gain knowledge of in-game strategy. It can cause a person to study pitcher management by a manager, how much the manager lets his runners steal bases and how often he would use a player to bunt, maybe even when he uses pinch hitters, but other than that I can't think of anything. It's not like the fantasy manager DECIDES when to bunt or steal. Once the game starts, it's all over for him. His decisions may be influenced by what he thinks will happen during the game, but he has no control whatsoever.

For me, the timing of how long to hold onto a player is a tough call -- much like the manager has to decide how long to let a struggling hitter play, or ultimately the GM has to decide how long to keep the player. I have mentioned this before, but the first year I played, I released Robinson Cano on virtually the VERY day he rebounded from a long, slow start and was a very good player the rest of the way. Unfortunately, that was for someone else.

And that gets back a bit to whether Kershaw or Bumgarner. No question Bumgarner has been MUCH better in the postseason. He's been one of the very best ever, while Kershaw has been inconsistent at best. So would I go with the quality of Bumgarner in the postseason or the quality of Kershaw in the much larger sample of the regular season?

If I choose Kershaw -- which I still would by a small margin -- am I being biased or simply relying on the larger sample? Should I have cut Cano when he was having a very mediocre season, or counted on his quality to bounce back? In the Cano case, I know how it worked out, and I made the wrong decision by letting him go. By taking Kershaw, I would stick with the larger sample (analogous to keeping Cano), but I certainly could still be wrong.

But I would pick Kershaw because I felt he still had the better chance, although in a situation as serious as the World Series, I would certainly sweat the decision a lot.

What I would do, to the best of my ability to avoid it, would be to avoid bias in my decision. That's something fantasy teaches me to do as well. Hey, I'd love to pick all the Giants' players. You may remember that Mark's son Bryan did a lot of that, and early in 2016 his team was surprisingly good. But the strategy came back to haunt him in the second half of the season.

Kershaw or Bumgarner? One can make an argument either way. I think the majority -- probably a significant majority -- would not take Bumgarner. I'm not that far from joining them, but I still lean toward Kershaw. Check back with me a year from now. It's certainly possible I will have changed my position by then. It's also possible I'll feel stronger in the position.

But to call me biased, Boagie? I don't think that's fair. I've looked at at least as many facts as you before making my decision. And I certainly can understand why one would take Bumgarner. If a Giants fan were to choose Bumgarner, I wouldn't call him biased. If I chose Bumgarner, I don't think I would be biased because I'm a Giants fan.

I WISH I could choose Bumgarner in good conscience if my life depended on it. In what might call a split decision, I would go with Kershaw. And hope that his overall quality would materialize more consistently in the postseason. That Madison didn't pitch well in his most recent playoff start would have very little to do with my choice. That Clayton pitched poorly in his last start but well in his last appearance overall would have little to do with it either.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations#ixzz4xQG2YiVT

[sfgdood]

my observation...ok so I'd much prefer the Giants winning but I've got to say the Dodgers getting THAT close to the brass ring only to gag in the end...PRICELESS!

[klaiggeb]

I'm with you, Randy!

This season OPENED in disaster... and ended on an incredibly high note.. a note that could only have been higher had our guys won the World Series.

And to see them blow it the way they did! Especially in that 13-12 game!

Where Kershaw proved, IMHO, once again, he's NOT Bum's equal in the post season.

He's the pitching equal to Gil Hodges when it comes to performances in the World Series.

During the season, Gil put up tremendous numbers!

Come world series time?

What a disappointment.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- I understand your statement, but I'm surprised you said it. Not that you would take Bumgarner in the postseason, but that think doing otherwise shows bias.

Boagie- I guess it's kind of like you saying I don't like Kershaw just because I point out his post-season struggles and think they are more significant than just a fluke. The fact you think I hate him (which is a strong word) just because I don't ignore the elephant in the room makes me think you have more in this fight. You get FAR too defensive when this topic comes up for there not to be a bias there.

The fact that the numbers point to Bumgarner being a far better performer in the post-season, yet you still pick Kershaw in the most high pressure post-season game out there.

Post-season numbers mean just as much to me as any other numbers. Right vs. left, clutch stats, ect ect...post-season stats should be considered as accurate as any other.

To be completely honest, when the Dodger jersey is off, I like Kershaw. I don't like saying that here because I'll get shit for it, but that's fine. Kershaw seems like a good guy, he respects the game and works his butt off to be the best he can be.

I believe Bumgarner and him have some sort of friendship, I'm not sure how deep the friendship goes, but they constantly compliment each other. So I guess as a Giants fan you could look at it like - If Bum doesn't have a problem with him, why should I? Which is how I feel basically.

I have the same respect for Andre Ethier.

However, if Puig and Utley were to die, I'd probably laugh my ass off.

But in the end, Kershaw is still a Dodger, so while he's wearing the jersey I still cannot consciously root for him to do well, I just root against him a little less than most Dodgers.

[Rog]

my observation...ok so I'd much prefer the Giants winning but I've got to say the Dodgers getting THAT close to the brass ring only to gag in the end...PRICELESS!


Rog -- As a Giants fan, why do you even CARE about the Dodgers? Shouldn't you put 100% of your fandom into the Giants? Why waste energy on the Dodgers?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations#ixzz4xW3K5BN2

[Rog]

Boagie- I guess it's kind of like you saying I don't like Kershaw just because I point out his post-season struggles and think they are more significant than just a fluke.


Rog -- I was wrong to say you dislike Kershaw. You would know, and I don't. That was a bad mistake on my part. My frustration showed through, when I should have made sure my logic did. Sorry.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xW3maZEN

[Rog]

The fact that the numbers point to Bumgarner being a far better performer in the post-season, yet you still pick Kershaw in the most high pressure post-season game out there.


Rog -- Once again, it comes down to whether one weights the broader sample of the regular season or the arguably more relevant but far smaller sample of the postseason.

I thought I explained myself pretty well -- including stating that it was a "split decision" and that I didn't favor Kershaw in that situation as much as I once did. Was I unclear?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4130/world-series-observations?page=1#ixzz4xW50QCMF