Clayton Kershaw’s ERA
Clayton Kershaw is obviously unprepared for the major leagues. That’s a justifiable statement if you only judge pitchers by ERA. Kershaw’s is 5.46, more than a run higher than last year. Of course, Kershaw is pitching nearly as well if you judge pitchers by FIP, and his peripherals look pretty impressive.
Kershaw is striking out 9.32 batters per nine (8.36 last season), walking 4.18 (4.35), allowing 1.29 homeruns (0.92), and has a BABIP against of .276 (.325), so what gives? Well, a LOB% of 62.5 has a lot to do with that horrendous looking ERA. Consider that league average is right at 71%, and even last year Kershaw flexed a 75.7% strand rate.
Frankly, his strand rate is a bit puzzling given that:
A. Kershaw is striking out a quarter of the batters he faces.
B. Kershaw is getting about 50% flyballs.
C. 30% of those flyballs are of the infield variety.
BIS’ batted ball data shows that Kershaw has actually given up an equal amount of liners and infield flies, which is just silly to think about. Obviously the infield pops will regress, over the last five years the seasonal highs for infield flyballs out of those who qualified are 21% by Tim Wakefield in 2004, also in 2004 Joe Kennedy at 19.6%, and Matt Garza at 18% last season. Pitchers rarely get 20% flyballs, forget about 30%.
Kershaw’s ERA should drop by at least a full run during the course of the season, if not more. He’s pitching wonderfully outside of the homeruns, and those are a product of the flyball heavy batted ball portfolio.
0
In what world is having a walk rate north of four per nine “pitching wonderfully?” Yes, his strand rate is really low, but a pitcher typically needs to post strong rates in two of the three true outcomes to do well. Right now, Kershaw’s only getting it done in one.
That was my thought, too. “Wonderfully” seems a bit overboard for a walk rate like that.
A study on “another site” (Derek Carty) showed that when a pitcher is a high-strikeout pitcher, as long as his K/BB is above 2.0, he can survive a high walk rate, in fact, the study showed that the overall ERA for those pitchers are the best among pitchers with a K/BB over 2.0 (which is the minimum you want to see out of good pitchers).
Thus, while normally, a 4+ BB/9 is not “wonderful”, in combination with a very high K/9, it is.
RJ,
Great stuff here, it is crazy to think that Kershaw is pitching and with some success mind you in the bigs at such an early age. I mean he is what a yr or two younger then Strarusburg? I think sometimes we forget the age relative to the level of competition.
Just a heads up… the Iannetta story link isn’t working.
Thanks!
I’m inclined to agree with you about Kershaw, as much as I would hate to :^), but want to play devil’s advocate here.
You note his BABIP as being about the same, when it is hugely different because they are opposite sides of the .300 mean most pitchers regress to. Thus, while last year, one might expect a better ERA from him eventually, as his BABIP moderates, this year, one might expect a worse result as his BABIP rises. How do you reconcile that?
Now, my guess would be that you would say that his strand rate (which I assume is his LOB^) would improve and counter that. However, I could counter that perhaps he benefited last year with an elevated stand rate over the 71%, and this year could be the bounce down that averages out with last year.
Also, your point about his HR/9, how does that work with so much of it infield flies, when looking at his HR/FB? Are infield flies taken into account? And it’s pretty weird, too, that his HR/FB is elevated over the 10% that most pitchers regress to, so is that due to his home park being a homer haven while also being a pitcher’s park?
I’m assuming Kershaw doesn’t become a FB pitcher all of the sudden, StatCorner has him as a groundballer throughout his minor league career:
http://statcorner.com/pitcherSP.php?id=477132&team=LAN&year=2009&leag=N_L
So when that flyball percentage regresses towards his career mean, so should the amount of homeruns given up, which should help when/if the BABIP shoots towards .300.
Infield flies are counted as flyballs, which in turn figure into the HR/FB% figure.
That’s entirely fair to expect that he will revert to his GB tendencies, but giving up FB really isn’t attributable to luck the way a high HR/FB ratio would be. That’s what I meant when I said he wasn’t doing a good job of controlling his HR.
T/J:
Manny suspended for 50 games
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4148907
end t/j
Let me get this straight this guy has only 2 bad games and he isn’t ready for the majors? In his first and last 2 starts Kershaw has a combined 24 innings pitched, 3 earned runs, and 27 strikeouts. Yeah that sure sucks. You mean no other Major League starter has bad games? Why aren’t we talking about Burnett’s era which is HIGHER than Kershaw’s or Sabathia’s which is only around .10 lower than Kershaw’s? Wouldn’t it be more justifiable that a 21 year old have around a 5.00 era than guys in the prime of their careers? And yet we are talking about Kershaw and not Burnett or Sabathia or even Wang. All whom are April and early May busts.
did you seriously just read the first line?
No kidding, it couldn’t have been any more blatant.
This is awesome.
Anyone see the link attached to this Matt guy’s name?
Uhhhh
Exactly.
Not to oversimplify some good analysis too much, but this early in the year the ratios are easily skewed by a break here or there, and 5 of Kershaws ER are from two pretty unlucky plays in his start against the Astros: a knee-high inside fastball on the corner of the zone that lee somehow pulled out of the yard, and a two-out bloop single in the next inning that scored a pair (including a runner from first if i remember correctly). Absent those two plays Kershaws ERA is 3.54, much more in line with what his peripherals might suggest. And that number obviously includes the subsequent stinker at Coors…
Obviously you can pick out a couple unlucky breaks from any pitcher’s season to make an identical argument, but I guess what Im saying is that you dont necessarily need in-depth statistical analysis to know that this kid is a horse, and his 5 ERA is not indicative of his talent level nor his future performance. Ratios (at least, the traditional ones) at this point in the season are often as much a product of variance as anything else.
RJ, whats your thoughts on the % of fastballs Kershaw is throwing thus far in his major league career? How many starting pitchers currently throw more than 75% fastballs? Even a guy like Rich Harden, who has a great fastball and has scrapped every other ptich besides his change this season, is “only” throwing 68% fastballs. I guess Kershaw keeps batters off guard by throwing so many fastballs out of the zone, leading to his high bb rate, but his approach seems somewhat unique, especially given the quality of at least one of his secondary offerings (“public enemy number one”).
Sample size.
Sample size.
There is no need to ponder why Kershaw’s peripherals look better than his ERA. The peripherals are things to look at over a longer period of time (as is ERA, for that matter), and the peripherals are explained by the few big innings in those two bad starts.
Sample size.
Glad people like to check out other people’s website. I guess I’m supposed to act embarrassed or something. It’s too bad unlike most on here I’m actually comfortable with my own sexuality and actually have the confidence I can say and do anything without feeling embarrassed, ashamed or guilty.
Besides that article was written after Kershaw left the game and the ERA listed was that before the game started. Someone isn’t on the ball or wants to make Kershaw’s stats look worse than they are. You choose the reason.
So if you all’s goal was to make me look bad then you all failed miserably. I could point out the fact anyone who thought my site was bad is either gay, in the closest, uncomfortable with their own sexuality or they feel making a comment like that would make them more manly, when in actuality it shows they are nothing but weak lil pansies who prolly degrade women and children to make them feel good about themselves.
I pity all you guys, I truly do.
How you got all of that from “Anyone see the link attached to this Matt guy’s name?” is beyond me.
Unfortunately, as much as I’d love to believe otherwise, the outrageousness of your response coupled with the fact that you couldn’t even get the name of your own alleged site right the second time leads me to believe that either you’re not being genuine or this isn’t the same guy who posted the first message. Shame, since it would be hilarious if you were for real.
Lol at this guy.
Somebody says “look at his website link”, and from that he can tell we all degrade children to make ourselves feel good.
Could Javier Vazquez have a successor?