Is It Unreasonable to Expect Great Things From Clayton Kershaw?

February 16, 2010 at 10:00 am | Posted in Clayton Kershaw | 10 Comments

Steve Dilbeck’s post today in the born-again LA Times “Dodgers Blog” got me thinking about Clayton Kershaw. Almost every review of the Dodger offseason has included a dig at the club’s failure to land a quality veteran starting pitcher, and usually included something along the lines of Kershaw “having talent, but is too young to count on.” It’s not unfair of others to say that, because it’s nothing all Dodger fans haven’t said before – so often, in fact, that it’s basically an accepted fact. You just can’t count on a guy who will only be 22, with just 51 career starts.

Or can you?

Sure, 22′s young. But it’s also not like he’s 18, trying to come to the bigs directly out of high school as though he’s some modern-day David Clyde. And sure, 51 starts isn’t a lot. But nor is it zero starts, and there have been pitchers with far less experience who’ve managed to succeed that quickly.

In fact, there’s been quite a few. If baseball has seen other guys do it, why couldn’t Kershaw take that next step – this year? Let’s compare him to others who have had success at such a young age.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Kershaw is guaranteed to be a Hall of Famer like some on this list, nor am I saying that if he doesn’t meet these lofty standards in 2010, that’s he a failure. Far from it; if he can make it through the season healthy and show some improvement on his walk totals while keeping up a similar level of domination as he already showed last year, that counts as a huge success for me.

So I wanted to know: how often has someone Kershaw’s age pitched at least 162 innings, and did so with at least a league-average ERA or better? Thanks to the invaluable baseball-reference, we can quickly find out that there have been 139 such seasons since the expansion of 1961. Here’s the top seasons:

Rk	Player	ERA+ 6	IP	Year	Age	Tm	Lg	G	GS	W	L	ERA	HR	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
1	Dwight Gooden	228	276.2	1985	20	NYM	NL	35	35	24	4	1.53	13	.201	.254	.270	.524	52
2	Vida Blue	185	312.0	1971	21	OAK	AL	39	39	24	8	1.82	19	.189	.251	.272	.523	55
3	Mark Prior	178	211.1	2003	22	CHC	NL	30	30	18	6	2.43	15	.231	.283	.352	.635	68
4	Sam McDowell	161	273.0	1965	22	CLE	AL	42	35	17	11	2.18	9	.185	.286	.244	.531	56
5	Bert Blyleven	158	325.0	1973	22	MIN	AL	40	40	20	17	2.52	16	.242	.284	.334	.618	71
6	Mark Fidrych	158	250.1	1976	21	DET	AL	31	29	19	9	2.34	12	.235	.277	.301	.579	67
7	Larry Dierker	151	305.1	1969	22	HOU	NL	39	37	20	13	2.33	18	.214	.261	.316	.578	68
8	Gary Nolan	147	226.2	1967	19	CIN	NL	33	32	14	8	2.58	18	.228	.282	.335	.617	74
9	Oliver Perez	145	196.0	2004	22	PIT	NL	30	30	12	10	2.98	22	.207	.295	.359	.655	73
10	Bret Saberhagen	145	235.1	1985	21	KCR	AL	32	32	20	6	2.87	19	.241	.271	.357	.628	70
11	Jon Matlack	144	244.0	1972	22	NYM	NL	34	32	15	10	2.32	14	.234	.289	.333	.623	85
12	Dennis Eckersley	144	186.2	1975	20	CLE	AL	34	24	13	7	2.60	16	.215	.310	.322	.631	79
13	Britt Burns	143	238.0	1980	21	CHW	AL	34	32	15	13	2.84	17	.241	.293	.348	.641	74
14	Clayton Kershaw	141	171.0	2009	21	LAD	NL	31	30	8	8	2.79	7	.200	.306	.282	.588	63
15	Bill Stafford	140	195.0	1961	21	NYY	AL	36	25	14	9	2.68	13	.232	.294	.329	.622	76
16	Mark Buehrle	140	221.1	2001	22	CHW	AL	32	32	16	8	3.29	24	.230	.279	.377	.656	68

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used

It’s an impressive list. Eckersley is a Hall of Famer, Blyleven should be, and Gooden would have been if he’d kept his nose clean. Saberhagen won two Cy Youngs, while Vida Blue won an MVP, a Cy Young, and made 6 All-Star teams (as did Sam McDowell). Kershaw’s ERA+ of 141 places him 14th on that list, while his OPS+ against ranks him 7th. Out of 139, that’s pretty good just on its face, but remember – Kershaw did that at only 21, so he still has another season in which to improve his standing in this grouping.

And not to go completely overboard here, but how about comparing Kershaw to the top season on this list, Dwight Gooden’s magical 1985? Each pitcher was about equally difficult to get any hits off of (Gooden: .201 BA, Kershaw: .200 BA), and if anyone did get the bat on the ball, neither allowed many big hits (Gooden: .270 SLG, Kershaw: .282 SLG). Gooden’s obvious advantage was that he threw 276 innings, allowed fewer walks, and had gaudy traditional numbers – going 24-4 with a 1.53 ERA.

It’s that which makes me wonder if Kershaw isn’t a little underrated simply by something we should all know doesn’t matter anymore – wins. No one on the list had more than Gooden’s 24 wins (Blue was tied). Kershaw, meanwhile, was tied for 135th out of 139 with his 8 wins. How much differently would we be thinking about him right now if he’d gone, say, 14-4 rather than 8-8? Despite all we know about wins, the fact is that being a “.500 pitcher” still gets you a stigma, even when you strike out 13 and allow 1 hit, yet get a no-decision in your second start of the season, or pitch seven scoreless innings in May and don’t get the win. Or 5.2 scoreless in June. Or seven scoreless in August. Or six scoreless on the next-to-last day of the season.

Point being, Kershaw got robbed of a lot of wins last season, and even though we know that wins don’t matter, in the world of perception, they do. And despite our high expectations for a player so young, it’s not as though Kershaw is blazing a completely new trail, here. Young players can succeed, if they have the talent and opportunity, and I think it’s clear that Kershaw has both.

10 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Good piece, I’ve been saying the same thing only differently. Compare him to Lincecum in his first two years and there’s not that much difference other than IP and W/L, and Kershaw is two years younger. Kershaw has a full season to improve to the point where Lincecum started at age 23. If he develops mentally and stays healthy we are witnessing the beginning of a very special career.

Comment by Don Osborn— February 16, 2010 #

Reply
After listening to the calls to hold down his innings cause he’s so young, definately a fresh contention. Excellent quality is the company he’s keeping! Begs one to think, is this 100 pitch count all that great of an idea?

Comment by bluetrain— February 16, 2010 #

Reply
- I think what’s more important than pitch count is how much effort it’s taking him to get there. I certainly don’t think we should be unleashing him for 140 pitches every time out, but if he can just be a little more efficient and not lose the plate so much, the same amount of pitches could get him 1-2 innings further each time out.
  
  Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 16, 2010 #
  
  Reply
This is a great article and I wish the world that Clayton hadn’t been robbed of so many potential wins last season, but maybe this is a blessing in disguise. If Clayton had gone, say, 17-8 and had the awesome win/loss traditional totals like casual fans want, then there probably would have been a lot of extra added hype and pressure thrown onto Clayton in just his age 22 season, and I’m sure the Koufax comparisons would be thrown around like candy at Halloween. Maybe this way he can still continue his development without having to worry about carrying the staff, or stop a losing streak all on his own. That’s what I like about Clayton being overlooked.

Comment by Trevor— February 16, 2010 #

Reply
Did Kershaw get robbed of some wins last year? Sure

Could he have posted more wins if he could regularly get into the 6th and 7th inning? Definitely.

Let’s not make it seem that his wildness and subsequent short outtings were not a big story of last season. In order for him to make the next step, he needs to start improving on the command of all of his pitches. That’s not to say that he won’t do it. I think the world of the kid. He’s got the right combination of ability, work ethic, and demeanor. But he still has room to improve.

Comment by Eric— February 16, 2010 #

Reply
With all the hype he got in the minors and the outstanding year he had last season, it is very difficult not to overhype Kershaw this season.

Comment by Johnny— February 16, 2010 #

Reply
- Well sure, maybe to you and me, but what about the casual fan that only sees the .500 record? That’s what the whole article is about, that Kershaw is very good but doesn’t get the recognition he deserves mainly because of his youth. I’ll sing his praises from here to Sunday, but that doesn’t mean that other fans see him the same way.
  
  Comment by Trevor— February 16, 2010 #
  
  Reply
I’ve noticed that the statheads’ outlook of Kershaw remains conservative, even going as far as naming Jonathan Sanchez as Kershaw’s doppelganger in terms of similar career paths.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/clone-wars-jonathan-sanchez-and-clayton-kershaw/

Comment by realmofotalk— February 16, 2010 #

Reply
It seems like wins are only mentioned when discussing how they don’t matter and aren’t really reflective of anything.

Yeah, there are still a small minority of dumbass commentators who still discuss wins. But even these tools, usually follow-up that discussion with something along the lines of — “but he pitched better than his record shows”

Can’t we all just agree to completely abandon any and all discussion of wins. That way we wouldn’t have to immediately discount their importance. Much time could be saved.

Anytime a stat is usually followed by a discussion about how its not reflective of performance — perhaps we should just move on.

Comment by Mr Falcon— February 17, 2010 #

Reply
[...] have stirred some feelings among Dodger fans, MSTI takes the Dodger blogger point of view that is it not unreasonable to expect great things from Clayton Kershaw while ESPN Insider and Seattle Blogger David Cameron asked "Is Clayton Kershaw Already [...]

Pingback by Clayton Kershaw the object of our affection | Dodgers Baseball Talk— February 17, 2010 #

Reply