Happy October!

I have some quick (or possibly rambling) thoughts on college football before I get to baseball.  The best thing about college football is also the worst thing about college football.  Notre Dame lost a game in early October and now we have no room for error.  Even going 11-1 might not be enough to make the playoff.  I'm not worried about 11-1 for now.  We just need to take care of business the next two weeks.  Beat Navy and USC and it can still be a really good year.  But I have a bone to pick with Brian Kelly.  He went for two after cutting Clemson's lead from 18 to 12 early in the fourth quarter.  I'm surprised the reaction to that decision hasn't been more negative.  Even though it hasn't been more negative, I haven't really heard anybody make a great case for going for two there (I think Herbstreit came the closest during the game).  Here's the case for going for two:

You've scored a touchdown and you have two more possessions left (it turned out to be three, but that's not a crazy assumption).  It's all about a fourth down in field goal range on the next possession.  I field goal only helps you if you can make an extra point and a two point conversion on two touchdowns.  So if you go touchdown, extra point, field goal, touchdown, and then miss a two point conversion on your last possession, that field goal was useless.  But if you go for it after the first touchdown and get it, the field goal makes it a seven point game.  If you don't get it, you avoid a useless field goal.  You know you have to score two touchdowns.

The chart said to go for two.  Here's my response:

The chart is wrong.  Nowhere in that line of reasoning does it take into account the fact that the other team can score again also.  The other team getting a field goal is a reasonable possibility (it's not like not going for two because a safety could mess up your plans).  And there's no guarantee that you're going to have a fourth down in field goal range on your next possession.  Don't go for two until you know you need to.  If you just keep scoring touchdowns (which you probably have to when you're down that much), either you go for two when you need to or if everything goes well, you don't need to worry about it at all.

Enough of that.  Let's talk baseball.  Clayton Kershaw had a fantastic finish to the season.  He had his second best start ever, a one-hitter against the Giants to clinch the division.  He might not win the Cy Young, but he's still the best pitcher in baseball.  Zack Greinke doesn't give you the last two starts against the Giants that Kershaw gave you.  Here are Kershaw's career numbers against the Giants:  16-7, 227 and a third innings pitched, 1.54 ERA, 0.82 WHIP, 243 strikeouts, 5 shutouts (out of 12 in his career).  That's insane.  His WHIP against the Giants is the best all time for one pitcher against another team with at least 150 innings pitched (Koufax against the Mets is second, Koufax against the Astros is third).  His ERA against the Giants is the fourth best all time (Koufax against the Mets is first).

There's only one thing left to do for Kershaw.  It's time for him to dominate the playoffs.  Let's review his postseason performance.  He's 1-5 with a 5.12 ERA.  Not good.  But we do need to dig a little deeper.  We might as well throw out 2008 and 2009.  That's his rookie year and two years before his first Cy Young.  Then he wasn't back in the playoffs until 2013.  He had two starts against the Braves.  He went a total of 13 innings and gave up one earned run on six hits and four walks.  Very good.  Then he pitched two games against the Cardinals.  In the first, he went six and gave up one unearned run on two hits and a walk.  He came out for a pinch hitter because the Dodgers were losing 1-0 (which ended up being the final score).  So he had three very good starts and then Game 6 happened.  Four innings, seven runs, he was terrible.  Last year wasn't good, but again we need to dig deeper.  He started Game 1 against the Cardinals.  He gave up a run in the first and a run in the sixth.  Then he couldn't get out of the seventh.  You'd like Kershaw to be able to get out of that and he didn't get the job done, but Mattingly also left him in too long.  And Mattingly left him in too long because the bullpen was terrible.  I'm not excusing Kershaw, but that game wasn't as bad as his line in the box score would lead you to believe.  In Game 4, Kershaw was great for six innings (one hit, two walks, no runs).  And then he couldn't get the job done in the seventh.  If I remember correctly, Hanley Ramirez didn't get to a ball that a non-terrible shortstop would have gotten to.  Again Mattingly left him in too long because he didn't trust the bullpen.  He gave up two singles and a home run to give the Cardinals a 3-2 lead.  So really only one of his last six playoff starts was a complete disaster.  I hope this is the year that he wins a World Series MVP.

What about the Cy Young?  I broke it down a month ago.  Let's revisit it.  I went through the numbers today.  Here's some relevant information (with NL ranks in parentheses):

	Greinke	Arrieta	Kershaw
ERA	1.66 (1st)	1.77 (2nd)	2.13 (3rd)
WHIP	0.84 (1st)	0.86 (2nd)	0.88 (3rd)
Innings	222 2/3 (4th)	229 (2nd)	232 1/3 (1st)
Strikeouts	200 (11th)	236 (3rd)	301 (1st)
Opponents' BA	.187 (2nd)	.185 (1st)	.194 (3rd)
Opponents' OBP	.231 (1st)	.236 (2nd)	.237 (3rd)
Opponents' SLG	.276 (2nd)	.271 (1st)	.287 (3rd)
K/BB	5.00 (7th)	4.92 (8th)	7.17 (2nd)
Complete Games	1 (9th)	4 (1st)	4 (1st)
Shutouts	0	3 (1st)	3 (1st)
No-hitters	0	1* (2nd)	0
FIP	2.76 (5th)	2.35 (2nd)	1.99 (1st)
xFIP	3.22 (10th)	2.61 (2nd)	2.09 (1st)

The asterisk for Arrieta's no-hitter is because he gave up a hit to the Dodgers that was scored an error (it's amazing that one no-hitter was only good for second in the league and that Max Scherzer is clearly outside the top three Cy Young candidates).  Kershaw also threw a one-hitter.  So who wins?  I don't know.  You could make a legitimate case for any of the three.  And you could put any of the three in third place.  If you place a lot of emphasis on strikeouts, Greinke is in trouble (although it's interesting that he's a lot closer to Arrieta in total strikeouts than Arrieta is to Kershaw even though he's not as close in rank).  If you place a lot of emphasis on FIP and/or xFIP, then Greinke is in trouble again.  And Kershaw is probably your guy.  I don't place a lot of emphasis on those stats.  An out is an out.  A strikeout greatly reduces the risk of something bad happening (you're much more likely to reach base on a batted ball than a strikeout), but sometimes it's not the best thing (a double play is almost always better than a strikeout).  Strikeouts also drive up pitch counts.  As for FIP and xFIP, they're theoretical statistics.  They don't tell me about what actually happened in actual games (I include them because they're easy to understand).  The other thing going for Kershaw is that he's the only one that's in the top three in every category there (except for no-hitters).  But when you look at what actually happened in baseball games this year, Greinke was the best.  Greinke has the best ERA since Greg Maddux 20 years ago and the fourth best WHIP since 1920 (check this out for more information).  He also had in ERA under 2.00 after every start of the season.  And he pitched at least six innings in every start (something Arrieta and Kershaw can't say).  So here's my ballot:

1.  Zack Greinke

2.  Jake Arrieta

3.  Clayton Kershaw

I won't be disappointed if Kershaw wins though.  And I have no idea if that's how it will actually shake out.

I don't plan on posting again for a while.  Ideally, my next post will come after the Dodgers win the World Series.  But the Notre Dame-USC game and some other stuff could definitely lead to a post or two.

Go Irish!  Go Dodgers!