On Gaslighting

Last night the Dodgers lost the World Series for the second year in a row. Their ace, Clayton Kershaw, started the game and gave up 4 earned runs in 7 innings of work. Most critically, he gave up a 2-run homer in the first inning, which was all the lead the Red Sox needed as they ended up winning 5-1. Kershaw’s performance, both last night and in this series generally, is not going to do him or his defenders any favours, and for whatever reason Kershaw seems to have A LOT of defenders, particularly amongst the more analytically-inclined baseball media. There is something of a pattern that has developed amongst these writers: they will often talk about how unfair “the narrative” that’s been built up around Kershaw’s playoff failures is; the headlines of the articles they write often include scare quotes; and they all simply take it as read that criticisms of Kershaw’s October performances are unfounded and wrong. Alternatively, when people do acknowledge his disappointing performances they nevertheless ensure they are framed in such a way that the blame never falls squarely on his shoulders.

This is done, I suppose, because baseball writers like Kershaw and, as the Effectively Wild guys admit, they want to see him succeed. And that’s understandable: he’s almost certainly the best pitcher of his generation, perhaps one of the greatest of all time, and, unlike so many baseball players (especially pitchers), he doesn’t come across as being an asshole. If you like someone and you want them to succeed and they are continually and repeatedly unable to do so when it matters most, you are liable to look for reasons why. You are liable to attempt to shape the discussion in such a way that excuses the person you are defending. You are liable to contradict yourself in an attempt to get ahead of the argument. If you were to simply read what has been written about it, “the narrative” of Clayton Kershaw failing in the playoffs is either overblown or entirely false.

The problem is, this isn’t a "lies, damn lies, and statistics” situation - dude’s not as good in October. Game 5 was his 30th playoff appearance, 24 of which have been as a starter. He’s now pitched 152 innings of playoff baseball which, while not a full season’s worth of work, is more than enough of a sample size for certain conclusions to be drawn. The most self-evident of which has to be that Kershaw is not good in the playoffs. Despite what so many of the articles linked above might contend, the stats actually bear this out: his playoff ERA sits at 4.32, which is almost two full points higher than his regular season ERA of 2.39. His playoff WHIP is 1.092, compared to 1.005 in the regular season. Some of that has to do with the fact that he doesn’t get to play against the Padres in the playoffs, so of course those stats are going to rise a bit. But when Kershaw’s performances are analysed in relation to other pitchers who have played similar amounts of playoff games, this defence falters. Take Justin Verlander, a pitcher who, until last year, might have been viewed in a similar light as Kershaw, in that they were both absolutely dominant starters in the regular season who almost inevitably experienced heartbreak in the playoffs. Verlander has appeared in fewer playoff games - 25 to Kershaw’s 30 - but he’s got the exact same number of starts and essentially the same number of innings (152.1 to Kershaw’s 152). Pitching in the undeniably more difficult American League for the entirety of his career, Verlander’s post-season ERA sits at 3.19, lower than his regular season ERA of 3.39. Same with his WHIP - 1.162 from April to September, 1.024 in October. The contrast with the shift in Kershaw’s numbers couldn’t be more stark.

This isn’t a case of a Padres fan gleefully celebrating a Dodger’s (and the Dodgers’ collective) failure. As I’ve made clear, I don’t hate the Dodgers the way most of Padres fandom (and especially Padres twitter) does. In fact I kind of like them in a non-committed way - if they win that’s cool, as long as it’s not at the Padres’ expense, and if they lose then whatever, unless the Padres beat them in which case I’m happy they lost. This also is not me arguing that Kershaw sucks and is overrated. He’s great, and I’ve had a soft spot for him ever since 2008 when he was a rookie and I was living in LA and paying 8 bucks to go to Dodger Stadium and sit in the upper deck. Really, this has very little to do with Kershaw and much more to do with those who write about him. Some pitchers’ numbers get better in the post-season, Kershaw’s get worse, full stop. He isn’t an utter disaster, but he’s not the same pitcher he is during the regular season. Fans know this because they can see it, yet it seems like baseball writers these days are inherently inclined to distrust what they see and dismiss the opinions of those who do. But when the stats parallel what the viewer can pick up just by watching and baseball writers continue to tell us that the opinions we form because of that are wrong despite fairly conclusive evidence to the contrary, that’s when it stops being about simply a different way of understanding what’s happening and starts to feel like we’re being gaslighted.