Kershaw chokes again. Not a Hall of Famer in my book—not with as many playoffs debacles as he's had.
This is ridiculous. He's going to be in the HOF.
I didn't say he wouldn't be; I said he's not a HOFer in my book.
Ted Williams was 5/25 with 0 HR & 1 RBI in his only postseason appearance. Should he be in the HOF based on this logic?
The Williams example, which others have used, really doesn't apply, because he was in only ONE postseason. Whereas Kershaw's been to the postseason in 9 of his 12 seasons, for a total of 32 games (25 starts) over a combined 16 series. For a pitcher, that basically equates to one whole season's worth of play, and a pitcher who has those kinds of numbers over a whole season is nowhere near HOF level. And mind you, these failures are on the biggest stage in the sport.
Kershaw might struggle in the playoffs but he's played at a HOF level for the bulk of his career.
[/quote]
There's no "might" about it—Kershaw is 9-11 in his postseason career with a 4.43 ERA, 1.105 WHIP, and a WPA of NEGATIVE .05, the latter meaning the Dodgers actually have a slightly better chance of
losing than of winning anytime Kershaw takes the mound. Kershaw has a lot of talent, but he's proven that when the lights get brighter and hotter, he wilts, which doesn't say "Hall of Fame" to me.
I realize that this discussion is moot; of course he's gonna be in the Hall of Fame, likely on his first try. And it's not like I have a vote anyway. But things have kinda reached the point of absurdity with him, where's he literally two different players, depending on the time of year. Like, when they vote him in, they should make it clear that they're inducting "regular-season Kershaw" into the hall, because "postseason Kershaw" is a far cry from HOF level.
So, yeah, he'll get in. But when I think of Kershaw the baseball player, the first thing that comes to mind is "playoff choker," and that's primarily what all of my Dodger-fan friends here in L.A. think too.