Winger23
Registered User
- May 3, 2007
- 5,759
- 623
Done deal.
I doubt it but unless he finds 95mph on the gun again this is just terrible. Bringing back freese for a year was good though.
Done deal.
Meh, I don't really care. He was the first true Dodger ace since the short peak of Orel Hershiser. He may not have brought us a WS yet but he is a first ballot HOFer. Let him stay in Dodger blue. 22 will never be worn by someone else again in Dodger blue.
WTF? You're bagging on Orel?! I'll take one Orel Hershiser over 6 Clayton Kershaws every day of the week and twice on Sunday!!
You HAVE to win a WS game - do you go with Hershiser or Kershaw?! That's a no-brainer.
and "short peak" for Orel? come on!
Huh? Bagging on him? How? And Orel did have a short peak. There's a reason why he's not in the HOF. He wasn't ace material anymore after 1989. But that's because he was already 30 when he won the CY in 1988.
Orel's one WS win is worth miles more than what Kershaw has ever done! Couldn't care less about the HOF - show me the money! (WS win that is)
...Kershaw has won a WS game, and pitched quite well in it.
So you'd take 1 Kirk Gibson over 6 Barry Bonds?Orel's one WS win is worth miles more than what Kershaw has ever done! Couldn't care less about the HOF - show me the money! (WS win that is)
So you'd take 1 Kirk Gibson over 6 Barry Bonds?
Not a good example as both Gibson and bonds have produced in the playoffs.
I'm not agreeing with the one game comment, but body of work hershisers playoff performances are definitely better than Kershaws. Regular season I take kershaws career any day of the week, but hes also been a major disappointment when the game really counts.
Kershaw has won great games in the playoffs though. Bonds never won a world series.Not a good example as both Gibson and bonds have produced in the playoffs.
I'm not agreeing with the one game comment, but body of work hershisers playoff performances are definitely better than Kershaws. Regular season I take kershaws career any day of the week, but hes also been a major disappointment when the game really counts.
Kershaw has won great games in the playoffs though. Bonds never won a world series.
Actually Bonds was notoriously bad in the playoffs until 2002 at age 38.
When a manager leaves a starter in for too long which was what they always did to Kershaw, they're not going to look as good. He hasn't been as good lately yeah but in his prime he was mismanaged in those starts.Hes had more poor than good though. Hes goes from one of the best ever in the regular season to a below average in the playoffs. Yes bonds never won a world series, but hes performed well more than not.
Kinda hard to compare a position player to a starter though. Personally I'd take bonds over kershaw based on post season alone. Both were outstanding in the regular season (not even going into the steroid **** though).
When a manager leaves a starter in for too long which was what they always did to Kershaw, they're not going to look as good. He hasn't been as good lately yeah but in his prime he was mismanaged in those starts.
The Dodgers don't have the pitching for that.I respectfully disagree. In his prime the very few times he pitched into the 7th inning he was performing well. He was yanked in the 5th or 6th inning in most of his starts.
Odd thought though hes came in relief twice and was lights out. It will never happen but moving him to the bullpen for the playoffs may be the right thing to do going forward if he does lose his stuff the 2nd time through the lineup.
The Dodgers don't have the pitching for that.
He's come out of the bullpen three times actually, clinching the 2016 NLDS and the 2018 NLCS, as well as pitching 4 scoreless innings in Game 7 of the World Series.
The narrative that he's been more bad than good in the postseason is wrong. Kershaw has also been in a disadvantage when he gets into trouble because when the bullpen comes in, they usually allow many of his inherited runners to score.