I mean that’s a bit of a slippery slope. I think lifting kershaw is the right decision with the game in hand and no reason to extend him. But when it’s only 80 pitches during a perfect game, I think you can afford to give him a bit more. Eovaldi at 98 through 5 is obviously an entirely different situation. And 1964 salaries is completely unrelated
Presumably, the Dodgers would like Kershaw to remain as health as possible for as much of the season as possible. 80 pitches is a lot right now. It's not 1980.
“The risk is so low for the Dodgers….” Well, what’s the risk for Kershaw and his career and his post career lifestyle?
Hey, we're paying this guy $17M, he's a key part of our rotation, and has an extensive injury history. Should be go strain him in Week 1 so he can do something that doesn't matter to the season's objectives?
yea, exactly. Leaving kershaw in to throw more than 80 pitches is way less dangerous that leaving football players out there in the 4Q of a blowout, yet no one thinks twice about that. The injury risk, particularly the catastrophic injury risk that will fuck up his post career life, is being way overblown. It’s a perfect game, there’s only been 23 ever, and from what I can see online roughly 99% of people thinks it sucks he was taken out
I guess I don't really see them as opposite sides though. If casual fans are opting out because of pitch count limits, they're ungettable IMO because that's not going away no matter what history could be made by ignoring them. It's not even an exclusive concept to baseball. Load management is a normal thing in all sports these days. NBA players sit out entire games just to save on wear and tear. It doesn't seem to be affecting their popularity with younger fans. It sure rankles the old school guys though.
The Padres had no hitters going into the 7th and 8th inning last weekend, and pulled their starter both times. This has nothing to do with Kershaw, per se, and everything to do with protecting the health of the pitchers over the long grind of a season. Cumulative wear and tear adds up, and while it sucks that fans got robbed of a potential perfect game, it's a perfectly understandable position to have this early in the season after an abbreviated spring training.
Saying it was the right call doesn't mean it doesn't suck as a fan to see it happen, but it also isn't something that is going to affect my fandom of the game in any tangible way.
Yeah I'm in complete agreement...I was trying to simplify the argument. It's more nuanced though and I think you've nailed it.
Sure, from an objective point of view of a team just trying to maximize wins, I’m sure it was correct, and it won’t affect my fandom either. I just think it’s rather lame not to chase history, but I admittedly care infinitely more about cool statistical events than any team does. So it’s probably the right decision, just extremely lame
Again - I don't think it's really relevant because of (1), but people keep using that as the 'obviously it was a terrible idea' example, and the data I think is more strongly in the other direction
I do think it (along with the DH, and the man on 2nd extra inning rule) get to a broader issue, which is - why should I care about (or watch, or pay $100 to attend) any individual game? I can't really argue with the perspective of 'it's a long season, it's more critical to pull him and save his arm than even take a minor risk' from the perspective of winning a championship; but baseball is unique in having a long regular season, and (at least for me) a big part of watching or attending a random game in May is simply the fact that you might see something crazy - whether it's the 6th inning and you realize there's a no-hit bid going, or it's a tie game that winds up going 15 innings, etc. One of my regrets is that a few years back I decided to only go to one of the Mets-Padres games that year, and picked the Syndergaard game - and of course the next day was the one that Bartolo hit his HR. Stuff like that to me is a big part of what makes individual baseball games so fun
This was my thought, if any player would have the power to veto something like that in the moment, it’d be Clayton Kershaw.
Then why did you post? Ale stopped hours ago. Thanks for piling on.
Seems like Ale is thinking about the little picture, ie: today, and not about the Dodgers 2022 season, which Kershaw and Roberts are thinking of, which is the a big Picture.
But isn't that (or shouldn't it be) the big picture? Imagine this is Chris sale in his second or third game back this season. Same exact situation and Core leaves him in. Top of the eighth, first batter and Sale feels something pop in his rib cage and he doesn't contribute the rest of the season. Big deal or no? I mean screw him, he's gone after the season, right?
And it'd be worth it if he on his 112th pitch, he gives up a hit with two outs in the ninth, then hits the IL with a shoulder strain a couple weeks later and is gone for the year?
Big picture is the game of baseball not one team’s one season. What’s the point of even having this thread if managers are taking out pitchers, especially ones in the last season for the clubs, after 80 pitches after 7 with a perfect game going. Pitchers can get injured on pitch 1 or pitch 41 just as easy as pitch 81.
Chris Sale would strain his shoulder buttoning a shirt or crossing the street.
He's not too fragile to throw 81 pitches. He's not conditioned to throw more than 80 pitches right now. I know people keep saying "what if he got hurt" and sure, that's a risk every pitcher takes with every throw they make. That isn't the concern, at least to Roberts and the Dodgers. It's building him up so he can consistently throw 100 pitches every fifth day without the concern of straining or overworking his ligaments and muscles. He's not there yet.
Since it was all of five posts before yours, I went back and did the research for you.
If he threw a simulated game for 75 pitches he could easily throw for 90 pitches. Now yeah, the odds of getting 6 outs in 10 pitches isn’t great but it is certainly possible and at least, with a 6-0 lead you can sort of “hope” he gives a single and he fails to get the perfecto organically and then you can remove him. But taking history out of fate’s hands is just wrong. At least give him the chance to get some (more) quick outs. And this is an experienced pitcher who’s probably done after this year who’s throwing 89 MPH fastballs not some rookie with a whole career ahead of him.
This. If people are howling taking him out with 2 innings to go in a perfect game, think about how much people would howl if he was pulled at 105 pitches with one out to go. It's a very slippery slope and it gets harder for the manager *and* the pitcher to walk away from a perfect game the closer you get to it. Could you imagine an alternate universe where Kershaw got to 26 outs in 105 pitches but likely on fumes and Roberts left him out there only to see him struggle through all 8 pitch at bat that ends with a double off the wall and 5 days later he's skipping a start due to elbow stiffness? That's on the short list of possible outcomes and Roberts would right be vilified for that move.
You do understand that winning A game and keeping your pitchers healthy is more important than a perfect game, right? Or is Phillip Humber or Matt Cain more important parts of baseball than Clayton Kershaw?
I was gonna go with Len Barker and Charlie Robertson because who can forget those immortals, but yeah. A perfect-o is a great individual accomplishment and obviously rare in the history of the league, but it's not significant enough that people will remember it forever.
I'll take that chance. I watch sports because sometimes amazing things happen that I will remember fondly for the rest of my life. 2004. Clay's no-hitter. Lester's no-hitter. That 14-pitch grand slam by Mookie. A perfect game is one of those things. If you have a chance to make a forever memory like that, you take it 100% of the time, even if it slightly increases the chance of someone suffering an injury. What are we preserving someone's health for? Because we hope they will create an amazing moment in the future. Well, they have a chance to make an amazing moment right now!
Or to derail a team for potentially multiple years. I mean, I’m sympathetic to the “Guys used to pitch hundreds of pitches per game, get struck by lightning and be revived mid-game before finishing it out” argument to some extent. But teams are always going to handle their most precious cargo with kid gloves. That’s why Andrew Friedman and Dave Roberts are paid to make these decisions instead of @Van Everyman and @NoXInNixon.
No. Never. 1000 times no way.
It's not as if not letting Kershaw finish his perfect game guarantees they win the WS this year. Maybe it increases the probability by 0.01%. I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but I bet it's pretty close.
It reduces the risk of him getting hurt by a whole lot more than 0.01%. Even more than 1%.
And yet you and a few others in this thread just named a few of the more obscure ones off the top of your head. Throwing a perfect game is a big deal. It is historically significant in baseball. It does get your name remembered. You don't have to be dismissive of something that really is a big deal to make the point that managers and players have the goal to win ballgames and the historic stuff is a nice side effect. Our goals as fans are not necessarily the same as theirs.
Pitches didn't come back from injury in the 60s and 70s because medical options were primitive back then. I don't know how anyone can look at the number of current pitchers who had Tommy John surgery and conclude that pitching is safer now than it was back when complete games were common. If TJS didn't exist, the Red Sox wouldn't have half their rotation or best reliever. Those guys are still pitching not because they're not allowed to throw more than 100 pitches in a start, it's because doctors can put them back together after they break themselves throwing at max effort on every pitch.
Not off the top of my head. I 100% looked up the list and intentionally picked two names that made me say "who?" Not a chance I could name more than 4-5 perfect games off the top of my head.
Same here. I skipped King Felix and picked the 2nd and 3rd most recent guys to throw perfectos. If someone had given me a list of those two names and a random other started from 10 years ago I wouldn't have guessed right.
