If a computer generated random samples of playoff results based on regular season numbers and specific sample sizes, it would generate a sample nearly identical to Kershaw's playoff line.
How can anyone not think that maybe Kershaw's line is just a result of being that one guy that came out with bad numbers. It may have nothing to do with pressure or clutch.
Players slump and streak all the time for reasons unknown to anyone, even themselves. Wouldn't one think players might slump during the playoffs for reasons having nothing to do with the fact that there is extra pressure on them and everyone in those games? Why do we, all of a sudden, pretend to know the specific reason Kershaw slumped at these times but not the others?
If Kershaw does great, this October, will you guys say he gained the skill of handling pressure better?
If he does poorly, I'm sure we'll here the, "See, I told you so's."
Over Kershaw's career, he has allowed a .582 OPS against, but when it counts, during the regular season, sometimes in big games that determine making the playoffs or not, he has these numbers in high pressure situations:
.547 Late & Close
.502 RISP, 2 outs
.582 RISP
.585 Men on Base
.599 High Leverage
Nothing here indicates he comes up short, when it counts, but because of a scattered 189 IP sample size over a 14 year career where his WHIP is 1.072 as compared to a 1.002 regular season one, we are supposed to believe it HAS TO BE BECAUSE HE's A CHOKE! There can be no other explanation. It's a fact, because the numbers speak for themselves. He couldn't have just had the bad luck of slumping too many times in October, instead of September or May.
Look, I know I can't prove clutch & choke are not real, and it does make some sense to think some players handle pressure better or worse than others, but it can't be proved the reason Kershaw's ERA is 4.19 in the playoffs is because he chokes or is NOT clutch. It just can't.
In 8 of his 20 playoff series, he had an ERA of 3.00 or less, including 2 with a 0.00 ERA, which included an 8 inning WC shutdown. You can't get anymore clutch than a shutdown in an elimination game, but I guess that was just luck- not skill.
My point is, if a computer generated the same amount of sample sizes as there are in the history of MLB playoffs, there would be some samples that jump out as being way lower and higher than the norm. It's just the way randomness works. Players often do real good for some stretches and real bad in others. There may or may not be any rhyme or reason for it. Why should the playoff samples, often spread over many seasons be any different?
In fact, they are no different from computer generated outcomes.
Coincidence or just randomness playing itself out?