Bumgarner or Kershaw?

[MizzouRah]

Poll to follow.. but you have a new franchise and can only pick Madison Bumgarner or Clayton Kershaw.

I think Kershaw will get the win here, but Bumgarner's stock is really rising.

[MrBug708]

Kershaw. He's apparently awful in the postseason, but then we'd all be drafting Adam Kennedy as our 2B with his 3 HR performance

[MrBug708]

Dola

Fuck the Giants. Go Royals!

[ISiddiqui]

Kershaw. No doubt.

[EagleFan]

Kershaw, only women tennis players should grunt.

[MizzouRah]

I voted Bumgarner. You can't go wrong with either, that's for sure.

[Atocep]

Bumgarner has been lights out this postseason, but this isn't even close IMO.

[BillJasper]

Since I'm probably not contending while either one is on the team anyway: which one is cheaper?

[EagleFan]

Kershaw
26 years old
98-49
2.48 ERA
.208 opponents average
Under a hit an inning
Over a strikeout an inning
ERA under 2 the last two seasons
only 1 season with double digit losses

Bumgarner
25 years old
67-49
3.08 ERA
.239 opponents average
under 1 hit per inning pitched
under 1 strikeout per inning pitched
ERA under 3 each of the last two seasons
only 1 season without double digit losses


While the grunting one is good, and has put up great WS numbers, it's pretty much a no brainer to go Kershaw.

[ISiddiqui]

Is Bumgarner the new Jeter? (and I don't mean that in a good way)

[korme]

Let me edit that for you.

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Kershaw
26 years old
98-49
2.48 ERA
.208 opponents average
Under a hit an inning
Over a strikeout an inning
ERA under 2 the last two seasons
only 1 season with double digit losses
0 World Series Rings

Bumgarner
25 years old
67-49
3.08 ERA
.239 opponents average
under 1 hit per inning pitched
under 1 strikeout per inning pitched
ERA under 3 each of the last two seasons
only 1 season without double digit losses
3 World Series Rings, 1 WS MVP

While the grunting one is good, and has put up great WS numbers, it's pretty much a no brainer to go Kershaw.

Yeah, I'll be that guy.

That was incredible.

[Danny]

Kershaw though truly amazing what Madison did this postseason .

However he was very pedestrian in the postseason overall coming into this year, around 4 era I think. he was a back end playoff starter those first two WS

[larrymcg421]

Bumgarner had a legendary World Series. It will always be remembered as one of the great performances in baseball. But people who count rings when determining how great players are should be quarantined from the general public.

[Julio Riddols]

Ring counters are the ebola patients of the sports world?

[Sun Tzu]

Would you rather have Dan Marino or Joe Montana?

No-brainer. A legend of the post-season trumps a regular season stat-machine, 10 times out of 10.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Would you rather have Dan Marino or Joe Montana?

Marino for sure. But I would take the other 45 people Montana played with over the other 45 people Marino played with.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Marino for sure. But I would take the other 45 people Montana played with over the other 45 people Marino played with.

Montana was a winner at all levels, regardless of his supporting cast. Don't forget he took KC to 1 game within the Super Bowl, when he was basically working with the body of a 70 year old man.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Would you rather have Dan Marino or Joe Montana?

No-brainer. A legend of the post-season trumps a regular season stat-machine, 10 times out of 10.

Why. Explain to me why in a sport that we (maybe I shouldn't say we. Maybe you are anti-saber) put so much weight in statistics it all goes out the window for the post-season. One of the most important rules in statistics is sample sizes.

I'm drunk as hell and about to pass out so maybe my post makes no sense. But there is no way in hell in a vacuum I take any pitcher in baseball over Kershaw.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Would you rather have Dan Marino or Joe Montana?

No-brainer. A legend of the post-season trumps a regular season stat-machine, 10 times out of 10.

Kershaw is a stat machine now?

smh

[ISiddiqui]

It's also a bit silly to try to claim Montana had little regular season success comparatively as well... since Montana has a higher career QB Rating, Completion Percentage, and TD Percentage in the regular season than Marino.

[Sun Tzu]

So, you'd rather have a guy who will win you 21 games in the regular season, but post an ERA in the 7's in the playoffs, over a guy who will win you 19 games in the regular season, and be the greatest postseason pitcher in baseball history?

Good luck with that.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's also a bit silly to try to claim Montana had little regular season success comparatively as well... since Montana has a higher career QB Rating, Completion Percentage, and TD Percentage in the regular season than Marino.

And for what it's worth, Marino had more playoff appearances than Montana (9 to 8), which means Marino actually had more opportunities to take his team to the Super Bowl than Joe Cool.

It's what you do on the biggest stage that counts in sports, folks. You cannot honestly say otherwise after having witnessed MadBum's performance this October.

[Scoobz0202]

Ah, so I am not the only drunk one. Wins as the metric you want to use and greatest pitcher in postseason history? Ok.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Ah, so I am not the only drunk one. Wins as the metric you want to use and greatest pitcher in postseason history? Ok.

If I'm putting a club together from a strictly big-picture point of view, I would look at a Starting Pitcher in two ways:

1.) How many wins is this guy going to guarantee our club every year.

and

2.) How well does this guy perform on the big stage.

I'll take a guy with 3 rings at age 25 over a guy with better regular season stats but 0 rings despite multiple chances.

Every. Damned. Time.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's also a bit silly to try to claim Montana had little regular season success comparatively as well.

Who made this claim?

[Vince, Pt. II]

I voted Bumgarner. I'm wrong, but I'm standing by my vote.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I voted Bumgarner. I'm wrong, but I'm standing by my vote.

At least you admit it.

As someone else said, throw in their salaries and long term commitment and it's a discussion.

[EagleFan]

You need to get your team to the playoffs to worry about which player has WS success. Kershaw gets you closer to that end goal. There is a HUGE difference between player to start a team around and player to put your team over the top.

[EagleFan]

For the WAR group.

Kershaw's lowest WAR in a full season was 4.7 in his first full season in the league. Bumgarner's best is 4.0 with a 3.7 next highest.

[SteveMax58]

Tougher question than it might seem off the cuff.

On one hand, Kershaw is the premier pitcher in baseball. Doesn't show up quite as well in the playoffs so far in his young career but I'm not ready to call the guy "anti-clutch". I think when you make 33 starts with the results he has shown, in such an individual position of control that a pitcher has (as opposed to comparing to a QB), there is reason to believe he will perform better next time in the playoffs. I guess I can't write him off as not being mentally tough enough when it counts quite yet (though I do believe in such concepts).

Bumgarner is definitely showing poise when it counts. And despite being less overpowering for the entire season, this guy is still young. We could very well be watching the beginning of him blossoming into the Kershaw category. Or...we could have another Curt Schilling, who was a very good pitcher and showed moments of greatness, was never really the best pitcher in baseball at any time imho (or his own team when Randy was there).

I guess for me it really hinges on whether you think we've just seen the beginning of MadBum growing into an elite pitcher vs. whether Kershaw is able to bear down when it counts. I'm in the Kershaw camp...or feel thats the safer bet at this point in time until we see more evidence in the future.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

If I'm putting a club together from a strictly big-picture point of view, I would look at a Starting Pitcher in two ways:

1.) How many wins is this guy going to guarantee our club every year.

and

2.) How well does this guy perform on the big stage.

I'll take a guy with 3 rings at age 25 over a guy with better regular season stats but 0 rings despite multiple chances.

Every. Damned. Time.

How do pitchers guarantee wins? A pitcher can give up no hits and still lose a game. The offense has to score runs for a pitcher to win. Wins are a terrible indicator of quality pitching compared to many other stats that are available.

[Neuqua]

All things being equal, it's Kershaw and honestly not even close. Well, unless Bumgarner pitches for your team apparently.

[MizzouRah]

I think it's been a good discussion.. and I would go Bumgarner, I truly think he's going to start putting up Cy Young type stats starting next season. He's only going to get better.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

It's what you do on the biggest stage that counts in sports, folks.

No.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Who made this claim?

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Would you rather have Dan Marino or Joe Montana?

No-brainer. A legend of the post-season trumps a regular season stat-machine, 10 times out of 10.

Insinuating the Montana wasn't a regular season stat machine as well, something I'd refute considering when he retired he had the highest QBR in history.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No.

What. Robert Horry isn't better than Michael?

[larrymcg421]

Danny Wuerffel beat Peyton Manning every single time they faced. Danny Wuerffel won a national title, while Manning could never get the Vols there. Sure, Peyton is clearly more talented, but it's what you do on the biggest stage that counts. Thus Wuerffel should've been drafted ahead of Manning.

[BillJasper]

Bumgarner here. I can pay him $15-18 million a year and then get another decent starter or bat with what's leftover from what Kershaw would make.

[Suicane75]

This is almost as silly as the Cubs/Phillies debate.

[AENeuman]

Seems like the "receivers" play an important role here. Bum gets to throw to Posey for 10 years, Montana had Rice.

So would Kershaw be more successful in the playoffs with Buster? Would Marino won Super Bowls with Rice?

[Sun Tzu]

You guys are so cute.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Bumgarner here. I can pay him $15-18 million a year and then get another decent starter or bat with what's leftover from what Kershaw would make.

Yup. Penny pinching Dodgers. Then again, both pitchers earned their contracts. Had Bum pitched like Kershaw during the year, he'd also make the same as Kershaw

[Recoil]

Kershaw

[BYU 14]

Kershaw is easily the better pitcher, but you can piece together 24 other guys to get you to the World Series. I want one that can bring it home and Kershaw hasn't shown that ability in the postseason yet.

[stevew]

After that performance it's hard not to say Bumgarner but after all those innings and short rest I'd probably feel better about Kershaw's long term arm health. 50 playoff high intensity innings including at least 14innings with the season on the line gives me significant pause. Tanaka did something similar in Japan last season and his arm may have been affected.

[OldGiants]

I'll take the one who is guaranteed not to have the career-ending arm injury.

Which one is he?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Don't forget he took KC to 1 game within the Super Bowl, when he was basically working with the body of a 70 year old man.

So when you're proven clutch it's getting your team within 1 game and is considered a positive otherwise you failed to get your team there and it's a negative mark on your career.

Montana in that AFC Championship game was 9 of 23 for 125 and a pick. I'm sure there's some excuse as to why his proven clutch was off that night.

Montana was aided greatly by not only having an incredible supporting cast, but also having a coach that was 20 years ahead of his time. Great player, but Montana had every star possible line up for him for his NFL career. He's a guy that completed 52% of his passes and had as many TDs as INTs at Notre Dame and Bill Walsh turned him into one of the best QBs to ever play.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Logan

At least you admit it.

As someone else said, throw in their salaries and long term commitment and it's a discussion.

There really shouldn't be any discussion. There is a huge body of work that illustrates Kershaw is a better pitcher. I don't know that you can even bring cost-effectiveness into the discussion, since this is your first pick that you're building a franchise around. Kershaw should be chosen every time, unless you're a Giants fan. If that's the case (Giants fandom), you are wrong, but totally ok with it.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So when you're proven clutch it's getting your team within 1 game and is considered a positive otherwise you failed to get your team there and it's a negative mark on your career.

Montana in that AFC Championship game was 9 of 23 for 125 and a pick. I'm sure there's some excuse as to why his proven clutch was off that night.

Montana was aided greatly by not only having an incredible supporting cast, but also having a coach that was 20 years ahead of his time. Great player, but Montana had every star possible line up for him for his NFL career. He's a guy that completed 52% of his passes and had as many TDs as INTs at Notre Dame and Bill Walsh turned him into one of the best QBs to ever play.

Bill Walsh is a hell of a QB guru. I got a chance to chat with him after a coaching clinic 14 or so years back and he was like Yoda. I wish I could remember have the stuff he told me that day!

He also had the same effect on Steve Young. Let's not forget, that up until he went to the Niners, Young was basically the 1980's version of Tim Tebow.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

For the WAR group.

Kershaw's lowest WAR in a full season was 4.7 in his first full season in the league. Bumgarner's best is 4.0 with a 3.7 next highest.

WAR, what is it good for?