The 100 Greatest in 100 Days: #14 Clayton Kershaw

Four-seaming in at #14 is Dodgers starting pitcher Clayton Kershaw. How Kershaw finishes his career remains to be seen, but nobody in history has had a better career through the age-33. Even at a position that sees the historical leaderboard dominated by pitchers from 25, 50, and even a hundred years ago, Kershaw stands out. In the pinnacle pitching statistic in baseball—ERA+—Kershaw ranks number one in baseball history. He is second all time in H/9, third in winning %, fourth in WHIP, 10th in strikeouts-to-walks ratio, and 12th in K/9. He has won three Cy Young Awards and an NL MVP, joining Sandy Koufax and Roger Clemens as the only three pitchers to accomplish that feat. Kersh’s seven consecutive seasons in the top-5 of the Cy Young voting is tied for the longest streak in history (Max Scherzer and Greg Maddux). He has led the league in WHIP four consecutive seasons which is tied for the longest streak ever (with Carl Hubbell, Sandy Koufax, and Johan Santana.) He joins Koufax as the only two pitchers in history to lead the league in ERA and WHIP for four consecutive seasons. Kershaw produced eight consecutive seasons with lower than a 2.74 ERA and lower than a 1.05 WHIP which is the most by a starting pitcher in history. His six seasons of less than a 2.32 ERA and less than a .95 WHIP are the most in history by a starting pitcher and his streak of five consecutive seasons below those marks is the longest in history. It took some time for the payoff but Kershaw’s postseason success eventually came and his overall postseason numbers are stellar. Among pitchers with at least 110 postseason innings, Kershaw’s 1.07 WHIP is the fourth-best in history, and no pitcher ever has more postseason strikeouts. Kersh has led the Dodgers to three World Series appearances and went 2-0 with a 2.31 ERA and a .857 WHIP in LA’s World Series win in 2020.

Leave a Reply

Hi (hopefully) awesome reader! I welcome your comments. However, please be aware that I make all of my arguments using facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately, the average comment on a top-100 list goes something like this:

"UR StooPid. (Insert player) is trash. I've watched (pick a sport) for (pick a number of years) and (pick a player) is better than everyone. UR DUMB. HAHA6969."

–Some Jabroni

As cognitively stimulating as this species of comment is, it ends up being a missed opportunity to share a nuanced perspective. I reply to all comments that show even the most basic levels of thought and humility. The people who make the comments like the example above are under the assumption that the three seconds of thought that popped into their brains after reading the list is more than the 1000s of hours that I put into creating and maintaining the lists. I would be happy to defend any placement, or make an adjustment if one is warranted. If you are a jabroni, like the one above, then your comment will die in the lonely void of the unpublished comments section.

For everyone else, I look forward to your comments!

P.S. The theme of this site and the top-100 lists is that athletes from previous generations have historically been grossly overrated by sports publications in a way that is statistically improbable. Click on the "About" dropdown menu to see just how badly the average top-100 list disproportionately favors athletes from older generations when leagues were smaller, race quotas existed, and globalization wasn't a thing. Also, please consider reading "The History" section of the sport you are commenting on.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *