Right, but it's not helpful as a limiting criteria - the most important reason why is that not many pitchers have even a slightly meaningful sample size of postseason pitching. So what - we're ASSUMING that Chris Archer (1.2 postseason IP) will be a better postseason pitcher than another SP who has had the opportunity and failed a couple times?
I guess I agree with the people who think that predicting clutchness is mostly a myth. All of these guys have faced enormous amounts of pressure their entire lives - can you imagine facing major league hitters in front of 45,000 people who want you to fail, in a road start? How much pressure does the postseason really add to what is inherently an unbelievably stressful thing to do in the first place??
Roger Clemens went through postseason series where he struggled, and series where he was utterly dominant, and a lot of series where he was somewhere in the middle.
I'm not saying you wouldn't like to have a guy who you thought was 100% solid in the postseason, I'm just saying I don't know that you can figure that out with any certainty, and so I discard it as a criteria.
Almost half of Kershaw's wins last year were against the Padres and the Rockies. Among others, he beat the Phils and the Braves. He did well against the Giants (.500) and lost in the playoffs. I'm not sayin' you're not right statistically but (for me) I believe in the "myth" of clutchiness. I also believe in jinxes.
